AGENDA ITEM __________
DATE __________
Regular Meeting
May 12, 2009
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CASA GRANDE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT CITY HALL, 510 E. FLORENCE BOULEVARD, CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA
I. Call to Order:
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow called the meeting to order at 5:58 p.m.
II. Roll Call:
Members Present:
Member Hernandez
Member Zeibak
Member Garcia
Member Hansen
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow
Chairman Vangilder Arrived at 6:17 p.m.
Absent:
Member Swieboda Unexcused
City Staff Present:
Rick Miller, Planning and Development Director
Carl Metz, City Planner
Melanie Podolak, Administrative Assistant
III. Approval of Minutes:
February 10, 2009
Member Garcia made a motion to approve the minutes dated February 10, 2009. Member Hernandez seconded the motion. A voice call vote was called; all were in favor.
IV. Unfinished Business:
None
V. New Business:
A. DSA-09-00018: Request by Andrew DeSmith, 924 N. Kadota Ave., Casa Grande, AZ 85122, for a Variance to allow a fence more than thirty-six inches in height within a required residential front yard for the DeSmith Courtyard located south of the southeast corner of Kadota Avenue and 10th Street A.K.A. a portion of Section 20, T6S, R6E, G&SRM, Pinal County, Arizona, APN 506-09-039A.
STAFF REPORT:
Move to approve DSA-09-00018, subject to conditions.
Andrew DeSmith | | 924 N. Kadota Ave. | | Casa Grande, AZ 85122 | | P: 520-836-0985 F: 520-836-8969 | |
The City of Casa Grande Zoning Ordinance restricts any fences located within a residential required front yard to no more than 36” in height. The applicant is requesting to depart from this height limitation and to construct a 45” high CMU block courtyard wall within the required front yard of the home located at 924 N. Kadota Avenue. This request requires the approval of a Variance by the Board of Adjustments. The proposed wall would be located approximately 12 ½ feet off the front of the existing structure. The proposed wall finishing is stucco to match the home and painted to match or compliment the exterior color of the main structure.
In addition to a Variance, the applicant was also required to request a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission due to its location within the Evergreen Addition Historic District. This request was granted on March 23, 2009 with the added condition that it be no higher than 45”; a 60” fence was originally requested by the applicant.
The homeowner had begun construction of the wall prior to the Variance and Certificate of Appropriateness requests being filed. Upon being notified of the need for these requests, work was ceased at the site.
According to the Casa Grande Zoning Code:
No variance or adjustment in the strict application of any provision of an ordinance may be granted unless:
- Special circumstances or conditions, fully described in the board's findings, are peculiar to the land or building for which the adjustment is sought and do not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood and have not resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of this title,
- For reasons fully set forth in the board's finding, the circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or building, the granting of the adjustment is necessary for the reasonable use thereof and the adjustment as granted is the minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose, and
- The granting of the adjustment is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; (17.08.110.B)
And; at the public hearing on a variance application, the applicant shall present a statement and adequate evidence in such form as the board may require for the purpose of showing:
A. That there are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property referred to in the application which do not prevail on other property in that zone;
B. That the strict application of the regulations would work an unnecessary hardship and that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial existing property rights;
C. That the granting of such application will not materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements of the neighborhood. (17.54.040)
A Variance Petition was included with the application and is submitted for the Board’s consideration. Within the Petition, the applicant describes the special circumstances that would warrant the variance as Kadota being very busy street with 10 cars every 30 minutes (the City has not conducted any traffic counts to verify this information), the fence would create a noise barrier, and retain privacy of the home. In explaining why the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, the applicant states that the home is only 900 square feet and would like to expand their use of the outdoor areas while providing additional privacy from foot and vehicular traffic. The applicant explains that the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the adjacent property because he believes that the fence will increase the value of the property and would not affect the adjacent properties.
Similar variances have been granted for properties that experience traffic volumes higher than a typical residential road and the applicant is reasoning that his request be given similar consideration. It is conceivable that Kadota does experience higher traffic volumes than that of a typical residential street given its linear nature and that it provides for continuous travel from Florence Boulevard to Cottonwood with limited interruption and could serve as an alternative to Trekell Road and Casa Grande Avenue. In order to try to meet the needs of the homeowner with regard to security and mitigation of the negative impacts of vehicular traffic, staff is recommending that the Board approve the construction of a fence located within the required front yard of the home to exceed 36” but no higher than 45”.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/COMMENTS |
Notification
Public hearing notification efforts for this request meet and exceed those requirements set out by City Code. They include:
- A notice of time, date, place, and purpose of the public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the city at least fifteen days prior to the date of the hearing.
- A similar notice was mailed by the applicant at least fifteen days before the day of the hearing to each owner of property situated within two hundred feet of the subject property. The names and addresses of the owners were provided to the City by applicant. An affidavit confirming this mailing was supplied by the applicant.
- A similar notice printed on a sign was posted by the applicant on the subject site. An affidavit confirming this posting was also supplied by the applicant.
Inquiries/Comments
Not inquires or comments were received by City Staff.
Staff recommends the Commission approve DSA-09-00018, Variance for the DeSmith Courtyard subject to the following conditions:
1. Development on the site is to be in substantial conformance to the materials submitted for approval.
2. Exterior finish and color shall match and/or complement those of the existing structure.
3. Development of the site shall be in accordance with all conditions of approval and all applicable City codes.
4. The proposed fence shall be no taller than 45” high measured from the finished grade of the side nearest Kadota.
5. Any additional condition deemed necessary by the Board.
Exhibits:
- Site Plan and Building Elevations
Rick Miller, Planning and Development Director informed the Board there will be no legal council present this evening.
Carl Metz, City Planner, came forward and presented a brief overview of the case as stated in the Staff Report; he stated the request is to exceed the height that is allowed for a fence located within a residential required front yard setback. The city of Casa Grande’s zoning ordinance restricts any fence located within the front yard to 36” in height, and the applicant is requesting to construct a 45” CMU block courtyard wall. Mr. Metz noted the wall will be located approximately 12 ½’ from the front of the residence, with the proposed wall matching the home. Mr. Metz also noted that in addition to this variance the applicant was also required to request a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission since the home is located within the Evergreen Historic District. The request for the certificate was granted on March 23, 2009 with the added condition that the wall be no higher than 45” in height. The applicant was originally requesting a 60” wall which was already under construction prior to the Certificate of Appropriateness and the Variance being filed. Once the applicant was notified of the need for these documents the work was ceased at the site. Mr. Metz noted in order to obtain a variance you must describe “special circumstances” which Mr. Metz listed for the Board from the applicant’s petition.
Director Miller asked the Board to look at the site plan and exhibits that are attached in their packet. He noted the fence is not on the property line it is set back 20’ as a private court yard fence similar to the home on the corner of Colorado and McMurray Boulevard.
Member Garcia commented he noticed the fence on McMurray Boulevard and questioned if that fence is higher than this request.
Director Miller stated “yes” the fence on McMurray Boulevard is quite a bit higher than this request.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow questioned how 45” for the fence was determined.
Mr. Metz replied that the height was determined by the Historic Preservation’s review of the request. He noted staff was recommending that the fence be reduced to 48” based upon guidelines that the State Preservation Office has set forth for front yard fences in historic districts. But in talking with the Commission and the applicant it was agreed upon that the height of the fence would be 45”.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow commented that he went by the home and there is another home in the same neighborhood with a wall and it did not seem to be offensive.
Member Hansen questioned what is the current front set backs.
Director Miller stated front yard set backs do not apply to fences, but the set back in this zoning district is 20’.
Mr. Metz noted the home is right at the setback.
Member Hansen commented that the plans show the fence to be 60”.
Mr. Metz stated that was for the original request, but the application for the variance reflects the correct fence height.
Member Hansen questioned if there were any comments from the neighbors.
Mr. Metz replied he has not received any comments.
Member Hansen pointed out that the affidavit of posting has an incorrect date; the date shows the hearing date of August 2, 2007 and not May 12, 2009.
Mr. Metz stated that is an incorrect date, the form is a generic form and the applicant just failed to adjust the date, but the sign that was posted reflected the correct date.
Director Miller also noted that a notice was mailed out to the surrounding property owners.
Member Hernandez questioned if this is approved can the applicant then come back and enclose this courtyard and make it a room.
Director Miller stated the Historic Preservation Commission will have to approve any request, but the applicant can come back and build a wall at the property line and have a wall within a wall.
Member Garcia questioned the current height of the wall.
Mr. Metz replied the wall is currently 5’ and the applicant will be removing two rows of block.
Member Hansen expressed two concerns; one, the public notification and that he would like to make sure the correct date was posted; two, he would like included in the packets a list of the surrounding property owners that were notified. Member Hansen stated it is very important to get the information out to the neighbors.
Mr. Metz noted the applicant did provide the affidavit of mailing and a list of the neighbors located within 200’ that were notified. Mr. Metz then provided the Board Members the list for review.
India Tawney, 714 E. 10th Street, Casa Grande, representative for the applicant came forward to address the Board; she explained to the Board the reason for the wall.
Chairman Vangilder arrived at 6:17 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow did a quick recap of the meeting for Chairman Vangilder.
Ms. Tawney presented the Board the sign that was posted in the yard which showed the correct meeting date.
Member Hansen questioned if the home on McMurray Boulevard and Colorado had to submit an application for their fence/courtyard.
Director Miller replied “yes”.
Member Garcia questioned if the home on McMurray Boulevard was allowed a higher fence because they are not located within a historic district.
Director Miller replied “yes”, but the courtyard on McMurray Boulevard is a lot smaller then this request.
Member Garcia made a motion to approve case DSA-09-00018 Variance request for 924 N. Kadota Avenue, with conditions. Member Hernandez seconded the motion.
Prior to casting his vote Member Hansen commented that he feels the strict application of the zoning ordinance is probably a little weak in this area, but precedence has already been set on another piece of property.
The following roll call vote was recorded:
Member Hernandez Aye
Member Zeibak Aye
Member Garcia Aye
Member Hansen Aye
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow Aye
Chairman Vangilder Aye
The motion passed 6 – 0.
VI. Call to the Public:
No one came forward.
Chairman Vangilder apologized for being late, and explained why he was late to the Board Members. He thanked Vice-Chairman Gentzkow for conducting the meeting.
VII. Reports by Officers:
Director Miller informed the Board that the City has received a written statement from Judge Carter Olsen on the Southwest Metals case. The case has been remanded back to the Board of Adjustments. The Judge has asked that the Board reconsider the case to determine whether or not the applicant has been aggrieved or affected by the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the conditional use permit for the Southwest Metals operation. Director Miller stated the case will most likely be on the June agenda.
Chairman Vangilder questioned if the orientation regarding duties and responsibilities has been rescheduled. He feels this is important with the Southwest Metals case coming back to the Board.
Director Miller directed Chairman Vangilder to call the City Attorney and seek his direction and advice.
Melanie Podolak, Administrative Assistant, stated the agenda for tonight originally was to have a presentation regarding the Open meeting laws, public records and conflict of interest as well the rules that had been discussed for change, but the City Attorney was not able to attend tonight’s meeting so these items were pulled from the agenda. The items will be on the next meeting agenda.
Vice-Chairman Gentzkow questioned the courts ruling.
Director Miller stated the case is not on the agenda for discussion; he was informing the Board Members that the city received the decision and the case will be heard before the Board again.
Member Garcia voiced the case is not on the agenda so it can not be discussed.
Director Miller agreed.
VIII. Adjournment:
Motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m.
Submitted this 18th day of May 2009 by Melanie Podolak, Administrative Assistant to the Casa Grande Board of Adjustment, subject to the Board’s approval.
Approved this ____ day of _________, 2009 by the Casa Grande Board of Adjustment.
Chairman Vangilder
