HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-08 BOA MINUTESBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MARCH 8,1999
The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the
City of Apache Junction,Arizona,was held on March 8,1999,at the Apache
Junction City Council Chambers,pursuant to the notice required by law.
SYNOPSIS Acceptance of Agenda dated March 8,1999
Acceptance of Minutes dated November 9,1998
BA -99-01 -Approved (Earl J.and Vickie Smith)
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Chairman Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Board Members Present:Jim Pfeifer,Chairman
Mari Gardner,Vice Chairman
Howard Littell
John Hartwig
Elise Otero
Kent Slocum
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Rudy Esquivias,Zoning Administrator
Paul Michaud,Assistant Planner
R.Joel Stern,City Attorney
Jackie LeCount,Recording Secretary
Earl J.Smith
Vickie Smith
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBERS HARTWIG/SLOCUM M/S
"I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE AGENDA DATED MARCH 8,1999,AS
PRESENTED."
VOTE:6-0
The motion carried.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MARCH 8,1999
PAGE 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBERS LITTELL/HARTWIG M/S
"I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 9,1998,AS
PRESENTED".
VOTE:5-0 WITH MR.SLOCUM ABSTAINING DUE TO HIS ABSENCE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE ACTIONS
Chairman Pfeifer introduced Case BA -99-01,an
application by Earl and Vickie Smith to the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals for construction of a swimming pool on the east side of their CR-3
(Single Family Residence Zone)property,which is their designated front
yard on a corner lot in the Palm Springs Subdivision.Pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance,Section 6.0128 (C)(1),pools are typically permitted only in
the rear yard or buildable area behind the main building.
He explained the General Conduct Rules and swore in
staff members Paul Michaud and Rudy Esquivias who would be giving
testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE BA -99-01 )
)Chairman Pfeifer opened the public hearing regarding
Case BA -99-01 and asked for staff briefing.
Paul Michaud,Assistant Planner stated this request is
for a variance to wave the prohibition on the placement of a pool in the
designated front yard of the property.
Mr.Michaud displayed an overhead transparency of the
subject property located in the Palm Springs Subdivision located at the
northwest corner of E.Southern Avenue and S.Belair Road.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MARCH 8,1999
PAGE 2
In 1986 in order to fit the desired house,and based on
the setbacks chosen at the time the house was constructed,the east side
(Belair Road)became the "designated"front yard for matters of complying
with zoning setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance.However,the front facade
of the house faces Southern Avenue,thus,the south side of the house is
the "functional"front yard.
The definition for "front lot line"provides the
property owner of a corner lot the choice of what street frontage will be
designated as the front.At the time the permit was approved,it was the
Belair Steet side that was the designated front yard.Mr.Michaud pointed
out the setback requirements.
He continued to say that in 1990 the Board heard a
similar Case (BA -90-3).The applicant requested to place the existing
block wall which is on the east side of the property,close to the pool
area.The Zoning Ordinance regulations for fences at that time stated
that the fence not exceed 4.5 feet in the front.
In August of 1995 Earl and Vickie Smith bought the
property and on December 14,1998 submitted a building permit for
construction of a swimming pool on the east side of their property,not
realizing the east side yard was their "designated"front yard.The
Planning Division denied their request because i t did not meet the pool
regulations.Pools are not permitted in the front yard.Only in the rear
yard or buildable area behind the main building at least 7 feet from the
property line.
The property owner's alternative is to place the pool in
the designated rear yard (west side)of the subject property,as the 31.5-
foot deep yard could accommodate a pool.There are existing electric
power lines that go over the property that could be moved.The Uniform
Building Code require that there be a 25 -foot clearance in all directions.
Another alternative would be to not build a pool.The
applicant's third alternative is to request a variance to allow a swimming
pool in the "designated"front yard.The Board may grant variances
provided three criteria are satisfied.Mr.Michaud reviewed the criteria
with the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MARCH 8,1999
PAGE 3
Another alternative would be to not build a pool.The
applicant's third alternative is to request a variance to allow a swimming
pool in the "designated"front yard.•The Board may grant variances
provided three criteria are satisfied.Mr.Michaud reviewed the criteria
with the Board.
Mr.Michaud stated that the Planning Division supports
granting the applicant's request for a variance to permit a swimming pool
in the "designated"front yard of the subject property based on the
history of the development of the property,the City's acknowledgement of
the setbacks and the Board's action.
Chairman Pfeifer asked the applicant if he wished to
address the Board.Mr.Smith declined to speak at this time.He then
asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition.
There was none.
Mr.Littell asked what the present requirement is to
store boats and RV's in the front yard.
Mr.Michaud responded by stating that RV's can be stored
in the rear or side yard of the property.
Mr.Littell suggested that RV's be stored on the west
side,behind the enclosure.
Chairman Pfeifer reminded Mr.Littell that the issue is
the swimming pool.He then closed the meeting to the public.
MOTION ON CASE BA -99-01)
)GARDNER/HARTWIG M/S
"I MOVE THAT BA -99-01,A REQUEST BY EARL J.AND
VICKIE SMITH,FOR A VARIANCE TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE,SECTION 6.0128,SWIMMING POOLS,POOLS,
AND PONDS,ALLOWING A SWIMMING POOL WITHIN THE
"DESIGNATED"FRONT YARD BE APPROVED".
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MARCH 8,1999
PAGE 4
The City Attorney interjected prior to the second on the
motion and stated that Section 12.0105 stated that in approving any
variance,the Board of Adjustment may designate conditions.
Chairman Pfeifer asked for discussion regarding the
Board's desire to include any restrictions in the parking of RV's within
the motion.
Mr.Slocum felt that was a separate case that should be
directed to the Planning Division.
Mrs.Otero agreed that it's a good idea to restrict RV's
and boats to the west (rear)side yard.She asked what the C.C.& R.s
state.
The City Attorney explained that that is nothing the
City would ever regulate.
Chairman Pfeifer asked Mr.Littell if the Board approved
the applicant's request,would he ask that they be restricted to RV
parking on the west side.
Mr.Littell answered that they have alley access on the
west side behind the gate.
The City Attorney stated that if you are referring to
Mr.and Mrs.Smith,you probably wish to include any sucessors since the
variance will go with the property.
Chairman Pfeifer commented that according to the City
Attorney,the Board can add restrictions if they wish to do so.
Mrs.Gardner felt that there are already restrictions
regarding older cars or trailers.She did not feel that was an issue.
Mr.Esquivias,Zoning Administrator,pointed out that
the particular provision Mrs.Gardner just spoke of is in the City Code
and not in the Zoning Ordinance.A project car would not necessarily have
to be in a rear yard,but it would need to be screened from view.It
could be in an enclosed garage.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MARCH 8,1999
PAGE 5
Mr.Esquivias said he would like to step back to Mr.
Littell's question regarding the parking of the RV.The Ordinance says
that a recreational vehicle can be parked in a rear or side yard.The
applicants can park it in their side yard,which is,technically,Southern
Avenue.
Chairman Pfeifer stated he would take a poll regarding
adding any restrictions.
The City Attorney reminded Chairman Pfeifer that a
motion has been made and a poll cannot be taken before the motion and the
conditions.
Chairman Pfeifer answered then it will be discussed.
Mr.Slocum suggested the applicant be asked if the boat
is going to be used or just set there.
The City Attorney advised the Chairman that the public
hearing could be re -opened but any witness that is going to testify would
have to be sworn in.
Chairman Pfeifer swore in Mr.Smith.
Mr.Hartwig asked Mr.Smith where the boat was presently
parked.
Mr.Smith answered that according to the drawing,it
would be in the designated front yard.
Mr.Littell mentioned that the boat is parked in the
front yard area by the driveway.
Mr.Smith addressed the Board stating that when he
applied for a permit,he did not realize the swimming pool would become an
issue.It's behind a block wall which we thought was the side yard.HI
was advised that that is the front yard.The boat is where I consider the
front yard.I don't have a problem moving the boat to the back yard.My
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MARCH 8,1999
PAGE 6
concern is that if you impose that on me,that's fine,but if you look
down the street you will see all kinds of RV's and boats in the front
yard".Mr.Smith said he does not have a problem with parking the boat on
the west side.
Chairman Pfeifer asked for a motion.
The City Attorney reminded Chairman Pfeifer that a
motion has been made and i t needs to be amended.
Chairman Pfeifer stated that he would like Mrs.Gardner
to hold her motion and start all over.
The City Attorney noted no one seconded the motion.
Chairman Pfeifer asked Mrs.Gardner to continue.
MOTION ON CASE BA -99-01)
)GARDNER/HARTWIG M/S
"I MOVE THAT BA -99-01,A REQUEST BY EARL J.AND
VICKIE SMITH,FORA VARIANCE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE,SECTION 6.0128,
SWIMMING POOLS,POOLS,AND PONDS,ALLOWING A SWIMMING POOL WITHIN THE
"DESIGNATED"FRONT YARD BE APPROVED.
FINDINGS
1.It appears unique physical conditions exist,
previously acknowledged and accommodated by
the City,relative to the way the
"functional"and "designated"front yards
developed.
2.The construction of the proposed swimming
pool in the "designated"front yard does not
appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood
in terms of loss of property value,health,
safety or aesthetics.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MARCH 8,1999
PAGE 7
Mr.Esquivias proceeded to call the roll and Chairman
Pfeifer interrupted him :stating he had not called for a discussion.
Chairman Pfeifer asked the Board if they wished to
discuss the request.
The City Attorney reminded Chairman Pfeifer that he had
previously called for a discussion.
Chairman Pfeifer answered that he can call for
discussion if he chooses and that discussion comes after a motion and a
second.
The City Attorney said i t does not.
Chairman Pfeifer stated that is the way i t follows in
the book.(Board of Adjustment Procedures)
The City Attorney informed Chairman Pfeifer that the
book is incorrect.
Chairman Pfeifer suggested to the City Attorney that
perhaps he should correct the book.
The City Attorney commented that he did not write the
book.
Chairman Pfeifer announced that he is going by the book
and he asked for discussion and that is the way i t is going to be.
The City Attorney informed Chairman Pfeifer i t is a
violation of the Open Meeting Law.
call.
Chairman Pfeifer hearing no discussion,asked for a roll
Vote 6-0
The City Attorney informed the public that any person
aggrieved by the Board's decision can appeal to the Superior Court within
thirty days.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MARCH 8,1999
PAGE 8
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
None
INFORMATION AND REPORTS
None
SELECTION OF MEETING DATES.TIMES.LOCATIONS.AND PURPOSES
EXECUTIVE SESSION ON APRIL 12,1999)
WORK SESSION APRIL 12,1999 )GARDNER/OTERO M/S
"I MOVE THAT THE NEXT EXECUTIVE SESSION BE HELD AT
6:30 P.M.ON APRIL 12,1999,IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM:
AND THAT THE NEXT WORK SESSION BE HELD AT 6:45 P.M.ON
APRIL 12,1999,AND A REGULAR MEETING BE HELD AT 7:00
P.M.IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS".
VOTE:6-0
The motion carried
ADJOURNMENT)
)There being no further business to discuss,and with no
objections,/ Chairman Pfeifer adjourned the meeting at 7:40 P.M.
1.**,
Rudy Es
es Pfeifer,Chairma
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS
MARCH 8,1999
PAGE 9