Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 10/8/1998 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM B-3 5850-WEST GLENDALE AVENUE.. GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1998 The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Cheniae, with the following members and representatives present: BOARD MEMBERS: Kathe Neyer Daniel Drew Ron Piceno Robert Koehler Richard Gitelson Gordon Cheniae, Chairperson CITY STAFF: Ray Jacobs,Zoning Administrator Rick Flaaen,Deputy City Attorney Bill Luttrell, Senior Planner Molly Hood,Planner Elizabeth Logan, Associate Planner Katie Douglas,Recording Secretary Chairperson Cheniae began the meeting by explaining that the Board of Adjustment is a quasi- judicial body made up of volunteers appointed by the City Council. The Board hears request for relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and appeals to certain decisions made by the Planning Director. The Board considers each request on its own merits and bases its decision on the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Board's decision is final unless appealed to the City Council or through Superior Court. Mr. Jacobs, Zoning Administrator, introduced the members of the staff who were present. Chairperson Cheniae called for approval of the minutes from the September 10, 1998 meeting. . Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to approve the minutes as written. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. Chairperson Cheniae called for Business From the Floor. There was none. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES . Page 2 Chairperson Cheniae asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Cheniae stated that the purpose of a public hearing is to provide interested parties the opportunity to present testimony for the Board's consideration. An affirmative vote of four Board members is required to_pass_a motion. Chairperson Cheniae than explained the Board's hearing process. Chairperson Cheniae called for the first item on the agenda. 1. ZV-97-29 A request by Western Stucco for the following variances in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. 1. Reduce the required side setbacks from fifteen feet to twelve feet on the south property line and fifteen feet to zero on the north property line. 2. Reduce the required rear setback from fifteen feet to three feet. 3. An increase in the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from .30 to .42. Bill Luttrell presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet findings # 1, #2 and #4. It could meet finding #3 if the board determines the variance is necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. Boardmember Neyer asked if the applicant decided to repair the existing building instead of building a new one, would he be grandfathered in and not need any variances and be able to build to the property line like it already is. Mr. Luttrell responded that the current building is existing and that he could indeed go in and repair it. He would not be required to demolish the building to bring it up to code. He stated that the building was built in 1947 prior to the adoption of most development standards used by the City. Boardmember Neyer asked what the FAR on the building is now. Mr. Luttrell stated that the existing FAR is .63. Boardmember Drew asked if the area across the street, including Cerreta's, is part of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Luttrell stated that we're looking for compatibility or some form of development pattern that is in the area. Cerreta's is not a new building. It is a rehabilitation of an existing building. They installed the landscaping and parking lot. He stated that the applicant is providing a parking lot that is going to have 24 parking spaces with approximately 1,500 square feet of landscaping. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 3 Boardmember Gitelson asked if there is a requirement that the letter to surrounding property owners state what the variances are. He noted that the letter to the property owners does not contain that information. Mr. Luttrell stated that the property owner letters don't always get that specific. Boardmember Gitelson stated that he is concerned with the wording of the letter. It refers to a project that will"benefit all". He was concerned that this may not be the case. The letter doesn't alert neighbors to the details of the project. Boardmember Drew referred to the additional three feet at the back of the alley. His concern was that more trash would accumulate there. He asked if the city is responsible for cleaning up this area. Mr. Luttrell responded that it is the property owner's responsibility. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. Lew Winchell, 6101 North 53rd Drive, an officer of Western Stucco, stated that they have been trying for some time to come to an arrangement where they can improve the property. They gave up a couple of years of rent in the meantime. He noted that Cerreta's did a good job of improving the building they are in. He also stated that there are more regulations today than there were fifteen years ago. The lots are extremely small for the MA zoning that they carry. He believes they are making a marked improvement the property. The building would be fireproof. There would also be an alley you could drive through. He stated that there will be six feet at the back to permit a fire escape. If the variance is not allowed, it would not be economically feasible to build on the property. Boardmember Neyer asked what the proposed use of the building is. Mr. Winchell responded that they did try to rent it to Cerreta's, but Cerreta's couldn't wait until the variance went through. If they do get a variance, it will be offered to Cerreta's. Boardmember Neyer asked him if they'll be renting the building instead of occupying the building. Mr. Winchell responded that this is correct. He also stated that they would like to have the rental property in good taste so if they chose to sell it,they could. Boardmember Drew asked why they should allow a variance from the building to the north property line and not ask them to set back the property line where the building is not going to be. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 4 Mr. Winchell responded that this is because they already had to reduce the size of the proposed building from 14,000 square feet to 13,000 feet and he's at the point where he won't reduce it any further. Boardmember Drew stated that his concern is from the front of the building to the front of the street (54th Avenue) wherethereis no_building. It looks like it would be one yard touching into another yard. Mr. Luttrell stated that there is a building setback of twenty five feet. Boardmember Drew referred to the two loading docks and asked what size vehicles they would be loading there. Mr. Winchell stated that although they are identified as loading docks on the plan, they are actually loading doors at grade level. Boardmember Koehler asked what the building height will be. Mr. Winchell stated that it will be sixteen to eighteen feet. Boardmember Koehler asked if the building is planned for occupancy as an industrial warehouse. Mr. Winchell stated that it will be primarily industrial, but they are going to try to arrange it so that if they choose to,they can divide the space and put in other suites. Boardmember Koehler asked if they planned to design the interior to suit the users. Mr. Winchell stated that this is correct. Boardmember Koehler stated that he felt this would be of benefit. Boardmember Drew asked if the 12 foot easement on the side would be strictly for Mr. Winchell's use or anyone who wanted to use it as a driveway. Mr. Winchell stated that it is a private easement for his and the tenant's use. He does not intend it to be a public alley. Chairperson Cheniae asked if the staff had any final comments. Mr. Luttrell raised the subject of the letter to the property owners. He clarified that the letter was nothing more than a request that the property owners come to a meeting to find out what the project was about. It was not intended to give them detailed information. He pointed out that the neighbors were formally noticed regarding the variance and this meeting. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 5 Boardmember Drew asked the staff if the setbacks are three feet or six feet. Mr. Luttrell stated that the proposal is for three feet,which is the minimum they would allow. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-97-29. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-97-29. Boardmember Gitelson SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Neyer agreed with the staff recommendation that it meets findings #1, #2 and #4. She believes that Mr. Winchell has tried to make the building as small as possible by reducing the square footage. She feels that it could be nothing but an improvement for the downtown area and she supports it. Boardmember Drew felt that some of the findings fell into a gray area,but he will support it. Boardmember Piceno agreed with the staff on finding #1, #2 and #4 being met. He also agreed with Vice Chair Neyer that finding#3 is also met. Boardmember Koehler stated that there are gray areas on#1, #2, #3 and#4. But, for the good of the city and the area, he would approve it because he feels it would be a distinct improvement to the area. Boardmember Gitelson concurred. His only concern would be how this would affect future "old buildings". Chairperson Cheniae concurred that all four findings have been met and would support this. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ZV-98-17 A request by Kevin Garrison to allow the following in the R-O (Residential Office) zoning district: 1. Allow parking spaces to be located closer than ten (10) feet to the side and rear property lines. 2. Reduce the required landscape buffer from fifteen (15) feet to seven feet, nine inches (7' 9") along the east property line. 3. Reduce the required parking space width from ten (10) feet to nine (9) feet. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 6 4. Eliminate the required six (6) foot high block wall along the east property line. Molly Hood presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She concluded her presentation by stating that staff felt the first three variance requests appeared to meet all of the findings. Variance request#4 meets-findings#1 and#4,but-#2 and#3 are debatable. Boardmember Drew asked Ms. Hood to define a parking lot screen wall. Ms. Hood stated that the purpose of a parking lot screen wall is to block the headlights from the cars in the parking lot from shining into traffic on 59th Avenue which is southwest of the parking lot. Boardmember Koehler asked if the existing fence is on the neighbor's property and if it is ample fencing. Ms. Hood responded that there is a chain link fence with slats on the neighbor's property. She also stated that the oleander hedge on the applicant's property is a sufficient buffer. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he thought he witnessed three different fences on the property going north to south: A block wall at least six feet tall, progressing south on the east boundary; a chain link fence with slats in it and progressing south still on the east boundary and oleanders. He asked if they were on the property line, the applicant's property, or the adjacent landowner's property. Ms. Hood responded that the chain link fence is on the adjacent property, and the block wall and the oleanders are on the applicant's property. She stated that the existing block wall on the applicant's property only runs the length of the house. Chairperson Cheniae asked where the six foot wall would be built if the variance were not granted. Ms. Hood stated that it would be built on the property line adjacent to the chain link fence. She recommended that the oleanders stay in place. Chairperson Cheniae noted that there was zero participation in the public participation aspect in this case. He thought it would be nice to know if the adjacent landowner has a problem with the existing situation. We were informed that the adjacent landowner was present at the meeting. Boardmember Drew asked if the property owner would have to fill the spaces where the oleander hedge was incomplete. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 7 Ms. Hood stated that the City would require that additional oleanders be put in. The applicant removed dead oleanders and will replace them. Boardmember Koehler noted that there is heavy traffic on 59th Avenue. He wondered how you could put four cars in the parking lot and not back out onto 59th Avenue. Ms. Hood responded that clients would enter from the alley and exit onto 59th Avenue or on the next block. Boardmember Koehler stated that the average car is eighteen feet long. He asked if there would be ample space for the maneuvering of full size vehicles to get in and out of the area. Ms. Hood responded that the lot meets the minimum requirements and has been reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Department. Boardmember Koehler asked how many employees would be parking there. Ms. Hood responded that one attorney and one secretary would be parking there each day, according to the applicant. Boardmember Piceno asked for the address of the resident to the east of the property in question. The resident, Joe Rios, responded that his address is 5849 West Orangewood. Boardmember Gitelson asked how wide the alleyway is. Ms. Hood responded that the alley is sixteen feet wide. Boardmember Gitelson asked if the alley is currently being used. Ms. Hood responded that the alley is a public right of way. Parking is prohibited. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. Kevin Garrison, 5530 West Tonopah, stated that he wants to do something good together with the City of Glendale. He bought the property fifteen months ago and his vision is close to coming true. The property, which was quite an eyesore, is now quite improved. He believes he has done everything he could to impact the neighbors as little as possible. He stated that in regards to parking, on many days he will have no visitors as much:of his communication with clients is on the telephone and not necessarily in person. To park, clients will nose into the property, back up and leave front end. He has done it himself many times. He guarantees the City of Glendale will like the finished product. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 8 Boardmember Drew noticed a barbecue in the corner. He asked if the area with the barbecue will be used as an entranceway for customers or if they will come in through the doorway on the front of the building facing 59th Avenue. The applicant responded that his clients will enter through the front door. The area with the barbecue will be.a private.patio.... Boardmember Drew asked the applicant if he thought his customers may need to park on Orangewood. Mr. Garrison stated that he will instruct his visitors to park in his lot. Boardmember Gitelson asked if the property is wheelchair accessible. Mr. Garrison replied that he will meet all ADA standards. Boardmember Piceno asked if it would be a problem to replicate the existing wall on the east property line south all the way to the alley. Mr. Garrison responded that it would be a financial burden. He stated that he does not know what the exact cost would be. He is spending approximately $35,000 on improvements. If he were to build a block wall, the oleanders would have to be removed. He feels that his proposal is a suitable alternative. Chairperson Cheniae stated that in regard to the three existing fences, if the adjacent landowner has no problem with them,then he'll have no problem with it. Mr. Garrison stated that the property owners won't have a problem. The adjacent property owner, Joe Rios, 5849 West Orangewood, stated that he has two concerns. The first concern is the buffer and the block wall. If Mr. Garrison moved, what kind of business would move in and what level of noise would it generate? The second concern is parking on Orangewood. If one or two cars were parked there, they would block where Mr. and Mrs. Rios park next to the house. Chairperson Cheniae asked how Mr. Rios felt about variance request #4, whereby the extension of the existing brick wall will not be made. The existing fence and the oleanders form a natural barrier. He asked if this is a concern to Mr. Rios. Mr. Rios is concerned that in the event of the business being sold, what would happen to the oleander and fence at that time. Boardmember Drew asked if Mr. Rios feels that the hedge is a sufficient sound barrier. October 8, 1998. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 9 Mr. Rios stated that he thought the hedge would be sufficient, provided it remains in place and is not removed at a later date. Chairperson Cheniae asked Mr. Rios if he would support variance #4 if the oleanders were not removed. Mr. Rios stated that under those circumstances,he would support variance#4. Boardmember Piceno asked Mr. Rios if it would cause him emotional duress if a footer were trenched for a block wall. Mr. Rios said it would not. Boardmember Piceno is concerned that the parking in the lot would disturb not only Mr. Rios, but the person who may buy Mr. Rios' house in the future. Boardmember Neyer asked if Mr. Garrison's property had been rezoned for Residential Office. Mr. Jacobs stated that Residential Office zoning is limited to Professional or Administrative Office. It does not allow any type of sales. Chairperson Cheniae pointed out that it is designated as a historical area which brings with it certain protections and restrictions as it relates to uses that are not consistent with a historical district. Boardmember Gitelson asked if there is a code that mandates that the oleander hedge must be maintained and how this would be handled. Ms. Hood stated that it is the applicant's responsibility to maintain the hedge as a requirement of the Design Review process. Boardmember Gitelson asked if a stipulation could be added that the wall be maintained. Mr. Jacobs stated that if the landscaping is a part of the approved Design Review, the property owner could be cited by Code, if it was removed. Boardmember Drew asked if the Board could stipulate that the hedge take the place of the block wall and could not be removed. Mr. Jacobs stated that Design Review approval stipulations will serve that function. Boardmember Koehler stated that oleanders are detrimental to some people's health. They are poisonous. He asked if the stipulation must require that the hedge be oleanders. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 10 Ms. Hood stated that the additional oleanders are to be added to maintain consistency with what's existing on the property and surrounding area. They are tentatively approved as proposed. Chairperson Cheniae asked if the type of species of plant (poisonous or otherwise) used to landscape would be determined by the Design Review.team. . Ms. Hood stated that the plans are routed to the City's Landscape Architect who reviews the proposals for the plant type, size, etc. Boardmember Drew asked Mr. Rios if he would be satisfied if the oleander were used in lieu of a block wall. Mr. Rios felt oleanders would be sufficient. Chairperson Cheniae asked if Mr. Garrison had any closing comments. Mr. Garrison stated that he is pleased with the teamwork he has seen. He felt he was asking for the minimum to make this work. He felt that most of the concerns appear to be about the potential sale of the business in the future. Since he is putting a good deal of money into this project, he intends to be there for some time. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-98-17. Boardmember Neyer made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-98-17. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Neyer felt all requirements have been met. She did not feel there would be much traffic. She believes the oleanders would be a good buffer and would blend in. She supported the variances. Boardmember Koehler was not concerned with the noise. He also felt the oleanders should be a good buffer. In regard to variance #3, he felt the nine foot parking spaces are too narrow. However,he had no serious objections and felt all four requirements were met. Boardmember Gitelson concurred with the other boardmembers. Boardmember Piceno had no problem with variances #1 - 3. He did have reservations about #4. He didn't feel the cost of the block wall would be too significant. He is concerned that in the event of Mr. Rios' selling his property, the new property owner may not be happy with the arrangement. He could not support variance#4. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 11 Boardmember Drew felt that building a six foot fence would detract from the neighborhood. Considering the proximity to 59th Avenue,he didn't feel it would ever be a residence again. The parking situation did not concern him. He felt it met all the criteria. Chairperson Cheniae concurred on #'s 1, 2 and 3. He stated that as long as the Design Review process can control that,thebuffer ismaintained, he would support#4. ... ... Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED 5 - 1, with Boardmember Piceno voting Nay. Chairperson Cheniae called for a five minute break. The hearing resumed at 8:40 p.m. 3. ZV-98-18 A variance request by John P. and Kimberly Abberton to allow a 10-foot east sideyard setback where fifteen (15) feet is the minimum required in the SR-17 (Suburban Residence) zoning district. Elizabeth Logan presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She stated that the variance should actually read: A variance request by John P. And Kimberly Abberton to allow a 10-foot east sideyard setback where fifteen (15) feet is the minimum required in the SR-17 (Suburban Residence) zoning district. She concluded her presentation by stating that staff felt the request appeared to meet findings#1, #2 and#4. Whether finding#3 is met is debatable. Chairperson Cheniae referred to the Citizen Participation Report and asked where Mr. and Mrs. James Coury live in relation to the property. Ms. Logan stated that they are the owners of the vacant property to the east. They also sold Mr. Abberton the subject property. Chairperson Cheniae also asked where Mr. and Mrs. Bill Hayes reside. Mr. Abberton,the applicant,pointed out the neighbors on the overhead projector. Chairperson Cheniae asked if the Coury's have a problem with this. Mr. Abberton stated that they do not. Ms. Logan stated that the applicant notified not only the five property owners in the immediate section but also those six property owners to the north. Mr. And Mrs. Bill Hayes are part of the interested parties list that have requested to be notified of all public hearings in this district. Chairperson Cheniae stated that for future reference it would be helpful to him if the Citizen Participation portion of the report contained more details as to where these people live in relationship to the subject property. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 12 Boardmember Drew agreed with the Chairman. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he would place more weight on a letter received from a neighbor who lives next door to the subject property than he would from neighbors who live a block away. Boardmember Gitelson_referred_.to._the .applicant'sletter that...mentioned case #ZV-98-11 on August 13, 1998 which was a similar case. He asked if the variance had been granted in that case. Ms. Logan stated that it had been granted in August, 1998. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. John Abberton, 6231 West North Lane, thanked the board for hearing his variance. He also thanked Ms. Logan for her assistance in this matter. He stated that both he and his wife attended Glendale Union High School District schools. He coached Babe Ruth baseball for three years. His wife is active in girl scouts. He also coached basketball and t-ball for the last two years for his own kids. He stated that they have been looking for the last two years for a new place to live. When they purchased the land, the accompanying drawings showed ten foot setbacks on each side. This is in keeping with other houses in the area. He stated that the garage has been redesigned five times and this is the only way he can make it work. He stated that he is requesting the variance to make entry and exit from the driveway easier. Boardmember Gitelson asked if the total building square footage is 3,200 square feet or 4,300 square feet. Mr. Abberton responded that under roof it is 4,300 square feet. Boardmember Koehler asked if the neighbor to his east had no problem with the variance. Mr. Abberton stated that the neighbor had no problem with it. Boardmember Gitelson pointed out that the vacant lot will eventually be sold to another individual whose opinion we won't be able to ask before we grant the variance. Mr. Abberton stated that he wanted to clear up the fact that the variance is on the east side versus the west side as was stated on the original agenda. Chairperson Cheniae assured him that it was corrected at the beginning of the meeting. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-98-18. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-98-18. Boardmember Piceno SECONDED the MOTION. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 13 Boardmember Gitelson stated that he had nothing to add to the previous discussion. Boardmember Koehler felt that the request was reasonable and that it met all four standards and is consistent with what the board has done over the past year or so. Boardmember Piceno concurred.with staff.that,therequired.findings #1, #2, and #4 have been met. He stated that the comments made by the applicant convinced him that he has made a good effort to meet fording #3 so that it would not create a hardship on him. He recommended approval of the motion. Boardmember Drew agreed on #1, #2 and #4. He was not totally sure on #3. But, to be consistent he would have no problem with it. Boardmember Neyer concurred with the board. Chairperson Cheniae concurred that findings #1, #2 and #4 have been met. Since the property was involved with a rezoning, the character of the neighborhood was established prior to the rezoning whereby existing properties have ten foot setbacks, he took the position that finding #3 had also been met. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED unanimously. 4. ZV-98-19 A request by Z.J. Martin's General Contractors on behalf of Al and Carol Davis to allow the following: 1. An 18-foot sideyard setback where 50 feet is the minimum required. 2. Lot coverage of 14.5%where 10% is the maximum permitted. Ms. Logan presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She concluded her presentation by stating that the request meets findings #1, #2 and #4. Finding #3 will be met if the board believes the proposed setback and lot coverage are the minimum necessary to relieve the property hardship. Boardmember Neyer asked if the current house meets the setbacks. Ms. Logan stated that it does not. Boardmember Drew noted that by today's code standards, many of the existing houses would be located differently. Chairperson Cheniae stated that that is the problem that A-1 zoning presents. He asked Mr. Jacobs to give Boardmember Gitelson the background on the A-1 zoning and what it does not do for us. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 14 Mr. Jacobs stated that the A-1 (Agricultural District) in the previous ordinance was somewhat similar to the County's Rural 43 District, which included a wide range of uses including residences and a variety of other uses. The intent of the zoning ordinance change in 1993 was that the A-1 (Agricultural Zoning District) would in fact become an agricultural district which was its original intent. Subdivisions zoned A-1 would be rezoned to appropriate SR-30 or SR-17 suburban zoning.district. The xevised zoningordinancehascreated-a number of non-conforming lots and structures which result in numerous variance requests. Chairperson Cheniae called the applicant to speak. Bob White, 7344 West Banff Lane, representing Z.J. Martin's General Contractors, stated that they would construct a 13' x 22' room addition to the master bedroom, withan adjacent patio. Construction will conform with the home and the surrounding neighborhood. The home will be repainted. The requested setback is on the west corner of the patio. Boardmember Drew asked if the patio will be open. The applicant responded that the patio will be open and tie into the existing patio. The patio will be L-shaped. Chairperson Cheniae closed the public hearing on ZV-98-19. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to approve ZV-98-19. Boardmember Neyer SECONDED the MOTION. Boardmember Neyer had no problem with the variance. She noted that the Board has approved a number of similar variances in the past. Boardmember Drew felt it would be consistent with the neighborhood and with what the Board has done in the past. Boardmember Gitelson agreed with the board. Boardmember Piceno concurred with the staff's conclusion. He felt all four findings have been met. Boardmember Koehler felt all findings have been met. Chairperson Cheniae concurred that all findings have been met. He felt the proposed construction, which will require the setback, is consistent with the design of other houses. He saw no problem with it. Chairperson Cheniae called for a Roll Call Vote, and the MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 15 Chairperson Cheniae asked if there was any Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Cheniae asked if there were any Planning Staff Reports. Mr. Jacobs welcomed the new Boardmember, Richard Gitelson. We now have six boardmembers._He.suggested.holding a.workshop for the new.boardmembers on.November 12, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. This is the same night as the board meeting. Dinner would be provided. Boardmember Drew stated that he is flexible and should be able to attend the workshop as long as he is given ample notice. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he is flexible and November 12, 1998 is fine with him. He also stated that he will not be present for the December board meeting. Ms. Neyer felt that holding the workshop on the same night as the meeting would work best for her. She asked how long the meeting would last. Mr. Jacobs stated it would last from 5:30 until just before 7:00 p.m. when the Board of Adjustment hearing begins. Mr. Gitelson stated that he would have to check his schedule before he could commit to attending the workshop. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he will talk to Councilmember Martinez about appointing the seventh boardmember who will come from the Yucca District. Chairperson Cheniae stated that he and Boardmember Koehler attended a one-day session last year presented by the Arizona Depailtuent of Commerce for new Board of Adjustment members. He felt that it was very beneficial. He felt this class would be a good supplement to the workshop. Boardmember Koehler agreed. Mr. Jacobs stated that the workshop for new boardmembers was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. and will be held in Conference Room 2-A. Dinner will be provided. Boardmember Gitelson asked that any information on the workshop be included in the packet we send out prior to the board meeting. Chairperson Cheniae asked for any Board Comments and Suggestions. Chairperson Cheniae welcomed Boardmember Gitelson to the Board of Adjustments. October 8, 1998 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Page 16 Boardmember Gitelson stated that he looks forward to serving on the board. Chairperson Cheniae informed Boardmember Gitelson of the Open Meeting Law. He stated that Boardmembers may not meet outside of the hearings to discuss items on the.case. Mr. Flaaen stated that up tothree.Boardmembers.could meet outside of the boardroom, but not four, since that would constitute a quorum. Boardmember Gitelson asked how he should respond if someone who has something before the Board approaches him outside of the meeting and asks what his position is on a given matter. Rick Flaaen stated that this will be covered in the workshop. He stated that a boardmember's only obligation is to try to dissuade a person from making contact and to encourage that person to come to the meeting and share the comments with the entire board. Since there was no further business, Chairperson Cheniae called for a MOTION to adjourn. Boardmember Piceno made a motion to adjourn. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Katie Douglas, Recording Secretary