Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-20 BOA MINUTESPresent BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA SEPTEMBER 20,1982 7:00 P.M. Absent Guests Mr.Burfiend Mr.Berry Ms.Dunlop Ms.Luddy Mr.Morrison Mr.Vaughn,V.Chairman Mr.Jessamine,Chairman Mr.Newcomer,Executive Secretary Mr.Frazier,Staff Ms.Breece,Recording Secretary none Rory Kelley C.Burford Z.C.Martinez Mary Martinez Winifred Hobbs Bob Warrick Mary Updike Gerry Luddy Pat Benner Synopsis Minutes dated August 23,1982 -approved BA -11-82 (McDonald's)tabled to November "1,1982 BA -12-82 (Warrick/Updike)-denied 1.Chairman called the meeting to order and asked the recording secretary to call the roll. 2.Ms.Breece called the roll determining all members were present. 3.Chairman asked for a motion to approve the Minutes dated August 23, 1982 (the agenda was accepted by concensus). 4.Luddy/Morrison M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the Minutes dated August 23,1982,be approved as written." .Chairman The motion passed 5-0-2 with Mr.Vaughn and Mr.Berry voting "present"due to their absence at that meeting. asked staff to brief the Board on the first case,BA -11-82 (McDonald's). 6.Mr.Newcomer presented the case including required administrative data. He explained the applicants desired to place a sign one foot (1')from the property line. 7.Rory Kelley introduced himself as representing Associated Outdoor Services (representing McDonald's Corporation).He explained McDonald's Corporation's desire to place its thirty-five (35')foot high sign one (1')foot from the property line. He pointed out the coporation's marketing talent and felt there were no detrimental aspects to the variance.He explained McDonald's could provide at a future meeting, direct representatives to present corporation viewpoints and requested a continuance of the hearing for that purpose. 8.Chairman called for a motion to continue the hearing. 9.Burfiend/Vaughn M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the public hearing of case BA -11-82 be continued to November 1,1982,at 7:00 p.m.,in the City Council Chambers." The motion passed unanimously (7-0). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SEPTEMBER 20,1982 PAGE TWO 10.Chairman 11.Mr.Newcomer 12.Mr.Frazier 13.Mr.Newcomer 14.Chairman 15.Mr.Newcomer 16.Robert Warrick 17.Chairman 18.Mr.Warrick 19.Chairman 20.Mr.Warrick asked staff to brief the Board on BA -12-82 (Warrick/Updike). noted the applicant in this case was Mary Updike,repre- sented by Mr.Robert Warrick of Mesa Awning Company.He stated the location of the subject site and explained the applicant's request for a seven (7')foot setback on the north side of the lot,and a setback of five and one-half (51')feet on the south side.TH zoning district requires a ten (10')foot setback. explained that on May 19,1982,the applicant applied for a permit for two patio covers.One was twelve (12') by sixty (60')feet,which was approved;the other was a six (6')by sixty (60')foot,which was denied because i t did not meet the setback requirements.The Building Department crossed out the six (6')foot patio cover on the plans. distributed to the Board photographs submitted with the application showing the covers as constructed. asked when the picture was take?.. said that this is the way the site looks currently with the full covers. introduced himself and said that on June 10,1982,Country- side Mobile Homes sold a mobile home to Mrs.Updike.She ordered the awnings.Not being aware this was in Apache Junction .,Mesa Awning applied for a Maricopa County per- mit by mail.The awnings were erected before the permit was received by mail.Both awnings were erected.Then notification arrived from Maricopa County stating we were actually in Apache Junction.We went to Mr.Frazier's office and tried to obtain a permit;we we're advised by Mr.Frazier that we were in setback violation.It was suggested we apply for a variance.The work done for Mrs.Updike has enhanced that particular area in Apache Junction.Everything we did,as far as awnings are required, meets building code for the state of Arizona. asked Mr.Warrick i f this was completed before he came to the city for a permit. answered affirmatively. asked him why he had applied to Maricopa County. stated he had been laid up with a ruptured disc in his back.A representative from the company who came out to measure the job thought it was in Maricopa County.How- ever,he stated he felt he would have done the same thing. 21.Chairman asked i f he had assumed the county would issue a permit. 22.Mr.Warrick answered affirmatively and stated he knew nothing about the city denying a portion of the request;that had been •handled by Countryside Mobile Homes.When the awnings had been ordered,they neglected to inform us that a por- tion of the request had been denied. 23.Chairman asked Mr.Warrick i f he had erected the awnings without waiting for a permit. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SEPTEMBER 20,1982 PAGE THREE 24.Mr.Warrick 25. 26,Mr.Morrison 27.Mr.Vaughn 28.Mr.Warrick 29.Ms,Luddy 30,Mr.Warrick 31.Mary Updike 32.Mr.Burfiend 33.Mr..Warrick 34.Mr.Burfiend 35.Mr.Warrick explained that he had been doing that for thirteen years. We mail them in and nine times out of ten the job is completed before we receive the permit.I have never been in trouble doing that;the first time I have been in trouble was out here. deleted by Board action November 1,1982. contendedithat'it was possible to get a,permit by phone without having to drive to the county seat. pointed out that the extra slab was added although not on the approved plan. stated he was totally unaware of a permit ever being re- quested of the city;this was done by Countryside Mobile Homes.They neglected to inform me that a portion of the plans had been denied.They only ordered awnings.We ordered a permit from the county and,after we did the job,discovered the work was not in Maricopa County;that it was in Apache Junction. asked i f the work meets Maricopa County's setback require- ments. stated it would meet those setback requirements. introduced herself and said that Countryside Mobile Homes, where she bought the mobile home,did get the permit and placed i t on her mobile home.There.were no attachments saying the patio on the south side was denied.I had to have the permit to move the mobile home onto the property in the first place;that's why the plot plan was drawn as it was.When Countryside notified Mesa Awning to erect the awnings,a salesman came and discussed adding the carport.That brought the setback to seven feet on the north side.According to the subdivision's regulations, we were still within the allowable setback of five (5') feet.At that time,we did not know the subdivision's regulations and the city's regulations differed.Mr. Warrick sent for the permit because of the addition of the carport.I assumed he knew we already had the permit for the awning on the original plot plan.We did have a permit when we placed the home and laid the slab.The previous resident evidently had an awning of approximately the same width on the south side,judging by the hole that remained.That resident,too,apparently was in violation of city setback requirements.We looked rat Apache Sierra setback regulations.We now realize they do not correlate with city regulations. asked if Mr.Warrick had a license for Apache Junction. answered affirmatively;a sales tax license. asked i f he was informed that he had to comply with the rules and regulations when the license was obtained. answered affirmatively and stated that,had he known the work was located in Apache Junction,none of this would have occurred.•He did not know there had been a permit issued by the city;he had applied to Maricopa County for the entire job. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT •SEPTEMBER-20;1982— PAU: FOUR, 36.,Chairman., 37.Mr.Warrick Dunlop 39.Mr.Warrick 40.Ms.Updike 41.Mr.Frazier 42.Ms.Luddy 43.Mr.Frazier 44.Ms.Updike 45.Mr.Frazier 46.Ms.Updike 47.Mr.Frazier 48.Ms.Updike 49.Mr.Frazier 50.Ms.Updike 51.Charles Buford 52.Mr.Frazier asked for verification that when a structure is erected in the city a permit is required. answered that it appeared there are some places where i t may not be required;that he was told by Mr.Frazier's office that a permit was not required in Gold Dust Park. He stated he had done several jobs there without permits. asked what type of license Mr.Warrick has in Apache Junction. answere d :a city sales tax license. asked how Apache Sierra can have different deed restric- tions than the city. answered that i t is not uncommon for a subdivision to write private deed restrictions,providing i t has :a home- owners association.Deed restrictions can be written that are more restrictive than the zoning ordinance and and can be enforced through the association.When there is a conflict between the deed restrictions and the zoning ordinance,the more restrictive .ap lies. asked i f the same problem could arise again with other mobile homes in the subdivision. answered that installers are realizing that a permit is necessary before the work is commenced. asked Mr.Frazier the various setbacks in mobile home parks. explained that the setback in a mobile home park is twenty. (20')feet between coaches and five (5')feet from the space line,except for awnings.I f they are not of flammable constructfon,the awnings can go to the space line. asked what are setbacks for regular houses. said the front setback is twenty (20')feet,side setback is eight (8')feet,rear setback is twenty-five (25')feet. asked why i t is more dangerous to have a five (5')foot setback on a double -wide manufactured home than i t is to have a five (5')foot setback in a mobile home park. stated the differences in the various zones are not the issue. noted it would be logical,i f mobile homes are zoned with a certain setback,that mobile home subdivisions have setbacks in the same general range. introduced himself as a local resident and said deed re- strictions call for five (5')feet setbacks and the zoning ordinance calls for four (4')foot;he had just built a shed and the setback required was four (4 1)foot. explained that a shed is considered a detached assessory building and the setback requirement is four (4')foot; detached assessory buildings must set seven (7')feet from the main building. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 20,1982 PAGE FIVE 53.Mr.Buford 54.Mr.Frazier noted that,i f Ms.Updike is in the wrong,so are many others. said Countryside Mobile Homes picked up the permit;they were given the returned plot plan that indicated the patio cover could not be built.They received a valid permit for the cover in the north side;they did not receive a permit for the south cover or for the carport.Therefore, i t is my interpretation that the problem is self-imposed. As the Board is aware,the state statutes prohibit approval of a variance i f a hardship is self-imposed. 55.Chairman asked Ms.Updike to review a document. 56.Ms.Updike 57.Chairman 58.Ms.Updike 59.Chairman 60.Ms.Updike identified the document as the plan she had drawn and stated she had given the original to George Mayfield of Countryside Mobile Homes. explained the south cover was denied and the carport cover was denied.Apparently,that is what the permit indicated. Why were the two covers that were denied erected? explained the permit was placed on her mobile home window; the returned plot plan was never received by her and she was,therefore,unaware of any denial. asked what was requested originally. replied that the twelve (12')foot awning and the six (6') foot awning had been requested;the carport was not on the original request. 61.Chairman noted that there was violation then. 62.Ms.Updike 63.Chairman 64.Mr.Frazier 65.Chairman 66.Ms.Updike 67.Mr.Vaughn said that when the salesman and she discussed the carport cover,the permit from Maricopa County was applied for; a permit for the entire plan was requested. asked Mr.Frazier i f the city permit had been picked up or mailed. did not know,but explained the permit applicant (George Mayfield)would have been contacted either way. asked who was at fault and why this occurred. said Mr.Mayfield should have informed her of the denial of portions of the permit request instead of just placing the permit on her home. noted that Countryside Mobile Homes,after receiving the permit,ordered the awnings.Why would they order a six (6')foot awning that was denied? 68.Ms.Updike did not know. 69.Mr.Frazier stated that Mr.Warrick,however unintentionally,installed awnings without obtaining the proper permits. 70.Mr.Vaughn asked who is responsible. 71.Mr.Frazier answered,the contractor.The person doing the work is responsible for acquiring the permits.He recommended denial of the variance request due to the conditions being self-imposed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 20;1982 PAGE SIX 72.Mr.Newcomer noted the zoning ordinance charges the Board of Adjustment with the responsibility of deciding when disagreements with the zoning administrator arise. 73.Burfiend/Dunlop M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the requested vari- ance in case BA -12-82 be denied. 74.Chairman Respectfully submitted, aes R.-NeWtome Executive Secretar The Board bases its decision on the following reasons: 1.Does not meet the zoning code 2.Contractor failed to obtain proper permits." (Mr.Morrison suggested reason number two;Mr.Burfiend and Ms.Dunlop accepted his suggestion and incorporated i t into the motion.)The motion passed unanimously (7-0). adjourned the meeting by concensus,there being no further business. (-41)6r ri/viA, Accepted,