Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-07 BOA MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA March 7, 1988 7.00 P.M. WORK SESSION ON AGENDA ITEMS AT 6.45 P.M. PRESENT ABSENT GUESTS Mrs. Blatterspiel None List in Mrs. Castro Planning Mrs. Lynch Office Mr. Pfeifer Mr. Schaffer Mr. Sanchez, Chairman Mr. Dunn, Staff Mr. Nakagawa, Staff Mrs. Reid, Staff Mr. Newcomer, Executive Secretary Mrs. Pruitt, Recording Secretary SYNOPSIS: Agenda for March 7, 1988 approved with changes. Minutes for February 8, 1988 approved as submitted. BA-2-88 approved. BA-1-88 continued to April 11, 1988. 1. Roll Call six members present. 2. Chairman asked for motion to accept agenda. 3. Pfeifer/Castro M/S "I move that we accept the agenda but that the agenda be approved with the following modifica- tions: Items #3 and #4 be reversed in order, that is, to clarify, Item #4 be placed before Item #3. With that in mind, I would move that the agenda be approved. " 4. Chairman asked staff, Debra Bedard, and Richard VandrBrink if they had any objections to changing the agenda. There were none. He then asked for a vote by roll call . Motion passed unanimously. He asked for a motion to accept the minutes dated February 8, 1988. 5. Blatterspiel/Lynch M/S "I make a motion that we approve the minutes dated February 8, 1988 as given to us. " Motion passed 5-0-1 with Mr. Schaffer abstaining. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 7, 1988 PAGE TWO 6. Chairman opened public hearing on BA-2-88 and asked staff to brief the Board. 7. Mr. Dunn briefed Board on BA-2-88, an application of Russel D. Cain for a Variance to the Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance Section 15.0108 and 6.0108(c) to allow a fifteen foot (15' ) backyard setback, instead of the required twenty-five (25' ) setback. The ,..� property is located at 2570 West Scenic Street in Apache Junction and is currently zoned GR General Rural . He added that a letter endorsing the Variance request had been received from the Haven Hollow Homeowners ' Association and was included in their packet. 8. Chairman asked Board if they had any questions of staff. There were none. He asked if the applicant were present and if he cared to address the Board. 9. Russel D. Cain said Mr. Dunn had expressed his need and he would be very happy if he could get the Variance. 10. Chairman asked Board if they had any questions of Mr. Cain. There were no questions. He asked if there were any present who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the appli- cation. There were none. •-- He closed the hearing to the public and asked the Board to deliberate the application. 11. Pfeifer/Castro M/S "I move that case BA-2-88, an application of Russel D. Cain for a Variance to Sections 15.0108 and 6.0108(c) of the Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance to allow a fifteen (15' ) rear yard setback, be approved. In granting this variance, I would base my decision on the following findings of fact: 1. The ' special conditions ' that exist on the property are as such: the subject site is one of only four lots within the Haven Hollow subdivision transversed by the drainage ditch. The applicant is further burdened by the fact that the drainage ditch does not follow the approved easement shown on the original subdivision plat. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 7, 1988 PAGE THREE 2. A ' hardship' would be placed on the applicant if the Variance was not granted. This hard- ship is based on the fact that the private covenants governing the front setback combined with the drainage ditch limit usable area on the site and make development especially difficult for the applicant. 3. Granting the Variance would not be detrimental to persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood because the applicant' s proposal is consistent with the established neighborhood pattern in terms of front yard setbacks and typical street orientation. There are several homes in this subdivision that have rear yard setbacks less than the required twenty feet (20' ) , including lots that abut the subject site to the east and west, which maintain setbacks of approximately fifteen feet (15' ) . 4. Finally, I would note that the city and authorities of the city have received a letter from the Homeowner's Association of Haven Hollow which endorses the request for variance. For those reasons, I would recommend approving the Variance. " Motion passed 6-0-0. 12. Chairman told Mr. Cain the Board had voted to grant the Variance. He opened BA-1-88 to the public and asked for staff to brief the Board. 13. Mrs. Reid briefed Board on BA-1-88, an application of Debra A. Bedard and Manuel Loya, Mobile Home Owners , and Richard Vandr Brink, Park Manager, for a variance to allow a reduction in setbacks on the mobile home located at Space 28, Big Mountain Mobile Home Park at 1100 South Warner Road. The required front yard setback is 8' minimum, and the front yard setback provided is approximately 33". The required rear yard setback is 10' minimum, and the rear yard setback provided is approximately 15" . She asked to reserve her conclusions until after the hearing. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 7, 1988 PAGE FOUR 14. Chairman asked Board if they had any questions of staff. There were none, so he asked if the applicant or representative were present and cared to address the Board. 15. Fenton McDonough said he was an attorney from Scottsdale appearing on the behalf of Debra Bedard and Manuel Loya. He commented Mr. Loya and Ms. Bedard did not create the problem but are victims of the mobile home seller or the installer. He concluded it would be unfair to punish them for what has happened. 16. Chairman indicated it is not the desire of the Board nor of the City to "punish" the applicants, but the mobile home installer had showed a willingness to move the mobile home and wondered why it couldn 't be moved. 17. Fenton McDonough requested a copy of the letter from the installer to the city indicating their willingness to move the home. 18. Richard Vandr Brink was Park Manager for Big Mountain Mobile Home Park. The mobile home dealership told him the mobile home was 56'x14' wide. The size of the lot is actually 77' . Mr. Vandr Brink stated he would not pay for the mobile home to be moved. He went to the Building Department and was given setback requirements. He then called Murphy's Mobile Home Sales and told them the mobile home was not fitting on the lot. He was only trying to help the applicants get into their mobile home. He presently has no other space for them. 19. Chairman asked to see the paper given him by the City department. 20. Richard Vandr Brink said if the applicants had mentioned the mobile home size, he would not have put it in that location. 21. Chairman asked if Board members had questions of Mr. Vandr Brink. There were none, so he asked if anyone else present wished to speak in favor of the application. 22. Patty Bigelow served as Park Manager from November 30 through December 5, 1987. She verified the fence and postholes on the applicants ' lot were in by November 29. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 7, 1988 PAGE FIVE 23. Chairman asked if Board members had any questions of Ms. Bigelow. There were none. He asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the application. There were none. He asked Zoning Administrator Charles Coleman to answer some questions regarding misinterpretation of lot sizes. 24. Mr. Coleman explained when an individual comes in to get a permit, they submit a plot plan, which to the Building Department represents how the land is divided up and used by park management. Based on the plot plan, they assess setbacks. In this case, the original plot plan submitted did not represent reality, thus creating the problem with setbacks. He stated there is no way to make the trailer fit the space nor comply with the city regulations. 25. Mr. Pfeifer received the impression there are other trailers not meeting the rear yard setbacks He asked if there was a date an ordinance became effective specifiying that you needed so many feet in the rear of a mobile home lot. 26. Mr. Coleman said there are provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for the setbacks, even on the unspecified lots. They are not all setbacks from property lines but are also from assumed lot lines. 27. Board asked what safety factor this represented. 28. Mr. Coleman answered setbacks are intended to help ameliorate fire hazards. Mobile homes can be destroyed by fire within a very short time. With a wooden fence and a wooden shed, this small area has become crowded with combustibles. 29. Board asked for the date of the ordinance regarding setbacks. 30. Mrs. Reid replied the present ordinance was adopted in September of 1985. 31. Mr. Coleman affirmed the ordinance was already in effect, and no one "got stuck" in the last 60-90 days as a result of ordinance changes. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 7, 1988 PAGE SIX 32. Board confirmed that the City did inspect this after the trailer was installed and determined the setbacks were insufficient. They suggested pre-measuring a lot before issuing a permit. 33. Mr. Coleman replied this would put the installation burden on the City, and the burden should be on the installer who is licensed by the State. In this case, someone didn 't meet their assigned responsibility. He said the issue before the Board is, "Is there a situation where a variance is appropriate?" There seems to be a tendency toward dwindling setbacks. 34. Mrs. Castro commented she thought this placement was a fire hazard. 35. Mr. Coleman said what exists is an ordinance that trades certain levels of fire-resisting construction for space. The City tries to live within the scope and author- ity of the ordinance, since the ordinance does not specifically address some of these issues. 36. Mr. Pfeifer asked if the applicants are asked to move, are they given some type of time frame. 37. Mr. Coleman said a minimum of 30 days is always given. Appeals may be made through the appeals process to Superior Court, and the filing deadline is 30 days. It is possible to extend deadlines as long as these are granted with the idea of satisfying conditions placed by the Board. 38. Chairman asked staff to give recommendations. 39. Mrs. Reid gave conclusions regarding case BA-1-88. 40. Chairman asked Board if they had questions of staff. 41. Board asked if there was a space in the mobile home park where the mobile home could be moved. Moving the mobile home could alleviate the problem since it seemed the installer and sales manager were willing to help them move to another park. 42. Mrs. Reid said the park manager indicated there was not presently a lot available within this park. Ms. Bedard had responded she did not wish to move when questioned whether she had reviewed the alternatives and discussed them with the installer and sales office. There are parks which would allow families and could accommodate larger mobile homes. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 7, 1988 PAGE SEVEN 43. Chairman suggested the case could be postponed for another month. 44. Mrs. Reid said if the Board wished to postpone the decision on the case until after it was determined who would move the mobile home, that might be appropriate. If they were postponing with the desire that a Board decision would settle who would move the mobile home, she did not feel the Board had the authority to decide that issue. 45. Chairman listed several reasons a postponement might be in order: to determine any hazard by this trailer remaining in its present location; to determine whether there are other parks that will allow children, are large enough to handle the trailer and have comparable rental rates. 46. Mrs. Reid added there is other recourse for the owners. Mobile home installers must be licensed by the State, and the applicants can file a grievance within a one-year time frame. The State has the authority to order corrective action. 47. Board asked if it was unreasonable for the Board to expect that the reasonable alternatives suggested to the applicant be pursued. 48. Chairman asked if there was any rebuttal to staff recommendation. 49. Fenton McDonough provided his interpretation of nonconforming rights. 50. Chairman asked Ms. Bedard to step to the podium and speak. 51. Debra Bedard indicated she has two children (plus one on the way) and three large dogs. Other parks are more expen- sive, do not allow dogs, and charge increased rental per child. She wants to stay where she is. She was advised by her attorney to try this first before exploring the other alternatives. 52. Mrs. Lynch asked if another lot opened within the park, would they be willing to move to it. 53. Debra Bedard indicated yes. 54. Chairman asked Mr. Vandr Brink if he wished to make a rebuttal statement. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 7, 1988 PAGE EIGHT 55. Richard Vandr Brink said a representative from the City approved the gas and the electrical and never said that it was not up to code. He resented the inference that Big Mountain Mobile Home Park was a fire trap. 56. Chairman asked Mrs. Reid if she had anything else to add. 57. Mrs. Reid said if a safety condition exists, it could be ... ordered to cease immediately. She said the Fire Department did not feel there was sufficient room for access with a ladder in the event of a fire. 58. Chairman asked if Mr. McDonough had anything to add. He did not. He closed hearing to the public, asked Board to deliberate the application, and called for a motion. 59. Mrs. Lynch asked if a time frame could be included in the motion regarding moving. 60. Chairman asked Mr. Vandr Brink if he had a lot available that would have accommodated the mobile home and why the applicants did not get that lot. 61. Richard Vandr Brink had assumed the mobile home would not have to be moved and he filled the lot. 62. Schaffer/Lynch M/S "I make a motion that we postpone BA-1-88 until April 11, 1988, to give the Board members more time to further investigate the situation and maybe make a more intelligent decision and see if other parks are within a close proximity; and give the Bedard's ... sufficient time to have the mobile home installers submit to the responsibility and incur the expense of moving the mobile home, and if, between now and then, a lot in that park becomes available, that it is moved immediately to another lot in that park. " Motion passed unanimously. 63. Chairman told applicants that the Board had chosen to postpone a decision on the case until the April 11 meeting. 64. Chairman officially requested a review and written comments from the Fire Department regarding this variance request. He also asked the Zoning Administrator to look into the lots that do not seem to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 7, 1988 PAGE NINE 65. Pfeifer/Shaffer M/S "I move we adjourn. " Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, harles . Newcomer, Executive Secretary Ken Sanchez, Chairman Am.