It is six PM.

I'm calling the meeting to order.

Um this is the Board of Adjustments.

Welcome to the City of Tempe Board of Adjustments meeting for April 29th, 2026.

The time is now six o'clock PM.

The City of Board, the City of Tempe Board of Adjustments is authorized by the Arizona revised statutes, and the City of Tempe zone zoning ordinance.

Its function is to grant relief where literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in an unnecessary property hardship to interpret provisions of the zoning ordinance variances and to hear appeals from any person or city official aggrieved the decision of a person responsible for the enforcement of zoning ordinances.

Zoning administrator and hearing officer Batemans.

Staff summary reports on the items being considered at this meeting, and we'll use these this report in their deliberations.

Uh starting with Andrew.

Andrea Samishka here.

Lily Drosso's here.

Mary Foy here.

Katie Cross here.

Robert Miller here.

Uh, online.

Brett Siegel.

Sean McCarthy present.

And we have two members online.

We do have a quorum.

Uh tonight we have uh a consideration of meeting meeting minutes for last meeting, uh March twenty-fifth, twenty twenty-six.

Are there any uh additions or adjustments that need to be made?

A movement uh meeting do we have a motion to adopt the meetings from the study session from three twenty-five twenty-six and the regular meeting from three twenty-five twenty-six.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you.

Any opposed the meetings from last uh meeting from March twenty-fifth, twenty twenty-six study session and regular meeting have been adopted.

Um today we are hearing two variants requests.

Uh I think we have the same person presenting.

Um before we get to that, I am gonna announce the introduction of staff that is present.

I don't believe they're all here.

Do I need to put their names in?

If they're not here.

Okay.

Um, we have Eric Anderson, city attorney.

No, we have Diane Kaminsky, Jennifer Daniels, Karen Stovell, Eddie Garcia.

Oh, that's Ryan.

Oh gosh.

Ryan LeBec.

Uh, as staff that are here today.

Um we have Bill Ton Tonason, who is presenting for the two uh Varent requests, uh, one for one hundred east Broadway Lane, the other for a hundred and six East Broadway Lane.

Uh Bill, if you would like to come up and present it this time.

Hello.

Do I need a microphone?

No.

Yes, you do.

I do?

Yep.

Hello?

What microphone is that?

That will advance your presentation.

My presentation.

At six o'clock, I heard a weird sound.

Did you guys hear it?

I thought it was your RV system or A V system making a sound.

Guess what it was?

Skateboarders upstairs.

I thought that was pretty cool.

I thought there was going to be an audience.

Oh, there is one.

This is my wife.

If I am impolite, I'm dead.

I have not always had a good relationship with the city.

But I want to begin by singling out a person that does not want to be singled out, who I think the world of, and she is sitting right there.

Diana Kaminski has calmed me down whenever I get upset.

And I think what a crummy bureaucracy I have to deal with at the city, and I'm harassed, and she doesn't necessarily solve problems, but she's a very responsive and calming, and I just want she knows how I feel, but I want everybody to know.

I think she's fantastic.

So I'm sorry she didn't want me to say I know she never wants me to say anything about her.

But isn't that typical of a person like her, right?

So these two houses.

Don't you have a picture?

Oh, that's it?

Okay.

So this is 106.

A before and an after.

And could the person are you the person that clicks the button?

Yeah, clicker bullet pass it.

Okay.

Ready?

Boom.

Okay, that's 100.

So these houses are next door to each other.

And I want you to know who we are.

My wife and I live two blocks from this property.

We are not Canadians or from Kansas or somewhere absentee landlords.

We have nine houses in this neighborhood and 13 multifamily properties.

I have lived in Tempe for 56 years.

We have been married, and I've been living on the same property, married for 35 years.

So we're, you know, we are, you know, this is controversial because we live, this is two blocks from there.

This is my house, our house, and my wife did not want me to show these because she says it's egotistical, and there's no reason.

But that's where we live, and it's close by.

So we are in Tempe.

See, see my wife there, my daughter, my sons.

That's our house.

Boom.

I'm a registered landscape architect.

And I'm very familiar with zoning code.

I would like to answer the question why did I build walls encroaching on the building setback?

Because there's a reason why this happened.

It's it's frankly still my fault, but uh, but I think that you'll see that it was not intentional.

And let me explain.

So you see the red line, which is essentially the south side of these two houses.

The houses are on the corner.

Years ago, when we put up these walls, I determined that the property line was at the back of the sidewalk.

Today it is at the back of the sidewalk.

It's a five-foot public sidewalk.

Back then, I was wrong.

So one day, the city comes up and tears out the sidewalk.

I had no idea what was going on.

I was busy, I didn't want to pay that much attention.

We got some little dribble of money, and I thought to myself, uh, eminent domain, private property rights being bothered, and so on.

Didn't pay much attention to it.

Turns out that I was wrong in the beginning.

The property line was not at the back of the sidewalk.

It was five feet north of the sidewalk.

That's how all this happened, is me misunderstanding where the property line was.

So I want to just say that although I was wrong, it wasn't intentional.

Number one.

Number two, with regard to the heights, I want to compliment the one thing I would say about Tempe.

I'm looking at you, that is I think uniquely positive among municipalities in Arizona, maybe in California too, is the height requirement or the height maximum.

We can put up a seven-foot fence or wall, and other people cannot.

It's six foot.

Every Scottsfield, Paradise Valley, and on and on.

And I think it's really a positive thing because you can see your your finished floor of your house is going to be a little bit higher.

And so people can look out the back and see the neighbors, and that 12 inches makes all the difference.

These walls are in compliance.

Karen tells me that we're within the seven foot.

So I think we're okay there.

The one exception I take, Karen's staff report strikes me as a better argument than I can make.

And so I'd like to almost have you just read that because it seems very helpful and very clear, with one exception, and that is I think the city is off target when they require us to put a 12-inch minimum square or some minimum opening in the wall or the fence or the gate so that the tenant can monitor who's who's coming in.

It's actually the opposite.

We um a beautiful property.

We built these um townhouses between Forest and it's just south of Broadway between Force and Hammond.

They're two-story, and we were required to do it.

So we did, and we just sprayed you know, frost on the window.

So you can't, so we're not we're compiled to do it.

Then we immediately stop.

Why we don't want people, homeless people walking back here.

We don't want people coming to our tenant and looking in.

It's not about looking out.

So what we propose is to simply use a peephole with a fisheye lens.

It's easy to put in, it's easy, and it favors the tenant so that strangers are not looking into her proper her property.

So I think that's it.

Let me see.

Questions?

Um can you describe the people?

Describe the people?

Yeah, the people with what?

Oh, people say the peephole.

Uh people, if you have a door, you just drill a hole, and you can look in one side on the private on your in inside your home, you look through the hole and you can see who's out there because it's a fish eye.

So it's like this was what I was saying.

It's not, I don't have to go in and cut the door.

Oh, that's only on one side.

I don't want to do anything on the 106 property.

It's a steel gate.

I don't want to do anything.

Why?

I completely forgot to mention this.

I don't feel under pressure, there's nobody here.

So the gate is not in good repair, and it's can't you cannot close it.

It's open, it's always open.

You you might have seen that when we were there.

You can go there today, it's always open.

I would rather fix it permanently welded in an open position because that's what my tenant is used to, and that would comply with everything if it was fixed, and you can inspect it and see that it was fixed open.

So it in my mind it no longer becomes an issue.

Is am I right, Karen or no?

No, I'm asking you, not her, you all right.

So Mr.

Thomson, the second property, which's the address on that 106 and 10100.

East Broadway Lane.

100 and 106 East Broadway Lane.

Right, but I'm asking about the metal 106.

That's 106.

And so what you want to do instead of putting closing that up and putting a window in it, you want to permanently leave that open.

That's correct, as it is now and has been for years.

Okay, because it's not doesn't it doesn't work, and the people don't seem to mind, so okay, thanks.

Any other questions?

Brett, Sean, do you have any questions?

I don't you can come up.

And Mr.

Thomson, you will have a an opportunity to rebut if you want at the end.

All right.

All right.

All right.

Um, good evening, Chair and Board members.

My name is Karen Stoval, senior planner.

Uh, these variants requests are for the properties located at 100 and 106 East Broadway Lane.

They are two lots at the northeast corner of Encanto and Broadway.

And both properties are zoned R12.

Sorry, I'm used to saying R1 are zoned R2.

And they're both developed with single family homes.

They're surrounded by other single family land uses to the north and east, a commercial use on the west side of Encanto, and multifamily and commercial uses on the south side of Broadway Road.

Both variance requests are to increase the maximum wall height within the required front yard building setback from four feet to seven feet.

And the walls have already been constructed on both of the properties.

And this wall has a setback of 12 feet from the front property line.

And at 106 East Broadway Lane, the applicant constructed a corrugated metal wall in approximately 2018, also with a 12-foot setback.

And at 106 east east Broadway Lane is 6 feet 11 inches from the top of the sidewalk.

In reviewing the variance criteria, the location and surroundings of these properties are special circumstances.

The sites front on Broadway Lane, which is directly adjacent to Broadway Road, which is an arterial street.

It's uncommon for single family uses to front arterial roadways due to the high traffic causing noise and safety concerns.

In 2022, a height, a high traffic volume of over 25,000 square 200 of over 25,000 was counted and has probably increased in the last several years.

Due to the site visibility constraints, the wall was that was constructed by Tempe could not be extended further west to screen Broadway from these properties.

That resulted in the applicant's desire to let the walls remain that they've already constructed on their own properties.

Approval of the variants will not grant any special privileges to these properties and would allow the walls that are similar to what exists to the east that the city actually constructed.

And the special circumstances, including the location and surroundings on the properties, are not self-imposed by the owner.

A neighborhood meeting was required for these applications, and one was held in February of this year.

Eight members of the public attended, and everyone expressed support for the requests.

The applicant also received two emails in support, and those are included in the staff report exhibits.

Based on the information submitted by the applicant and review of the variance criteria, we are recommending approval of both requests.

The applicant has pointed out one of the unique conditions, and that is that uh windows be provided in the pedestrian gates so that individuals inside can see what's happening outside before they exit the property.

And the other unique one is to provide a wall section in order to wall sections in order to determine if a building uh permit is required because the building code measures building height from a different point versus the top of sidewalk, which is what is used by the code.

Um, I'd just like to remind you that these are two separate requests, so it would be helpful for the record if you discuss the merits of each case separately, and you will need to vote on them separately as well.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

So I have a question about um he would he was suggesting for property at the 100 Broadway of doing a peephole instead of a window.

Would would that be something you guys would approve or is that an issue?

So modification of that condition would be up to uh the board.

So if you felt that that was adequate, um staff is fine supporting that, yes.

Okay, and 106.

Okay, and 106 the permanent opening of that portion of the corrugated uh wall at 106.

Would that be something that you guys could support or not?

Um uh chairperson, I think that would be fine.

The applicant mentioned that he would like to leave the gate but weld it open.

My only concern is that someone would modify that in the future, so I'd rather see the gate removed.

If if that was the case, I'd like to see you know, to ensure that it is uh permanent opening.

Um that would be my only concern.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Brett, Sean, do you have any questions?

I do not.

No questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Did we get any public comments?

No, we did not.

Oh I'm sorry, the gentleman in the audience is raising his hand.

There's comment cards, are they in the back?

Or you've got one.

Okay.

We have comment cards if you can fill that out.

Yeah, I just need to have you fill this out.

Uh I got this thing, so obviously I live in here and I'm qualified to uh make some comments about what's going on.

I'm not against sir.

Before you begin, we need to get your name for the record.

Oh, my name is our we need you to fill out that form for the record.

So I'm that's okay.

That's okay.

She's gonna help you guys when you're done if you just fill this out.

Okay, yeah.

Uh anyway, I wanted to show you this, so I am qualified because you guys sent sent this to me.

I live in the immediate area for a bit over 30 years.

And the only thing that bothers me is is a guy, the fellow wants to have a thing seven feet high.

I don't say you know seven feet high, only six feet would be adequate.

And that's that's as far as I'm concerned, unless you're next to a super busy street, you don't need seven feet.

And and only a typical person uh would only have six feet and even my property, I have only a maximum six feet.

That's I know it sounds stupid, but that's my only complaint.

He doesn't need seven feet.

He's not right on uh top of the busiest street in town like Broadway.

That's my only complaint.

Okay, thank you.

Sir, could you please state your name again?

I didn't get it.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna miss a lot of what you're saying.

Can you say your name for the record?

Yes, I'm Art.

Get it.

Art get that?

Okay.

And you know, I wouldn't have got this thing if I didn't live or have property in the immediate area.

Okay.

Anyone have questions for art?

That's all I gotta say.

Okay.

Ms.

Okay.

I think Karen's gonna speak first.

Sure, I'll be down here.

Sir you can go ahead and sit down.

Okay.

Well right.

Um just to address um Mr.

Gadet's, I think.

Um concern the properties are on Broadway Lane, which is directly adjacent to Broadway Road.

So in essence, they do front Broadway Road.

So I just wanted to state that for the record.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Johnson, did you want to reboot?

Yes.

All right, sir.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear your name.

What's his name?

So I just wanted to mention that maybe you're not sure which properties, but these properties are right on Broadway.

There's nothing between us and the 25,000 cars a day.

Maybe you think we're in a different location.

Oh, okay.

And then I would just add that we kind of repeat my comment that Tempe is unique and that they do allow a seven-foot wall uniquely among other municipalities.

And there's many reasons why I think that is to be applauded.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any other questions for staff or Mr.

Johnson?

Brett, Sean.

No.

No questions.

Do I have to motion to for discussion or just open this?

We're gonna close public comment and we are now going for discussion.

Um we're gonna discuss the property at 100 East Broadway first.

Any comments, questions?

My viewpoint on this is that given the situation.

Um I'm willing to grant the uh the approval with the requested stipulations that Tempe has included.

I have a question for you, Brett.

Would that in would that be the windows, or would you be okay with the the peephole?

With the windows.

With the windows, okay.

Any comments on that?

I don't feel really strongly one way or another about windows or peepholes.

Looking at the looking at the way in which the wall is sited and the gate there, it almost appears to be a front door kind of situation, and thinking to our own doors where we've got a nice little peephole with a fish eye.

It seems to me somewhat analogous to that.

And either way, I'm fine with it, but I don't feel urgent the urgency to have a window there.

Okay, yeah, I feel the same way.

Um I'm good either way.

Um anybody feel differently?

I agree, it upholds pedestrian safety as the condition state, so people or otherwise.

I think I'm okay with people.

Lily Andrew, do you have any comments?

All right.

Um Brett, Sean, do you guys feel strongly either way on the window or the peephole for the property at 100?

No, I don't have uh inclination to go either way.

Okay.

No, I don't.

Okay.

Does anybody want to make a motion at this point?

Well, I'll move that we grant the um grant the variance as requested with for 100 east Broadway lane with the modification to condition of approval number two, removing the uh requirement for a 12 by 12 window and replacing it with a uh uh fisheye peep poll.

Do I have a second on that?

Second, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed the motion passed.

The variance is granted by unanimous decision.

We now move on to um the property at 106.

Um the variance um with the request for a window.

Um the uh applicant is asking for the gate to be permanently sealed open.

Um staff had said maybe have it removed.

Does anybody have any comments on that or feel strongly one way or the other?

I uh I feel that we should approve it with the stipulations included by Tempe, just given the fact that that it could later be um changed so that that that gate could be uh closed and we run into the same issue, but it won't won't be addressed at that point.

I think I'm gonna agree with you, Brett.

Um I keep doing that.

I'm gonna agree with you, but um, I I feel that because even though the gate is is open right now and it's broken, it could be changed in the future, and we want to make sure that there's some kind of um method to be able to see pedestrians so you're not opening up the gate onto them as a safety issue, see what's going on if you're letting someone in that area.

Um, so I would say a window, um, and I would approve it with that one.

Questions or comments, Sean.

Do you have anything else?

I'd agree with uh that stance.

Okay.

Do we have a motion at this time?

Well, I'll move that we grant the um the variance request for 106 east Broadway lane with the conditions of approval as stated in the report.

Second.

No.

No, sorry.

Uh sorry, was that a second?

I have a second.

Okay.

So there's been a motion and a second.

I keep doing that.

There's been a motion and a second.

All those who approve say a.

Aye.

Aye.

I all those opposed say nay.

All right.

Motion passes uh by unanimous decision.

The variance for 106 is granted with the conditions as stated.

Is there anything else that we have?

Uh all right.

And there's no chair staff updates.

We still are not having a meeting next month.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Do you have one more item to take a motion on?

Okay.

Uh we have the executive session.

Um, we need to vote to hold a meeting after this meeting is dismissed.

Do I have a motion to hold that meeting?

Sure.

I'll motion to hold the meeting.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thanks.

That motion passed.

We will uh adjourn to attend the executive session meeting.

I don't have to move.

We need to have a vote on it, don't we?

Oh, okay.

Um, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

I have it.

It passes by unanimous vote.

Do I need a motion to end?

Just then.

All right.

We will be adjourning the regular meeting.

Um, thank you all for presenting today, and we will be moving on for the executive session.

Thank you.