Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBA.1992.0310.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MARCH 10, 1992 A public meeting of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment was convened and called to order by George Bard at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 10, 1992 in the Town Magistrate Court located at 16836 E. Palisades Blvd., Building C, Fountain Hills, Arizona. ROLL CALL - Roll call was taken and present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment: Chairman George Bard, Vice- Chairman Paul Kolwaite, Boardmember Joel Katleman, Boardmember Earl Stavely, and Boardmember Donald Andrews. Also present were Community Development Director, Gary Jeppson; Associate Planner, Loras Rauch; and Administrative Assistant, Joan McCartney. AGENDA ITEM #3 - PLEDGE TO THE FLAG AND INVOCATION After the pledge to the flag, the invocation was given by Chairman Bard. AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 Vice-Chairman Kolwaite made a MOTION that the minutes of February 11, 1992 be accepted as written. Boardmember Stavely SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #5 - VARIANCE #92-02 - JAMES AND KRISTINE SERCU 15829 E. CHICORY DRIVE Mrs. Rauch read the "Findings of Fact" from the Staff Report on Variance #V92- 02. She further explained the findings by indicating referenced areas on a color-coded site plan. Mrs. Sercu presented the Applicant Report prepared by the Sercu's (see attached). A discussion ensued on the value of placing the snake wall along the property line as opposed to eleven (11) feet inward of the property line to allow a larger play area without exceeding the allowed percentage of hillside disturbance. Mrs. Rauch stated that the Town's Engineering Department would have no objection to placing the snake wall on the North property line as long as drain holes were placed in the wall to provide adequate drainage in the drainage easement. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite asked if the snake wall on the rear property line was considered when calculating the area of disturbance. Mrs. Rauch stated that the hillside disturbance of a snake wall was considered minor and had not been calculated in the total area of hillside disturbance. 1 Low Boardmemher Katleman asked if it were possible to move the garage toward the front property line. Mrs. Rauch stated that a Variance would need to be granted in order to place the house within the twenty (20) foot setback. The Board agreed that they hail never granted a Variance for a setback less than twenty (20) feet. Mr. Jeppson pointed out that prior to the formation of the Board of Adjustment, the Town Council, acting as the Board of Adjustment, had granted an applicant on North Spotted Horse Lane a Variance for a ten (10) foot front setback. Mrs. Rauch reported that the Town Engineering Department had recommended in December 1991 that the ten (10) foot public utility and drainage easement along the north property line be preserved for the drainage of the uphill lot because of the uncertainty about how that uphill lot would be developed. She went on to say that the preservation of the drainage easement was the primary concern in the recommendation to Town Council. Clyde and Jean Gillespie stated that they have no objection to the Variance. Boardmember Andrews made a MOTION that Variance #V92-02 be denied. Chairman Bard SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Jeppson informed the Applicants that they had thirty (30) days to appeal the Board of Adjustment's decision. AGENDA ITEM #6 - VARIANCE #V92-04 - MONTFORD FISCHER 15408 PALOMINO BOULEVARD Mrs Rauch presented the Findings of Fact as stated in the Staff Report for Variance #V92-04. She went on to say that the placing of a concrete pad is not regulated by the Town, but that the parking of a recreational vehicle ("RV") on that pad in the front yard was. Mr. Montford "Bud" Fischer introduced himself and his wife, Bonnie. Mr. Fischer then introduced his attorney, Mr. Ricker. Mr. Fischer explained that he and his wife were winter residents in Fountain Hills for about five and one-half (5 1/2) months per year. Mr. Fischer explained that in 1978 they purchased their property and received a copy of the Declarations of Reservations from MCO. In 1986, they built their home. In 1988 they bought an RV and placed it in the driveway in front of the garage. In 1989 they bought a larger RV which was too long to park in the driveway. Also in 1989, the Fischers obtained a permit from Maricopa County to build the concrete pad in front of their home. Mr. Fischer told the Commission that the RV they presently have is also used as a second vehicle. Mr. Ricker explained to the Commission that Mr. Fischer's problem with the parking of his RV was unique in that it was impossible to place the RV in the rear yard, and even if it could be placed in the rear yard, it would block the panoramic view over a clear area. Mr. Ricker also pointed out that the Fischers were part-time residents. Mr. Ricker stated that there were neighbors present at the meeting that did not object to the RV in the front yard. Chairman Bard asked Mr. Ricker to address the impossibility issue concerning the parking of the RV in the rear yard. Mr. Ricker stated that the Fischers were 2 not given any documentation that specifically stated that parking of RV's was permitted in the rear yard only and that it was his belief that the rear yard parking restriction was not in place at the time the Fischers built their home. Mr. Ricker went on to say that the Fischers were not aware that the Deed Restrictions prohibited them from parking the RV in the front yard. Mr. Ricker stated that there seemed to be some doubt as to whether or not the present Zoning Ordinance was in effect when the Fischers bought their lot and later built their house. Chairman Bard stated that the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance was adopted in January 1977. Chairman Bard asked Mr. Jeppson about information recently published in The Times of Fountain Hills concerning the parking of RV's. Mr. Jeppson stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was working on a revision to the present Zoning Ordinance which included a section on RV parking. Mr. Jeppson went on to say that, at the present time, the Proposed Zoning Ordinance had not gone to public hearing and Town Council, and had not yet been adopted. Mr. Jeppson also explained to the Commission that the information presented by Staff was part of the present Zoning Ordinance and did not have anything to do with Deed Restrictions. Boardmember Stavely told Mr. Ricker that the Applicant's situation was not unique. Boardmember Stavely went on to say that there were more eight thousand (8,000) foot lots in Fountain Hills than any other size and that most lots were built out to the setbacks. He went on to say that if this Variance were granted, then everyone would be free to park their RV wherever they wished. Mr. Fischer stated that they were give a copy of the 1971 Deed Restrictions when they purchased their property, but were not given a copy of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fischer stated that had they known about the Zoning Ordinance, they would not have built on their property in the same way. Boardmember Andrews informed the Applicant's that the Deed Restrictions, Zoning Ordinance and Building Restrictions were separate documents and it was not the municipality's responsibility to send property owners copies of every pertinent document. Mr. Ricker stated that the uniqueness of the situation is because the next door neighbors do not want the Fischers to comply with the Zoning Ordinance by parking the RV in the rear yard because it would block the neighbor's view. Mr. Ricker went on to say that it was also physically impossible to move the RV into the rear yard. Mr. Bob Pollock, the next door neighbor to the Fischers, stated he did not have any objections to the RV parked in the front yard. Ms. Hilda Lyons presented photographs to the Commission of the Fischer's RV and stated that she had an objection to allowing the parking of the RV in the front yard. 3 Mr. John Warren, a neighbor, stated he did riot have any objection to the Variance. Mr. Ricker asked if it would be possible for the Board to continue the Variance Request until after the Proposed Zoning Ordinance had gone through the public hearing and Town Council process. Boardmember Andrews stated that it was not up to the Board to Continue or Table a Variance Request. Mr. Jeppson stated that he had originally asked the Town Marshal to hold off in pursuing the Fischer violation until after the Board of Adjustment meeting, but did not feel he could ask him to hold off for an indefinite period of time until the Proposed Zoning Ordinance was either approved or rejected. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite made a MOTION to deny the request for a variance. Boardmember Katleman SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Jeppson informed the Applicants that they had thirty (30) days to appeal the Board's decision. AGENDA ITEM #7 - VARIANCE #V92-05 - MARSHALL GEORGE VARNER, JR. 16838 PARKVIEW AVENUE Mrs. Rauch presented the Findings of Fact as stated in the Staff Report for Variance #V92-05. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite asked if a "zero lot line" meant the building would be built to the curb or would the sidewalk area be preserved? Mrs. Rauch presented a computer drafted map of Plat 208 and explained that the curb was a parking curb and that there was still a ten (10) foot area between the parking curb and the lot line which would accommodate the sidewalk. Boardmember Katleman asked if the parking area would be sufficient if the area was totally built out. Mr. Jeppson stated that the amount of parking needed would vary by the use of individual properties, i.e. restaurant, furniture store, etc. Mr. Jeppson went on to explain that when a building permit is requested, Staff ascertains if there is sufficient paved parking. If there is not sufficient paved parking, the Applicant would be required to pave an additional parking area. Mr. Mike Abatemarco told the Commission that the common areas in Plat 208 are owned by MCO Properties. Mr. Abatemarco stated that the common areas were never deeded over to the property owners. Mr. Abatemarco went on to discuss various grievances Plat 208 property owners had with MCO. Mr. Abatemarco stated that he was against granting any variances in Plat 208 at this time. Mrs. Bonnie Tuttle stated that the common areas were not in question at this time. Boardmember Andrews stated that it was in the Board's best interest to know the intended use of the common areas. Mr. Abatemarco explained that the intended use of the common areas was parking for all property owners. 4 Boardmember Katleman asked when the Applicant planned to begin construction and was told by the Applicant that construction was planned to begin in one (1) month. Boardmember Katleman expressed his concern over the lack of available parking spaces. Boardmember Stavely stated that he did not think the Board was in a position to second guess the outcome of any Declarations of Reservations problems. Mr. Jeppson reported that the way in which parking was being approached in that block was to calculate the minimum parking demands of the existing buildings and the amount of paved parking now provided. When a building permit was requested, it was ascertained whether there was sufficient surplus paved parking on that block. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite stated that when the last property owner decided to build on their property, there wouldn't be adequate parking spaces available. Mr. Jeppson explained to the Commission that the Town was working with MCO to try to ensure that adequate parking for a full build-out would be provided in Plat 208. He added that it was not the desire to hold up all construction in Plat 208 until the parking problems could be resolved. He went on to say that, in this particular Variance Request, Staff recommended the Applicant be permitted to build on 74.6% of the lot and continue with the project. Mr. Abatemarco stated that if the Variance #V92-05 was granted, another Variance to park in the common area would need to be granted. Chairman Bard made a MOTION that the Variance be granted. Boardmember Andrews SECONDED. The motion CARRIED by a vote of three (3) in favor of granting the Variance and two (2) opposed to granting the Variance. Chairman Bard, and Boardmembers Andrews and Stavely vote "aye". Vice-Chairman Kolwaite and Boardmember Katleman voted "nay". Boardmember Andrews asked that, in the future, when the Planning and Zoning Commission was working on changes to the Zoning Ordinance that might impact the Board of' Adjustment, that the Board be notified. Boardmember Stavely stated that until the Planning and Zoning Commission had made the changes, the Board could not go on supposition. Vice-Chairman Kolwaite agreed with Boardmember Andrews. AGENDA ITEM #8 - ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chairman Kolwaite made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Boardmember Andrews SECONDED and the motion CARRIED unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. FOUNTAIN HILLS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT By: ` "`� G<-t�� George Bard, Chairman ., 5 ATTEST: 000 "% ' / f�_/, _ i( ,LG7r- Joan McCartney, Administrative Assist CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment held on the 10 10th day of March, 1992. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 24th day of March, 1992. Joan McCartney, Administrative Assist 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: The Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment FROM: Gary W. Je= .1 Community Development Director DATE: March 18, 1992 SUBJECT: Motions in Board of Adjustment Hearings ****************************************************************************** Because of the quasi-judicial role of the Board of Adjustment, the actions of the Board are scrutinized much more than other Boards and Commissions. The bases and the ways that the motions are made is very important when such actions are appealed or questioned. Staff has been asked to provide information to the Board of Adjustment to assist in the formation of motions at the conclusion of a hearing. A motion should contain the reasons or basis for the action proposed, as well as any conditions the Board may desire to impose upon the applicant to better assure the desired action without the granting of special privileges. The Board member making the motion should state the Standards for Review, the findings of fact and the action desired in the motion. Following are examples that may be useful to the Board: If the Board accepts the staff's report and recommendation with no additional findings of fact or conditions, a motion could be: "Mr. Chairman, after a review of the Standards of Review, the Findings of Fact, and the Recommendation contained in the Staff Report, I make a motion to accept the staff report as our own and recommend approval (or denial) of this variance request". If there is public testimony and new information presented at the public hearing which has influenced the Board, in addition to a staff report that the Board accepts, and the Board wishes to impose additional conditions, the motion could be stated as follows: "Mr. Chairman, after a review of the Standards for Review, the Findings of Fact, and the Recommendation contained in the Staff Report, plus the new information presented here tonight,which is: ,I make a motion that the new information be added to the findings of fact contained in the staff report to become the Board's report and approve this variance request with the conditions recommended by staff, plus the following additional conditions 1. ; 2. ; 3. etc. (or, deny this variance request)".