Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-11 BOA MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA JANUARY 11, 1988 7.00 P.M. WORK SESSION ON AGENDA ITEMS AT 6:45 P.M. PRESENT ABSENT GUESTS Mrs. Blatterspiel Mr. Schaffer List in Mrs. Castro Planning Mrs. Lynch Office Mr. Pfeifer Mr. Sanchez, Chairman Mr. Dunn, Staff Mr. Nakagawa, Staff Mr. Newcomer, Executive Secretary Mrs. Pruitt, Recording Secretary SYNOPSIS: Agenda for January 11, 1988 approved as submitted. Minutes for December 21, 1987 approved as submitted. BA-5-87 denied. BA-6-87 approved. 1. Roll Call five members present with one absent as shown above. (Mr. Hindahl had submitted his resignation since the last meeting. ) 2. Chairman acknowledged presence of Jerry Burgess, City Councilman, and asked for motion to approve agenda dated January 11, 1988. 3. Blatterspiel/Castro M/S "I make a motion we approve the agenda for January 11, 1988. " Motion passed 5-0-0. 4. Chairman asked for motion to approve minutes dated December 21, 1987. 5. Blatterspiel/Castro M/S "I make the motion we approve the minutes dated December 21, 1987. " Motion passed 4-0-1 with Mrs. Lynch voting present. 6. Chairman opened public hearing on BA-5-87 and asked staff to brief board. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988 PAGE TWO 7. Mr. Dunn briefed Board on BA-5-87, a request of Edsel and Josephine Dugais for a variance to allow the installation of a mobile home on the east side of the subject site located at 565 South Grand for the applicant's father who is dependent on his son and daughter-in-law due to special medical needs. Phoenix Mobile Homes was told the Board did not have power to grant a Temporary Use Permit to allow a mobile home in an area zoned for conventional housing only. They withdrew as representative and Jim Kirk from A-1 Mobile Homes is now representing the applicant. He explained that the Board of Adjustment is prohibited from granting a Use Variance in the Arizona Revised Statutes 9-462.06. Staff recommended denial of this case. 8. Chairman asked the City Attorney to address the Board and explain that the Board of Adjustment is unable to grant the request. 9. Mr. Alexander explained the City exists because of State law. The power to exist is derived from the State Statutes. The same is true as far as the Board of Adjustment is concerned. The State Statutes tell what the City Council can authorize the local board of adjustment to accomplish. He read parts of A.R.S. 9-462.06 which sets forth what a board of adjustment can and .... cannot do. Page 35, sub-paragraph G, 9-462.06, says "A board of adjustment shall . 1) Hear and decide appeals in which it is alleged there is an error in an order, requirement or decision made by the zoning administrator in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this article. 2) Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topo- graphy, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988 PAGE THREE granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located." The third provision talked about reversing, affirming, or modifying a requirement or decision of the zoning administrator. (The second point was the area of interest regarding this case. ) From those three short paragraphs, the City Ordinance blossomed into four pages. He suggested that they look at the pamphlet attached to volume No. 3, pages 35, sub- section G, and then the City Code provisions, the zoning ordinance, pages 35,36,37,38. On page 36, sub-paragraph 8, item "H" says we can "Authorize the temporary use of a building or premises in any zone for a purpose or use that does not conform to regulations of this Ordinance, provided that such use can be of a true temporary nature and does not involve the erection of substantial buildings. Such permit shall be in the form of a temporary and revokable permit for not more than a 9-month period, subject to such conditions as will safeguard the public health, safety, conveni- ence, and general welfare. This Section does not apply to the use of a house trailer in any residence zone where the use of such trailers for permanent residential purposes is prohibited. " He said this pertains to a CR-3 category. As far as the procedure to be followed for that particular hearing, he recommended that since anyone has the right to request a hearing, they should be heard However, at the conclusion of the hearing, if the Board went back and reviewed these sections, it would find itself powerless to act on the request as stated in the petition. He commented the Chairman had asked that he be present to answer any questions from either the Board members or the public. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988 PAGE FOUR 10. Chairman asked Mr. Alexander to stay during this case hearing. He asked the Board if they had any questions of Mr. Alexander. There were none. He asked applicant to address the Board. 11. Edsel Dugais explained his father is elderly and needs a private residence where he can have peace and quiet. He has dialysis twice a week and needs lots of rest. Mr Dugais has four children and two children on the way and is requesting to be allowed to place a mobile home in the rear yard of his home so he and his wife can care for him. It is not feasible to add onto the house because of the septic tank and swimming pool . He does not wish to commit his father to a retirement home. He reminded the Board the city is comprised of its citizens as well as its statutes. Mr. Dugais and his family are law-abiding citizens who live by the law. They petitioned for a variance before they purchased and moved the mobile home onto the property for this reason. He said he understood the property is on a CR-3 lot, a residential lot which states there is to be only one home on the lot, but he said had been advised there had been others who had been approved a variance in the past under special circumstantial hardship cases. If they could not get the variance, they would have to seek residence elsewhere, which would cause extra hardships for them. He stressed again they are law-abiding citizens and will do what they have to do. 12. Chairman asked Board if they had any questions of Mr. Dugais. 13. Board asked where his father now resides. 14. Edsel Dugais said he lives with them at 565 South Grand Avenue His father occupies one bedroom, his wife and he another, and the four children the remaining bedroom. 15. Board asked what was the problem with the septic tank and if the septic tank could be moved. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988 PAGE FIVE 16. Edsel Dugais replied they would have to build over the septic tank, and it had to be accessible for drainage. Moving the tank behind the swimming pool would cause the water to have to run uphill around the swimming pool . It would be unfeasible because of the depth at which the septic tank would have to be placed for drainage to work properly. 17. Board asked if there was an existing ordinance which would prevent Mr. Dugais from building a second story to his house. 18. Mr. Newcomer said zoning laws would permit it, but he might have a problem with the building code. 19. Edsel Dugais explained economically a three-bedroom home would be better than one room. 20. Chairman asked if there were any further questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the application. 21. Jim Kirk said he is manager from A-1 Mobile Homes. He wanted to point out that Section 11.0103 said in the opening paragraph the Board of Adjustment had the right "to make adjustment of regulations to overcome practical difficul- ties and prevent unnecessary hardship in the application of regulations contained herein. " He mentioned they have the power to "issue a nonconforming hardship use permit on the basis of plans filed with the Commission within 180 days after the enactment of this Ordinance. " He asked when the Ordinance was adopted. 22. Chairman replied in 1985. 23. Jim Kirk asked if this was now out of the question. Was there no more allowance for any kind of hardships that exist? He said there 's nothing in any of the regulations regarding any kind of hardships that might exist, and any growing city will have certain justifiable cases. He pointed out that Mr. Dugais was only asking for a temporary permit and there was a hardship involved in this particular case. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988 PAGE SIX 24. Chairman He asked the Board if they had any questions of Mr. Kirk. There were no questions. He then asked the City Attorney if he cared to respond. 25. Mr. Alexander said he didn 't know what to tell them. They [planning, building departments, and legal ,..... counsel ] have looked at the statutes and tried to determine a way to legally maneuver Mr. Dugais ' situation into the confines of the city ordinance, and could not find a way. 26. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the application. 27. George Dugais said he is a handicapped senior citizen and has to have dialysis twice a week. He has diabetes which has ruined his eyes, and his son or daughter-in-law have to take him to the hospital for this or to the Veterans Hospital for his regular checkups. He also has a heart condition. If the situation were to change where they could get a bigger home, he would have the mobile home moved. 28. Chairman asked Board if they had any questions of Mr. Dugais. They had none. He then asked if there were any others present who wished to speak in favor of the application. There were none. He asked if there were any who wished to speak in opposition to the application. There were none. He asked staff to again give recommendation. 29. Mr. Dunn replied the Board's powers were limited by nature of the request. A "Use Variance" may not be granted, nor may a Temporary Use Permit be authorized for a mobile home to be placed in a CR-3 zoning district. Therefore, staff recommended denial of BA-5-87. 30. Chairman asked Mr. Edsel Dugais if he had any further remarks. He had none. He closed hearing to public and asked Board to consider the application. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988 PAGE SEVEN 31. Board asked if all the options had been explored. They determined they had been. 32. Pfeifer/Lynch M/S "Based on recommendation of the city attorney and the staff, I move that the recommendation be denied. We have three findings: In denying this application, I recommend denial based on the fact that• 1. The property is in a CR-3 zoning district, which prohibits mobile homes. 2. A Temporary Use Permit may not be granted to allow the placement of a mobile home in any residence zone restricted to conven- tional housing. 3. A Variance to allow the unit may not be granted by the Board of Adjustment since this would constitute a 'Use Variance' pro- hibited by state law. " Motion denied 5-0-0. 33. Chairman told Mr. Dugais his request was denied since the Board's "hands were virtually tied" before he made the application. He should contact an attorney or the Planning Department for any further action he might take. He expressed the Board felt regret in denying the application. 34. Board requested a 5-minute recess at 7:40 p.m. 35. Chairman reconvened the meeting at 7.45 p.m. He opened case BA-6-87 and asked staff to brief Board on the case. 36. Mr. Dunn briefed Board on BA-6-87, a variance request to Section 16.0509.2 of the Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance of Ray and Lola Pershall to: 1) Allow installation of a 6' high chain- link fence with slats instead of a 6' high masonry wall , on the southern boundary of the C-3 zoning district. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988 PAGE EIGHT 2) Allow continued use of an existing chain- link fence (without slats) on the west side of the C-3 zoning district instead of a 6' high masonry wall . Their property is located at 991 East U.S. Highway 60, approximately 500' southeast of Royal Palm on the south side of Highway 60. He then gave staff recommendations. 37. Chairman asked if applicant was present and would care to address the Board. 38. Dennis Laubenstein represented Ray and Lola Pershall . He read the requested variance and said special circum- stances do exist in terms of location and surroundings. Adjacent land to the West and South, zoned CR-3, is unlikely to develop for residential use due to General Plan being com- mercial . For the highest and best use, they would go for the commerical zoning, which is in accordance with the General Plan. Access to the property is limited. Consolidated Water Utilities had no objection to the pro- posed variance change. The cost of constructing a masonry wall is more than adding an extension and slats to the existing fence to make it 6' high. If a masonry wall is constructed, there would be an unsightly gap because the fence would stop before it met the wall . There would be no detrimental impacts on the residential community located approximately 200' to the South. The 6' high chain-link fence with slats would protect their view. The health and safety of persons in the neighborhood would not be affected because of the 200' distance. They have no objections to the alternative conditions for approval recommended by the Planning Department. He said the junk truck had already been removed. 40. Chairman asked if there were any questions from the Board of Mr. Laubenstein. He asked if anyone present wished to speak in favor of the application. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988 PAGE NINE 41. Jerry Burgess said he owns property directly to the South and another of his relatives owns the place next to it. He has no objections to the slats in the fence as opposed to a masonry wall . 42. Chairman asked if Board members had any questions of Mr. Burgess. There were none. He then asked if anyone else wished to speak —' in favor of the application. There was no one. He asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the application. There was no one, so he asked staff for any further comments to the recommendation. Staff had no further comments. He requested Mr. Laubenstein to make any further comments he had. He had none, so the Chairman closed the hearing to the public and asked the Board to deliberate. 43. Board asked if slats were only for fence on the South border because the other side was commercial and did not need slats. 44. Mr. Dunn confirmed this. 45. Board asked if there was anyone from city who checked on the slats in event of vandalization or was the owner just responsible to keep up the appearance. i 46. Mr. Dunn said the city depends heavily on the owner to keep up the property because of the limited access. 47. Pfeifer/Castro M/S "I would make a motion to approve the application for a variance to Section 16.0509.2 to. a) install a six-foot high chain-link fence with slats along the south boundary of the C-3 zoning district; and b) continue use of an existing six-foot high chain-link fence along the west boundary of the C-3 zoning district subject to the following conditions: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1988 PAGE TEN 1. Removal of the items stored on the CR-3 portion of the property. 2. Removal of the travel trailer marked "For Sale" from the site. 3. Removal , in whole or part, of any slat from the fence, that would allow un- screened viewing of the C-3 use, would constitute a violation of conditions and the variance would cease to exist. -- 4. Lack of maintenance resulting in an un- screened or unsightly view would consti- tute a violation of the conditions and the variance would cease to exist. 5. Should any residential development occur on the adjacent CR-3 properties to the south, the variance would cease to exist. The findings of fact are. 1. The zoning in the area, except that to the south, is commercial . 2. The amount of money needed to erect a masonry wall is greater in contrast to a chain-link fence with slats. 3. The owners adjacent to the land, residen- tial owners as well as Consolidated Water Utilities, do not oppose the variance. " Motion approved 5-0-0. 48. Chairman informed Mr. Laubenstein the Board approved the application by unanimous vote. 49. Blatterspiel/Castro M/S "I move we adjourn. " Meeting adjourned at 8: 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ae7 ''ZI Z4f/t-- -""-- Charles R. Newcomer, Executive Secretary Ken Sanc ez, Chairman