Modification No's 173-2004 and 222-2004
12240 North 62nd Street
August 19, 2004
| Members Present
Ben Barcon Bob Ford Michael Fries Scott Mardian Michael McHale Patricia Thornham Herman Orcutt Ken Roth Greg Russell Paul Scott Steve Speer Darrell Wison
Members Absent
|
Staff Karen Beckley, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Julie Belyeu, City of Phoenix, DSD Steve Bunyard, City of Phoenix, DSD Frank Dancil, City of Phoenix,DSD Bob Gawry, City of Phoenix, DSD Bob Goodhue, City of Phoenix, DSD Mike Hamblin, City of Phoenix, Law Joanne Owens, City of Phoenix, DSD
Ex-Officio's Present
Ex-Officio's Absent
Others in Attendance
|
Herman Orcutt
I would like to call the meeting of the Development Advisory Board to order. And the first order of business I'd like to introduce our newest board member Mr. Mike McHale, Mike is a businessman in Phoenix and represents business and Mike welcome aboard.
Mr. Mike McHale
Thank You
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Okay. The only other thing on the agenda actually two things are two appeal motions that have been made and I would like to first of all read those and then I would like to consolidate these two into one. Because they are both two sides to the same issue and I think instead of listening to the discussion twice I think we ought to hear it as one and deal with it, but first of all I think one of our board members has something to say.
Ms. Patricia Thornham
Mr. Chairman I'm going to have to excuse myself from this case today I am also on the board of adjustment and I don't think it's proper that I hear the case hear today, so I'm going to have to leave.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Thank you for coming I can't imagine what the odds of this happening are, but Patricia thank you very much good evening. Okay the first application is a building code modification appeal the project the permit number MHZ03033819 the address is 12240 North 62nd Street. The owner is Bronson Shafer and Kelly Shafer and the applicant is Shoshana O. Epstein, and the applicant (Shoshana O.Epstein) submitted an appeal to the building official, case No. 173-2004. Ms. Epstein requested to revoke the certificate of occupancy on permit number MHZ03033819 and that the structure constructed under this permit be removed. Okay, second hearing would be applicant Bronson Shafer. He submitted an appeal to the development advisor board case number 222-2004.
Mr. Shafer request the board reinstate his construction permit MHZ03033819 and certificate of occupancy issued under that permit both if which were suspended by the building official on August 4th of 2002 is that correct It would be 2004. Okay, again I think I would like to consolidate these two so that we can have hopefully have a more efficient hearing on the subject and I also would like to suggest one other series of processes and that would be that the City go first and that's Mr. Derek Horn to give some background and explanation of the whole affair. Then I would like to hear from Mr. Shafer, and I would like to hear thirdly from the neighbors. I like to ask that they limit their remarks to ten minutes or less, it can be less but then after that hopefully we get into questions and answers. And if necessary if things get to rambling I would put a time limit on that again, but hopefully I won't have to. This is a cordial traditional hearing and I want to keep it very informal and I don't expect any cross-examination. You can ask questions at any time for any concern I think the point hear is to focus in on these two issues that are before us today and hopefully come up with a really good solution. So with no further adue Derek, take it away.
Mr. Derek Horn
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Derek Horn Deputy Director, Commercial Services for Development Services Department. Normally the presentation for the City would be given by the building official the current building official Mr. Larry Litchfield, is unfortunately out on medical leave for a few weeks. Since I am staff liaison I will be giving the City's presentation I also will answer any questions that the board may have. First I think I speak for all present we thank the board for getting together on such short notice for this special hearing if there are any questions about the need for speed on this we have counsel hear if you would like more information at the boards pleasure. One thing I would like to do is to go through what happened and how we came to this point. I think all of you have in front of you a time line and I'm going to be using this to speak from we'll just go through it and sum it up at the end. Hopefully it will take less than ten minutes that I am allotted.
On December 31st 2003 Mr. Shafer applied for a construction permit to install a pre-manufactured building mobile home at his home address at 12240 North 62nd Street. A lot plan showed the structure to be an office space square footage which is 1440 square feet on December 31st the same day the permit was issued a review of the permits indicates a modular office. During the next couple of months inspections were conducted and also during those months the structure caught the attention of some neighbors and that will be important as we go through the rest of this process. However, on February 24th final inspection was conducted on the manufactured building on the structure and on February 25th of this year it did receive its certificate of occupancy. Also a little bit later on, on March 2nd an inspection also passed a sub-panel permit taken out during the spring time, actually I have a date here it is February 23rd, to feed the electricity to this building.
On April 19th of this year Ms. Epstein, and others filed a complaint with Maricopa County Superior Court, on this case and if they were hear they can speak to the concerns that they have I will not do so they can speak for themselves at a later date.
On June 3rd the Epsteins, submitted a formal appeal the number is listed here number #173-2004, requesting the building officials to revoke Shafers permit. Then the staff conducted research into the project and on July 2nd,the appeal was approved with stipulations with further action would come. On August 4th the action was that we sent a letter to Mr. Shafer saying that we are suspending the permit and also issuing notice of violation. On August 9th also Mr. Shafer was notified of his appeal rights and that's one reason why we are hear today.
On August 13th both the Bronson Group and Shafer Group filed appeals to the building officials action to suspend the permit the Epstein Group filed an appeal and their request is to override the staff and to revoke both the permit and the certificate of occupancy. The Shafer Group also filed an appeal to the Building Official's actions and request the Board override staff and reinstate the building permit and the certificate of occupancy. So really the board has a choice here of three options: The board can support staff, which we recommend the reason why we suspended the permit other than revoke it is that first that is our common practice in these cases when we have problems with permits that we issue a suspension first. And second reason is that we issue a suspension to give the owner time to respond to staff and make their project co-compliant. In this case we asked the Shafers to respond within 30 days, and present instruction documents or other documentation showing how we would make the structure co-compliant. We also gave them contact to one of our commercial teams to help them the process. So that's the reason for the suspension. Now the Shafer Group asked that you override staff and actually reinstate the permit. Unfortunately we can not do that because at this point and time a building code violation does exist. The primary violation out there is that the building is over sized for the use that is allowed, you want occupancy under the code which is the closest fit this building is the maximum liable area is 1000 square feet. This building as I mentioned before is 1440 square feet. So again staff does not recommend that you follow the Shafers request. So, Mr. Chairman, there are those three options that is what the board really has before it today, and the City staff recommends you continue the suspension. Thank you.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
When was the request other than reinstating the C of O licensing?
Mr. Derek Horn
The other one is to revoke the C of O and the permit.
Mr. Michael Fries
Not suspend but revoke.
Mr. Derek Horn
Yes, in other words completely remove. Okay, can I answer any questions that the board may have?
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Do the board have any questions for Mr. Horn.
Mr. Michael Fries
Yes, Mr. Horn, Michael Fries, when the drawings were put into review initially what was the size of the structure?
Mr. Derek Horn
The size of the structure according to drawings actually plot plan submitted shows a size of 24 feet by 60 feet. I have a copy of the permit application and plot plan if the board should care to look at it.
Mr. Michael Fries
And if that's the case at the time of the submittal the actual size of the building was in a sense larger than what was allowed to be used?
Mr. Derek Horn
That's how we interpret it now that's correct.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Okay, was at the time of the review did staff look at that as a new structure at the time or did they see that as a different type of occupancy at the time.
Mr. Derek Horn
That's really hard to determine because building code gives an allowance of 3000 square feet a new occupancy for a garage structure and this is not the case. So.
Mr. Michael Fries
So in a sense a submittal did not clarify the use of the structure completely.
Mr. Derek Horn
Actually the plot plan does show here shop with a couple offices on end of it if you would like to look at it. Again I can not answer what the plan reviewer did. If you have other questions about procedures and residential counter, Mr. Robert Goodhue today if from residential services would be able to help answer questions.
Mr. Derek Horn
Any more questions for the board, Mr. Roth.
Mr. Ken Roth
Mr. Chairman of the board first of all I would like to let the board know today I did visit the site and I had a conversation with Kelly Shafer. She permitted me to go round and look at the structure and through the setbacks I was also look inside the structure and I did have some conversation with her about the it and I just want to inform the board that I did talk to her. If you'd like specifics I can expand on that if you need me to.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Okay, I guess it's a comment. Where we need to discuss this I think it's a policy for the board in the future whether we should engage people in this kind of conversation but we'll leave that for another time. Thank you for letting us know this happened. Any other questions. Okay I would like to move on to the second part that will be Mr. Shafer. And ask him to come up and tell us how he sees it.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Right here.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Yes, that would be great. State your name and address please.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Bronson Shafer, 12240 North 62nd Street. This is kind of a long story, but we really kind of summed it up short story. The original plan for the office plot plan summary that you have in front of you shows the shop as far as the 24 by 60 there some writing there and I haven't read, which I have the original somebody put modular office. The gentleman with the initials JMA is the one who put that on there, down at the building permits. So who ever JMA is the one who put modular office. Whether it's relevant or not I wanted to clear that up cause I didn't right that in there that's what came across. I don't know why he did that but I just want to let you know where this JMA is, is the one who put that modular office on that part. I just want to clear up any little discrepancies. It's very clear when I went down to the City I'm not pointing fingers (inaudible) I just want to get past this point. I just want to solve this problem here. It's clear that 24 by 60 is 1440 I would of easily walked away from this whole process if somebody would have said. "Wait a minute", because I am not a confrontational person. It's unfortunate that things just kept going forward at this point I think things happen to all of us. So right now I'm just trying to get, I'm working with Joe McElvaney right now he is a real good guy.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Excuse me is Joe the team assigned to this?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Joe is the contact point, right. So were just trying to get past this point and work around this 1440 I don't know I'm suppose to see Joe again, I'm going to kind of work that out. I'm not sure how I'm going to take off 440 feet off this building the way it's built. They talked about having us reengineering and have the electrical reengineered I don't know that's a pretty expensive situation to be in again, if I would knew they would had to be any kind of engineering regarding the building electrical again I would have walked away from this whole process.
I can pretty much guess when you start getting into engineering architects it's probably around ten grand I'm just guessing. I kind of wish the neighbors was here so that we can go through this but I moved into the property I told people I was putting a new shop on the property nobody made any statement towards it then in a negative or positive way. We suppose to have dirt dirt during the exhibition two hundred tones of dirt nobody came over, I guess it wasn't a issue because I told everyone I was going to the City Zoning before I even started this project. Because I really wanted some guidance on this again I don't want to invest any kind of money in a project not knowing this is a go. So unfortunately here we are today so we are going to try to work through this. I don't know really where to go with this right now, so I just kind of I've been to all the meetings so far I just kind of sat and watch and see where to go with this. I'm kind of hoping right now to find out what the best way to keep I don't know there's no winner on this were just trying to solve a problem. So if any one has any questions please ask me, because I have an awful lot of material?
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Okay, looks like we got at least one here. Ken
Mr. Ken Roth
Question on the original application it says occupancy R3 maybe somebody can tell me where does this U factor come in. Where does the U factor come in about the size.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Derek, pick that one up.
Mr. Derek Horn
Okay, well the U factor, U is an occupancy classification of the building code and R3 is actually the kind of residential occupancy on a house. So U is closest classification probably that a plan reviewer can give to this without going into a commercial use.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
U is an accessory building isn't it?
Mr. Derek Horn
Yes.
Mr. Ken Roth
So this form is preprinted on the application it says pre-manufactured mobile home. This is a modular building isn't there a considerable difference between a modular building and a manufactured home?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Can I step in for a second this is an issue I was concerned about going down, because I'm not a builder so you might have to bear with me. Regarding stick builders and manufactured housing I don't think there is anything where modular shop or building will come into that it's kind it is a gray area. (inaudible) and I don't know where things start getting hung up because they permit it as a mobile home (inaudible) that's just the way I saw what was going on. I don't mean to jump in but.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
That's okay. Let me try to clarify this a little bit I think if this is a modular then it is the code that constructs the different code Arizona, who is it, Arizona Home Manufactures, have a code that has a jurisdiction over that. The construction of that and in which case the City wouldn't be to inspect that, because it was inspected by some body else.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Exactly, in fact I talked to they wouldn't recognize this I went down to Manufactured Mark Renzie, down there at the Department Building and Fire Safety Office of Manufactured Housing, and they wouldn't really recognize this because of the age of the building. We went forward and I talked with the City and the City said: "Look you need to get an electrical permit because it's been unrecognized, you need to get an electrical permit to put that power on." So here I am back at the City getting an electrical permit so I been through the process a couple of times and still was not told that (inaudible) I'm not even thinking that there is anything wrong and then all of a sudden the City shows up last week. I'm like wait a minute. This could have been stopped the day I walked in the door. So, but I'm willing to work with you I talked with Mark Renzie and I'm trying to work this out what ever we can do. Is it necessary for me to go through all these what our neighbors have come up with regarding the 1440 feet? She has come up with the height of the building what you're at today the actual building she claims that the neighbor claims that the building is several feet taller than property residence it's actually 11 inches, give or take the high points you're looking at 11inch difference. And I don't know if this is relevant. And I don't know if I should be going through this or not.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Well let me find out if it is relevant because if it isn't I surely don't want you getting in to it, so. Derek would you say that's relevant?
Mr. Derek Horn
All of course it is Mr. Shafer's if I can use the term loosely, "day in court" but again this is not a discussion of all events of the case. This is really more of this board grant your request. This board is the review board to give you two other options that I laid out. But we did do our research on the property we did not find any zoning violation, but we did find that it meet the zoning code (inaudible) business enforcing and interpreting the zoning codes. But it's mainly the building code issues that we're concerned with.
Mr. Bronson Shaffer
And that the issue is basically the size of the building right now Is that why were here?
Mr. Herman Orcutt
I think it's two parts the size of the fact that it turns out nobody has witness
just the inspector the construction of the building. Because the Office of Manufactured Housing won't stand for it and the City of Phoenix didn't want you to get billed so. You are in no mans land now with that.
Mr. Bronson Shaffer
Bad place to be.
Mr. Ken Roth
I guess it comes back to them support staff to expand and give the owner time to make it compliant, has he made compliant
with all the request that you have asked him to make. Has he made compliant.
Mr. Derek Horn
To the best of our knowledge he has contacted the team to discuss how he can make it co-compliant. But as far as I know
the structure still exist physically. (inaudible).
Mr. Ken Roth
It's one of those compliance issues then that he gets the State Department Manufacturing Housing to get him a permit is
that what the requirements doing?
Mr. Derek Horn
That is a standard process. In this case Mr. Shafer is correct it's the State Office Manufacturing Housing has not
taken responsibility for this building I understand it's too old. And therefore it comes back to the City to take
responsibility for plan review and construction inspection.
Mr. (inaudible)?
The question needs to be clarified (inaudible) The size of the building issue in its self I'm not sure I understand the
concept of giving the opportunity one more time to correct that, because this building is not going to shrink so how in
theory might the applicant address that? (inaudible)
Mr. Derek Horn
That's a good question. We did not want to presume that it can not be done and just yank his permit and say you know take
it out. We wanted to give the applicant the chance to at least talk with staff and see if it was a possibility of making
it code compliant.
Mr. Paul Scott
Follow up question to that is there a reason a thousand square foot limitation being a function of a type of use might
be a reclassification or reteptation of the type of use that would eliminate that preference to a thousand square feet.
Mr. Derek Horn
That might be possible. That would be something Mr. Shafer and his team would have to discuss and work out.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Again I will work with Joe on that. The thing is that I want to be careful that we don't try to go to some kind of
another zoning code that would classify as a commercial building, because they are not suppose to have commercial
building there. I'm exactly at that point where I would take (inaudible) off this building (inaudible) the structural
integrity of the building I don't think you'd cut it off. So that's something maybe Joe and I can work out somehow.
Mr. Paul Scott
So if this were a thousand square feet would we be here today?
Mr. Derek Horn
We would still be here today because the Epstein Group did file an appeal asking that we revoke the permit and
the certificate of occupancy. They have their issue, which we have not covered today and they need to speak for
themselves but they have (inaudible).
Mr. Greg Russell
(inaudible) obviously the record is somewhere else prior and then brought to your sight correct.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
That's correct.
Mr. Greg Russell
Is that all within the City of Phoenix?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
I believe yes, the mail is Scottsdale but we're in the City of Phoenix
Mr. Greg Russell
So it moved from the City of Phoenix (inaudible) still in the City of Phoenix?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Right, Right.
Mr. Greg Russell
So how long ago was it set up was it permanent or was it originally set up so it was co-compliant once, so it was
co-compliant at one time.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Right.
Mr. Greg Russell
Okay.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
My big concern is because the way the building (inaudible) the 1440 I don't see the building some how reduces to 1000 feet.
To be honest I we can look at it. Joe and I can work around it, but you start getting architects, engineers and you in
a constant situation your virtually asking me to cut 400 feet off a building that was manufactured as one whole piece
structurally. (inaudible) that's a bit of a concern if that's where we're going.
Mr. Ken Roth
On question if the facility was in fact license by the State would we be here today?
Mr. Derek Horn
That's a good question, and the answer is yes, we would be here today. To answer both Mr. Scott's question and your
question according to the building code and rules that govern this board any citizen received a decision by
Building Officials has a right to appeal. That's why we are here today is that one group appealed to us. The Epstein Group
is not here to represent their side. So the building it's self is it was regulated by Office of Manufactured Housing, and
they didn't take responsibility for it, we would not be doing a check for connection utilities and site setbacks. But
unfortunately you know that is not the case it goes back to a building code issue as well.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Paul Scott
I wasn't clear on the answer to a previous question, where was this trailer prior to being on your property?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
These modular buildings are sold through a I don't know what you call it but they sell modular buildings they sell used
modular buildings.
Mr. Paul Scott
Do you know where your particular units were before you purchased them?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
No, only know where the (inaudible) brokers were it was placed no
Mr. Paul Scott
So it may not have been licensed in the City of Phoenix prior to you putting it on your site.
I don't know that I am in no position to know.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Mr. Roth.
Mr. Ken Roth
Quick question, Mr. Shafer, if in fact you cut off 400 square feet off of the trailer how would that impact the neighbors
would it make any difference to the neighbors if you cut it off in any area. I'm not sure what part they are offended by,
but in fact would it make any difference to them?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
I don't think so. But since you brought that question up I've offered full sets of (inaudible) for both property lines,
but I really don't want to go there because were talking about zoning but I have offered full size ones.
Mr. Ken Roth
Thank you.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Any other questions? Scott.
Mr. Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shafer, prior to this date have you stored chemicals in that structural.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
That's a big issue for who ever doesn't know about this were in sod business and also in the pest control business as
far as sodium what I'm trying to say is (inaudible) in the line offsite commercial industrial park the neighbors keep
thinking this is stored off site it's not and another issue is pesticide. I own a pest control business, it's just one
truck that's just myself I operate within the state regulations I am allowed to store pesticides on a large truck so
there is nothing stored in the building regarding the (inaudible) pesticides. I understand the concern with children and
everyone else on the property really. I don't know what else to talk it's always been that way there's nothing else I can
do but it certainly pops up every time I open a piece of paper.
Mr. Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Shafer so to clarify chemicals have not been stored in the structure were discussing?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
That's correct. They're in my truck or there off site we don't carry the lye or the (inaudible) they were discontinued
months ago. Unfortunately our web design was taken off the price list it couldn't be ordered it still on the price list,
but I don't think it is on the site today. I'm not sure we quit selling that product.
Mr. Scott Mardian
Mr. Shafer you said so it's not on the site today were chemicals in the building prior to today?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
No they weren't.
Mr. Scott Mardian
So Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Derek if he does find a way to reduce the square footage to 1000 square feet are they're other issues that have not been
brought up?
Mr. Derek Horn
When we were looking into the building permit there was some things that should have been obtained but weren't like a
police halt permit, which is a requirement to (inaudible) when you got your buildings on City streets. Its in place now
if it stays in place is kind of a moot issue. The other is that it goes back to the State Office of Manufactured Housing
has not taken responsibility for it then the applicant should have come back to the City for further permitting and review
and I guess that's what we're doing now. So really the size is the big challenge on this. For at least in our round, the
other challenges are the other groups have other concerns (inaudible).
Mr. Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Horn the original permit application was under R3 is that correct?
Mr. Derek Horn
That's what is shows under the, on the permit application.
Mr. Scott Mardian
Is there is this a gray area that if this building had been actually if this building had actually been reviewed under R3
in hind sight could it had been permitted under R3 and this 1440 square feet been allowed under that classification.
Mr. Derek Horn
If the building is used as a residence and is set up as a residence it could be classified as a R3 but since it's not set
up as a residence it can't use the R3 classification.
Mr. Scott Mardian
So if is there a use permit required then to allow for this 440 square feet is there another is there a stipulation or
something else that can be applied for to allow for that use that he's office or what ever that is in that location.
Mr. Derek Horn
That's a very hard question to answer because we are still in the area of solving a problem really to go with that square
footage you looking at a commercial type of occupancy and I'm not certain that commercial use would be allowed for zoning
on that sight. That's a very hard question to answer.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Mr. McHale.
Mr. Mike McHale
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Horn can you clarify a point made earlier I'm not sure I understood correctly or not but think
I heard a new classification there were some modifications that you could use that you could bring it to 3000 square foot
or did I misunderstand that.
Mr. Derek Horn
Or you understood me the building code has an exception in the new classification part of the code. It says it can go up
to 3000 square feet as long as it is used as private garage with no dispensing of fuel or repairs (inaudible) work.
Mr. Mike McHale
For example if you had a private garage that was used to storing golf carts?
Mr. Derek Horn
Physically parked cars yes, you can go up to 3000 square feet.
Mr. Mike McHale
Okay.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Mr. Roth.
Mr. Ken Roth
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Horn I have a read the letter from Ms. Epstein she writes you want occupancy showing group final
(inaudible) private garages, car ports, sheds and agricultural buildings we are thinking of this then as a shed at this
point and is there a definition of sheds?
Mr. Derek Horn
No there is no definition of shed and the building official has the power to interpret the building code not
interpretation of the past when dealing with accessories structures on home sites when residual occupancy classified
them as a new occupancy otherwise we'll get into commercial classification commercial uses.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Is commercial S.
Mr. Derek Horn
Yes, that's basically S works in it briefly covers a lot of different types of structures.
Mr. ?
If he wanted to park cars in here would that be okay.
Mr. Derek Horn
Up to 3000 square feet if it was designed as private garage and built as private garage yes it could be 3000 square feet.
As long as it doesn't go over the maximum coverage allowed on the site by the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Darrell Wilson
Mr. Chairman I am really confused (inaudible) so I understand it's not being used for residential purposed, it's not a
garage it hasn't been chemical stored I'm confused about what it's function is?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
I have boating (inaudible) just twenty years of junk It's basically just a shop for me to do what ever I want to do.
(inaudible) I do have transportation permits that I have copies of I'm not sure why that wasn't pulled up.
Mr. Paul Scott
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Horn in the past is their cases where there has been a mistake made at the time of application and
upon discovering that mistake there has been a resolution of the situation (inaudible). I know that's kind of a broad
question, but seems to me like that's part of what happened here.
Mr. Derek Horn
You're right that is a broad question. I could not really answer that question without doing some research on it, but
I can say the research we did goes back a couple of years. When we have problems with permits either they were not issued
or that got issued incorrectly or for some reason the applicant exceeded the scope or went outside the scope, then we
suspended the permit and gave the applicant the opportunity to work with staff so they can be co-compliant.
Mr. Paul Scott
Okay thank you, just to comment on I can feel some empathy for the applicant because when you go to the City and you don't
know what's going on and you submitted and it says 1440 square feet and it's snuck through I don't think the City
intentionally let it through. No evidence to that, and now it's discovered it's oversize and it's a real problem for the
owner to do something about this you can't easily tear the mobile home type structure off. So I hope some resolutions I
feel for the applicant because I think it was an honest mistake, but it's something that's being addressed now. Thank you.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Mr. Mardian.
Mr. Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman can I ask Mr. Roth a question about the actual site? Can you give us a description of how far apart the
residences are?
Mr. Ken Roth
Actually on his diagram it looks pretty accurate to what's out there it's about 6 feet back from his garage. He has a side
yard setback that just over 10 feet probably the 19th people back I got to tell you when I drove by it I didn't' see it so.
Just this morning I asked Mr. Horn to send me a copy of the original application so (inaudible) looks like what it is a
modular building setbacks are fine.
Mr. Bronson Shaffer
Well I also took the time and money to have the ground set which means I had the building sunk down to be called
neighborhood friendly because I wanted the dimension of the house I want it to match the same elevation of the house.
(inaudible) Everything painted the same color and as far as the architectural design of it matches the house
(inaudible) Team 11 on the building
Mr. Ken Roth
As far as the height of the house these are all old original flat roof story homes so if somebody put a (inaudible).
Probably no differential what so ever in the height.
Mr. Bronson Shaffer
Can we see if there are any shops in the area?
Mr. Ken Roth
I imagine if there were other structures that was taller than the building anyways. To answer your question (inaudible)
Mr. Steve Speer
Mr. Chairman I hope I'm not missing something here, but essentially sounds to me like you have a share (inaudible)
400 square feet too large for the normal building code. And the applicant the owner who went to the City and made an
application as he should and brought all the information forth, as he should. He received a permit for site construction
and put it together it was inspected, it was improved he got a certificate of occupancy, and then someone else had to think
about it and ran a complaint about it and the neighbor had a compliant about it which sounds more like a zoning concern
than a building code concern. And then we stopped and now we said we are thinking about making this guy cut more than
400 feet off the shed that we permitted to go ahead and put on site. Is that a fair description of what took place?
Thank you
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Mr. Roth.
Mr. Darrell Wilson
I certainly sympathetic to the case as I read some to the information provided by (inaudible) the it seems though it is in
reference to permits being issued perfectly and they are being recourse associated with that even though it might have been
done all in good faith. (inaudible) some legal recourse . And the other thing I'm real interested into is (inaudible).
I'm not sure what the significance of the 1000 is and what the major of the difference between the structures and limited
to 1000 feet verses 3000 square feet might that be the meganism to accommodate the situation my inclination is to I have
great faith in staff in there ability to make the situation work what tools might be available to you to make this
situation work since it sounds as though eliminate 440 square feet it's just not an physical option.
Ms. Margaret Wilson
Mr. Chairman I would like to address the first question that Mr.(inaudible) He asked for limitation authorities from the
board and the ordinance provides that the board shall have no among other things the power to waive requirements of this
code. That is a limitation as to ways to interpret the code to determine that it falls under 312.1 I would refer to
Mr. Horn.
Mr. Derek Horn
Okay. Mr. Chairman I'll take the second part of that question was can we interpret this a little bit more broadly so that
we can follow that 3000 square foot limitation and the codes. I'll open the code here section 312.2.2 says the totally
area of a private garage used only as a parking garage with private or pleasure type motor vehicles, with no repair work is
done or fuel dispense. It will be 3000 square feet provided the provision set forth in item 1 or 2 are satisfied. That's
divisions 1 or 2 of the code these are to describe the use. So basically the code is limited in limiting that to storage
of private pleasure vehicles so, Mr. Shafer, uses this structure as private garage then as long as he has not fall under
his zoning maximum coverage allowed on site for the zoning then, yes, it could be the size of building that it is now. But
unfortunately it is not being used as private garage it's being used a storage building so therefore we can't interpret the
code that way.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Mr. McHale.
Mr. Mike McHale
Mr. Chairman I would like to address the board. (inaudible) constitutes private garage does that include vehicle
registered motor vehicle could it be a motorcycle could it be a golf cart what the definition of the garage.
Mr. Michael Fries
Can I ask a question if you put a garage door on this construction would that solve the whole problem?
Then he could use it as a garage.
Mr. Derek Horn
I'm going to quote you from the code: Garage Private is a building or portion of a building not more than 1000 square feet
area in breech on the motor vehicle used by tenants of the building or buildings on premises are stored inside. I don't
know if I can get into the definition of the motor vehicle 2 wheel 4 wheel etc.. so that's what the code says.
Mr. Ken Roth
Mr. Chairman I a have question sir if he uses 400 square feet to add to his garage
Mr. Derek Horn
Mr. Chairman I again this really needs to be analyzed by his staff now we are getting into a problem solving mold here
and there are many, many ways perhaps that we can solve this problem. We heard about cutting the structure of ,
(inaudible) in other ways to do it. I really don't want to get stuck in discussion of that because that needs to take
place separately with Mr. Shafer and his team, and his team leader Mr. McElvaney, so if I can maybe refocus the board and
I can be presumptuous on that really what we actually need to consider here today is to (inaudible) staff suspend the
permit to revoke it or to reinstate it.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
If I may object here it sounds to me like there is a possibility here requesting the staff to continue to work with
Mr. Shafer that there are some potential solutions looks like.
Mr. Derek Horn
I agree it is not our place here to do that. But only to decide which way we ought to go with it.
Mr. Mike Hamblin
Mr. Chairman Mike Hamblin here council for the DSD Department. I think the record should reflect what efforts were made
to contact them and ask if you make sure they have gotten notice of this meeting. Make sure that's on the record.
Mrs. Carole Borrego
The packet was mailed to them on Monday as I mentioned before. There was no phone call made it was mailed along with the
boards. Probably 90 percent of the board received their packet. Also, Mr. Shafer, did you receive your packet?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Yes, I did.
Mr. Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Shafer, earlier you referred that you went to the State Office of Manufacturing Housing. Did you do
that at the time of the permit and were you aware at the time the permit was issued that that was a requirement that you
had to get some kind of seal off on the building?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
I think the City told me that the house needed (inaudible) I have a letter Mark Renzie we faxed it to him that he had no
interest to this and we asked him to just to sign this here is a copy of it if you would like it. He would not sign off he
would not acknowledge the building so we tried to get somebody to (inaudible).
Mr. Scott Mardian
Was this back in?
This was back in January 16th
What year?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
2004.
Mr. Scott Mardian
When you were issued the original permit in December of 02, at that time did you make any contact with the department with
the Manufactured Housing?
(inaudible)
Mr. Scott Mardian
So 03 and you did contact them in 04? Manufactured Housing?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
I've had several discussions with them and they did not have any kind of interest in this.
Mr. Scott Mardian
The contact started with them in 04.
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Right.
Mr. Scott Mardian
Thank you.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Any other questions? Okay I think Mr. Horn, has outlined three potential ways to go, sounds like (inaudible) three is
the way to go. Ready for a motion.
Mr. Ken Roth
MOTION
Motion was made by Ken Roth, to support staff and suspend the C of O and permit to give the owner time to make it
co-compliant so that he can get back his C of O.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Can I work with you for a second on that they had give them 30 days originally maybe extending them starting now at 30 days
at hearing would that be appropriate?
Mr. Ken Roth
He has to able to make it clear compliant.
Mr. Ken Roth
Yes we discussing earlier there are many different options we been working on some interesting ideas and options that
can be explored to make it co-compliant. For our letter asked it to be set for thirty days is for the applicant to submit
documentation, drawings rather such items could be make co-compliant so we can expect it to be a longer process than thirty
days of when we would actually got to co-compliance.
Mr. Ken Roth
If he in fact (inaudible) were in the City of Phoenix of a location that we're approved at the time the State had authority
to approve it would that be satisfactory of the structure is safe?
Mr. Derek Horn
Well unfortunately not because the Office of Manufacturing Housing regulates these.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
We're not going to get into problem solving.
Mr. Ken Roth
Okay. So the motion stands.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Did you want to put a time limit on it.
Mr. Ken Roth
I guess would ask the applicant how much time do you think you need to make it co-compliant?
Mr. Bronson Shafer
Well I'm going to have to talk to Joe to find out what's the estimate to make it co-compliant, what they want?
Mr. Herman Orcutt
My suggestion would be instead of having him have to complete it within a certain amount of time actually have a way to
solve this within a certain amount of time.
Mr. Ken Roth
Okay, 60 days.
Mr. Bronson Shaffer
What do you want within 60 days?
Mr. Ken Roth
Just so that you would be able to comply with the requirement. My suggestion is give you 60 days from the day the
City of Phoenix gives you the requirements to make it co-compliant.
Mr. Bronson Shaffer
Fantastic.
Mr. Ken Roth
Okay.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Okay so second.
Mr. Ben Barcon
I second that.
MOTION READS
Motion was made by Ken Roth, seconded by Paul Scott, to support staff and suspend the C of O and give the
owner 60-days from the date the City of Phoenix gives the owner the requirements to make it co-compliant so that
he can get back his C of O.
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Call for questions?
NO QUESTIONS WERE ASKED
All in favor please speak by saying Aye.
All in favor
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
I
Mr. Herman Orcutt
Okay. Mr. Shafer thanks for your time and hopefully you'll have more ideas on how to do it. Okay I would like to thank
the Board.
Request for future agenda items
None
Adjournment
Respectfully submitted:
Derek Horn, P.E. CBO
DSD Deputy Director
Minutes Prepared by:
Nora Jones, Secretary II
Last Modified on 09/30/2004 16:49:14