Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Boards of Adjustment - Meeting Date: 12/14/2000 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS BUILDING CONERENCE ROOM B-3 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,DECEMBER 14, 2000 7:00 P.M. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. by the Chairperson, Ron Piceno, with the following members and representatives present: BOARDMEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Piceno, Chairperson Gordon Cheniae, Vice Chairperson Hector Castro Daniel Drew Robert Koehler Gayle Laureta Ann Ransom BOARDMEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Gitelson CITY STAFF: Jim Flenner,Deputy City Attorney Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator Molly Hood, Senior Planner Charles Beck, Planner Linda Graham, Recording Secretary Chairperson Piceno explained the Board's policies and hearing procedures. A MOTION to APPROVE the minutes from the November 9, 2000 meeting was made, seconded and passed by a vote of 6-0. Chairperson Piceno called for Business from the Floor. There was none. Chairperson Piceno asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. There were none. Chairperson Piceno stated the Board is required to hold a public hearing before making a decision on a variance or appeal request. He explained the purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present testimony for the Board's consideration. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 2 Chairperson Piceno called for the first public hearing item on the agenda. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-32 REQUEST: A request by Jon Chonka, representing Arrowhead Executive Property LLC, for a variance to allow three vehicle stacking spaces for a drive-thru teller window where six stacking spaces are required in the PAD zoning district. The property is located at 17235 North 75 th Avenue. Staff contact: Molly Hood (Cholla District). Ms. Hood presented the application, reviewing the site and request. She said the variance does not appear to meet any of the required findings. Boardmember Drew asked if the applicant has discussed different design alternatives with the City. Ms. Hood said they discussed alternative locations with the applicant, specifically in regards to parking, during preapplication discussions. She stated the Applicant argued the city's alternative would take away too many parking spaces for the rest of the center. Vice Chairperson Cheniae asked if the applicant provided any specific data to support their claim they would have fewer transactions than a regular bank. Ms. Hood stated they did not. Boardmember Laureta asked for clarification of the three vehicle stacking and if it extends towards 75th Avenue. Ms. Ransom reviewed the location of the stacking area, noting it would end at the entrance to the driveway. Mr. Jon Chonka, applicant's architect, said they do not see a need for six-car stacking in the drive-thru area. He said they explored a 120-foot stacking area in the center island and found it would require eliminating too many parking spaces. He stated video conferencing between a drive-thru teller and the customer is cumbersome and he believes eye contact is an important component of their business. Mr. Brian English, on behalf of Sun Community Bank Corporation, stated they have eight banks in the state of Arizona, with six located in the valley and two in Tucson. He explained they hire local officers and bring on a local Board of Directors. He said, unlike other larger banks, loan decisions are made on site. He noted Arrowhead Community Bank is the first and only Community Bank in Glendale. He said their client base is primarily small business and high net- worth individuals. He noted they offer a courier service, which helps eliminate the need for customers to come to the bank. In regards to the findings, he said the bank did not impose the special circumstances or conditions they now face. He stated denial of the application would deprive them of privileges enjoyed by other banks. He referred to two letters from other Community Banks testifying to the fact that they do not have many customers. He acknowledged staff's concern that the use could change if, at a later date, the bank evolved into a full-service bank. He said he respects that concern, but assured the Board they have no intention of leaving. He suggested the Board tie the variance to the Applicant so, if the Applicant leaves December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 3 the location, the variance is terminated. He expressed his opinion that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the problem. He noted using the middle isle would eliminate no fewer than 11 parking spaces. He said using video camera's would not be appropriate for their business because they are about community banking. He stated the variance would not have a detrimental effect on the property and, in fact, introducing a community bank to the area would add a lot to the community. He suggested the drive-thru service would be a benefit to older customers who do not like to leave their cars and walk inside. He stated they sent out a citizen action letter to approximately 55 local residents and received no adverse responses. He referred to the 1997 variance request by Washington Federal Savings & Loan stating their request is identical. Boardmember Drew asked what the distance would be between the customers and the drive-thru teller. Mr. English estimated the distance to be 15 to 20 feet. Mr. Drew asked Mr. English if they have ever considered bringing traffic in in the reverse direction. Mr. English stated they have not because it would position the customers in the wrong direction. Mr. Chonka agreed having more than four cars stacked up would cause a problem, stating, however, it is highly unlikely that would ever happen. Vice Chairperson Cheniae asked how many customers they would need to have for the bank to maintain itself. Mr. Chonka estimated needing 200 to 300 customers. Vice Chairperson Cheniae clarified that the Board is charged with evaluating a request for a variance based on the use of the property, not the individual applicant. He said they have to consider what problems the city might encounter in the future. Boardmember Drew reiterated that the variance is given to the property and cannot be attached to a particular tenant. Mr. Chonka explained he got the idea from Stipulation 1 in the Washington Federal Savings and Loan case, which stated the variance would only apply while the building was occupied by the savings and loan operation. In response to Boardmember Drew's question, Mr. Chonka confirmed they do not own the property in question. Boardmember Castro asked if the Bank would turn people away if they got to a certain number of customers. Mr. English said controlling growth is part of their philosophy and they would do so by pricing loans and deposits. Boardmember Koehler asked if the building was erected when they chose the location. Mr. English stated the building was not erected, however, the site plan was approved. He explained they tried to modify the site plan, but the property owner refused. Boardmember Koehler asked if the property currently used as a drainage area along 75`11 Avenue could be filled and utilized. Mr. English confirmed that that property could not be used. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 4 Chairperson Piceno called for the Applicant's closing remarks. Mr. English emphasized that they offer a courier service, stating it significantly reduces the amount of traffic to the bank. Mr. Chonka said he does a lot of work for Wells Fargo Bank and they usually try to get eight to 10 teller stations for a 4,000 square foot branch. The Applicant made no further comments. Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing portion of this case. Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-32. Vice Chairperson Cheniae SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Laureta asked for confirmation that a variance cannot be tied to a particular applicant. Mr. Flenner confirmed the variance would be tied to the land. Boardmember Laureta asked if anyone has additional information as to why the 1997 variance for Washington Federal Savings and Loan was granted. Boardmember Koehler stated the property was located in front of a K-Mart and the parking area could be ingressed without blocking the road going into the rest of the shopping center. Ms. Hood noted that any congestion caused in the Washington Federal situation would have impacted their site only, whereas, congestion caused by the variance at issue would impact surrounding businesses and possibly even traffic on 75th Avenue. Boardmember Laureta said she is pleased with the concept of the bank itself, however, she does not believe the four requirements have been met. She explained she is particularly concerned about potential congestion towards 75th Avenue and the crossing of exit and entrance traffic. She stated she believes the applicant's promise of low volume, however, there is no guarantee that a majority of that volume would not come at the same time, resulting in stacking. Boardmember Ransom agreed community banking is a great concept, stating, however, she believes 75th Avenue and Bell Road is a poor spot because of existing traffic problems. She suggested it is more of a landlord/tenant problem than a city variance issue. Boardmember Drew said he likes the bank's concept, however, he sees this as a tenant asking for a variance change on a piece of property it does not own. He said the variance would stay with the property and they have no guarantees as to what could happen to the property in the future. He said, therefore, he could not support the motion. Vice Chairperson Cheniae said he concurs with the staff report's conclusion that none of the four findings were met. Boardmember Koehler stated he could not support the request because it does not meet the four required findings. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 5 Boardmember Castro stated he, too, could not support the request. Chairperson Piceno expressed his opinion that the hardship is more on the bank than on the property itself. He said, therefore, he could not support approval of the request. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION FAILED by a vote of 7 to 0. Chairperson Piceno informed the applicant they are entitled to appeal the action and may do so by contacting the Planning Department. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-15 REQUEST: A request by Larry O'Neil for a variance to allow side setbacks of 12 feet and 23 feet where 50 feet is required, front yard setback of 21 feet where 75 feet is required, and a lot coverage of 25% where 10% is allowed in an A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. Located at 6128 West Marconi Avenue. Staff Contact: Charles Beck (Sahuaro District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He said Findings 1 and 2 are met for all the variances and Finding 3 is met for the side setback variance. He stated whether or not Finding 3 is met for the lot coverage and front setback variance is debatable. He said Finding 4 is met for the lot coverage and side setback variances, however whether or not it is met for the front setback variance is debatable. Ms. Margaret O'Neil, 6128 West Marconi Avenue, Glendale, explained they decided to enclose the garage last spring after their car had been broken into. She said they did not realize they had done anything wrong since the carport already existed. She noted they were having a pool built at the same time and an inspector who visited their site several times finally alerted them that they needed a variance. She said she originally met with Ms. Hacker who told her to continue building the walls in order to protect their property. She explained Mr. Beck eventually took the matter over from Ms. Hacker. She noted 44 of the approximately 70 houses in the area have garages or rooms instead of carports. She explained they extended the carport three feet to accommodate parking and access to their laundry room. Chairperson Piceno asked if the carport was in place and extending three feet from the front of the house when they put the walls up. Ms. O'Neil stated that was correct. Boardmember Drew asked Ms. O'Neil why they are requesting a 25 percent increase in lot coverage. Mr. Beck said the Applicant was advised to apply for a variance that would allow additional accessory buildings. Ms. O'Neil said Ms. Hacker suggested they request the increase to 25 percent to accommodate future expansion. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 6 Boardmember Ransom asked how tall is the fence along 61St Avenue and did it require a special permit. Ms. O'Neil explained they originally had a chain link fence and tore it down and put up a block fence. She estimated it to be approximately four feet from the sidewalk. In response to Boardmember Koehler's question, Ms. O'Neil explained she and her ex-husband purchased the house in 1979 and were the initial owners. She clarified that Butram Construction built the house. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing portion of the case. Vice Chairperson Cheniae made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-15. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Vice Chairperson Cheniae agreed Findings 1 and 2 were met, however believes it is questionable that Findings 3 and 4 were. He said he does not have a problem with additional lot coverage if it prevents an applicant from having to come back before the Board in the future. Boardmember Koehler said he sees no problem in meeting Findings 1, 2 and 4, however, believes the lot coverage increase requested is excessive. He suggested approving the current plan with a maximum of 20 percent lot coverage. Ms. O'Neil said she would agree to a 20 percent lot coverage. Boardmember Castro agreed Findings 1, 2 and 4 were met. He said he also has a problem with a 25 percent lot coverage. Boardmember Drew said he believes Findings 1 and 2 were met, however he is not sure about Findings 3 and 4. He said he would support the request. Boardmember Ransom said she does not support 25 percent lot coverage. Boardmember Laureta said she, too, could not support 25 percent lot coverage. She stated, however, she believes the Applicant had a valid reason for extending the garage. Chairperson Piceno noted the Board has been lenient in the past on similar requests, stating he could support the variance request as is. Boardmember Koehler requested the motion be modified to limit the maximum lot coverage to 20 percent. Vice Chairperson Cheniae AMENDED his MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-15 to reflect a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 7 Chairperson Piceno opened the floor up for discussion on the amended motion. Boardmember Drew asked what a five-percent reduction would amount to in terms of square footage. Boardmember Koehler said a five-percent reduction would equal approximately 800 square feet. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The AMENDED MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to O. The Board recessed for a short break. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-23 REQUEST: A request by Mike Bejarano for a variance to allow a 5- foot east side setback where 15 feet is required in a R-2 (Multiple Residence) zoning district. Located at 5427 West Northview Avenue. Staff Contact: Charles Beck (Ocotillo District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He stated the request appears to meet all of the required findings. Mr. Mike Bejarano, applicant, made no comment. The Board members asked no questions of Mr. Beck or the Applicant. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Upon receiving no requests to address the Board, he closed the public hearing portion of the case. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-23. Boardmember Ransom SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Boardmember Drew expressed his opinion the variance meets all four required findings. Vice Chairperson Cheniae agreed all four findings were met. Boardmember Ransom asked the Applicant if he owns the cement slab to the east. Mr. Bejarano said he does. He explained they shortened the front lawn and extended the width of the driveway. Boardmember Ransom asked for confirmation that there are no plans to build a garage in the future. Mr. Bejarano stated they do not, noting the area is too small. Boardmember Ransom stated she approves of the present plan. Boardmember Koehler agreed all four findings were met. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 8 Boardmember Laureta stated she has no objection to the variance request. Boardmember Castro said he agrees with staff's analysis. Chairperson Piceno also agreed that the four required findings were met. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-24 REQUEST: A request by Kenneth and Denise Poage for a variance to allow a fireplace to encroach 21 feet in to the required 5 foot side setback, in a R1-7 PRD (Single Residence, Planned Residential Development) zoning district. Located at 6569 West Piute Avenue. Staff contact: Charles Beck(Cholla District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He stated the request meets all required findings. Vice Chairperson Cheniae asked if the fireplace was originally part of the floor plan of the house. Mr. Beck explained the floor standards allowed for a fireplace to be installed on the side that has a 10-foot setback. He explained that the builder plumed that side of the house when the floor plan was flipped. The applicant was not present to address the Board. Boardmember Ransom asked Mr. Beck if there are any issues with respect to the fire department or their codes. Mr. Beck said he discussed it with the fire department and they had no issue with the request. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing portion of the case. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-24. Vice Chairperson Cheniae SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. No additional comments were made. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to 0. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments _ Page 9 APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-25 REQUEST: A request by Michael and Mary Jessburger for a variance to allow lot coverage of 15% where 10% is the maximum allowed in an A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. Located at 5431 West Escuda Road. Staff Contact: Charles Beck (Cholla District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He said the variance appears to meet findings 1, 2 and 3, however finding 4 is perhaps debatable due to the placement of the structure for which the variance is proposed. He said, should the Board decide to grant the variance, it should do so subject to the stipulations contained in the staff report. Vice Chairperson Cheniae asked if the stipulation recommended by staff takes into account where staff feels the property line should be. Mr. Beck said staff visited and measured the site and concluded the property line is four feet in from where the property owner says it is. He stated he cannot definitively say where the property line is. Boardmember Koehler asked if they are being asked to either allow or disallow construction consistent with proper setback lines. Mr. Beck explained the property has to meet development standards when it applies for a permit and anyone questioning the location of the property line could do so in civil court. Boardmember Koehler asked if the complainant would be informed when a permit is applied for. Mr. Jacobs said the complainant has been part of the discussions and the Board only has to concern itself with the actual percentage of lot coverage. Mr. Michael Jessburger, 5431 West Escuda Road, Glendale, explained they intend to cover the horse corral to keep their horses out of the weather. Ms. Jessburger noted the structure is portable and can be moved if necessary. Boardmember Ransom asked what is the structure to the west. The applicants explained it is an open turnout area. Boardmember Drew asked Mr. and Ms. Jessburger if they had any problems with the stipulations recommended by staff. Ms. Jessburger stated they do not. Boardmember Koehler asked if the cover would be solid. Ms. Jessburger stated it would be. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Ms. Theresa Stoddard, 5415 West Escuda read a prepared statement outlining her and her husband's reasons for opposing the applicant's request including the reason they purchased the property was the open space and rural appearance. Boardmember Drew said it is his understanding that the applicants are intending to build a cover, not an entire structure. Ms. Stoddard questioned what would prevent subsequent owners of the property from enclosing the structure. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 10 Boardmember Castro asked Ms. Stoddard when they moved into their house. Ms. Stoddard said they moved in in 1995. Boardmember Castro asked Ms. Stoddard how many horses they thought they were allowed to have. Ms. Stoddard said she was under the impression they were allowed to have one horse per 10,000 square feet of open space. Boardmember Castro asked for clarification as to the number of horses allowed. Chairperson Piceno said they are allowed to have as many as they want, subject to the county's sanitation requirements. Vice Chairperson Cheniae asked Ms. Stoddard what relationship the property next to them being for sale had on the variance. Ms. Stoddard explained the applicant's property is for sale so she does not understand why they are requesting the variance. Vice Chairperson Cheniae suggested the variance would enhance the value of the property. Boardmember Laureta asked Ms. Stoddard if her primary objection is that she does not like the corral being located close to her property. Ms. Stoddard explained they are awakened early in the morning by the applicant's horses. Boardmember Laureta asked Ms. Stoddard if she would be more agreeable to the variance if the corral were moved. Ms. Stoddard stated she might be. The applicant made no further comment. Boardmember Laureta said she believes there is a debate as to whether the variance would have a detrimental effect on an adjoining property. She asked the applicant if a compromise could be worked out regarding the location of the corral. The applicant said it would depend on where they had to move the corral. Chairperson Piceno asked the applicants if the sale of their property was subject to the variance in any way. Ms. Jessburger said the perspective buyer wants to know if he can have a cover. Boardmember Koehler asked the applicants if it would make any difference whether the covered area was in the east or west corral. Ms. Jessburger explained the water and other accoutrements are in the east corral. Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing portion of the case. Vice Chairperson Cheniae made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-25 subject to the following stipulations: 1) The applicant must apply for a building permit within 30 days from the date of variance approval and 2) The accessory building setback shall be measured from the east block wall unless convincing documentation is provided to the- Planning Department to demonstrate that the property line is located elsewhere prior to the issuance of a building permit. Boardmember Drew SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 11 Boardmember Castro noted the staff report stated there have been no other variances granted in the area and asked if no requests were ever made or if they were made but not approved. Mr. Beck said there have been no variance requests for the A-1 properties in that neighborhood. Boardmember Koehler stated he believes all four findings were met and he would support approval of the motion. Vice Chairperson Cheniae said he would support approval with the two stipulations recommended by staff. He said there needs to be responsibility on the part of potential purchasers to research what zoning will allow. Boardmember Drew agreed all four findings were met, stating he does not believe the Board has authority to dictate where the additional five percent lot coverage is placed. Boardmember Ransom stated she would support the motion with the two stipulations. Boardmember Laureta said she is not sure Finding 4 was met because she believes the variance would effect an adjoining property. Chairperson Piceno agreed whether Finding 4 was met is debatable, point out, however, granting or not granting the variance would not provide relief to the adjoining neighbor. He said he would approve the motion. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6 to 1 (Boardmember Laureta voted nay). APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-27 REQUEST: A request by George Lopez for a variance to allow a 10 foot side setback where 20 feet is required and a 5 feet rear setback where 20 feet is required in a R-3 (Multiple Residence) zoning district. Located at 5436 West Ocotillo Road. Staff Contact: Charles Beck(Ocotillo District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He stated the request appears to meet all required findings. Mr. George Lopez, 5436 West Ocotillo, Glendale, explained he had his left foot amputated in May 2000 and would like to add a bedroom and bathroom to the first floor of his house for easier access. The Board members asked no questions of staff or the applicant. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing portion of the case. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 12 Boardmember Drew made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-27. Boardmember Koehler SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. All of the Board members agreed the four findings were met. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to 0. APPLICATION NO.: ZV-00-29 REQUEST: A request by Habitat for Humanity Valley of the Sun for a variance to allow 5 foot and 10 foot side setbacks where 20 feet is required in an R-3 (Multiple Residence) zoning district. Located at 6741 North 55th Drive. Staff contact: Charles Beck(Ocotillo District). Mr. Beck presented the application, reviewing the site and request. He stated the request appears to meet all required findings. Mr. Chris Wolfe, 843 East Edgemont Avenue, Phoenix, stated he is the Chief Executive Officer of Habitat for Humanity. He said the homeowner has asked to have a block wall constructed instead of a chain link fence and has offered to pay the difference. The Board had no questions for Mr. Beck or Mr. Wolfe. Chairperson Piceno opened the meeting up for public comment on this case. Mr. Mel Smith, P.O. Box 12572, Glendale, said he does not oppose the setbacks, but does oppose the project on the basis of discrimination. He explained he believes the City of Glendale's Habitat for Humanity program is discriminatory in that it sets aside city fees charged to others, including development fees, design review fees, impact fees, water/sewer fees and so forth. He stated the Glendale program also allows alley access for one group while denying it to others. He said the Glendale program also allows reduced design standards and could be detrimental to a neighborhood by allowing 15 or more units to be imposed on it. He stated that Habitat for Humanity is a great cause, however, Glendale's program is extremely discriminatory. Vice Chairperson Cheniae suggested Mr. Smith take his issues up with the City of Glendale because they go beyond the Board's responsibility. Mr. Smith said he just wanted to make his statement for the record. Boardmember Drew asked Mr. Smith what he meant by his statement that this property should not have alley access. Mr. Smith explained the appeal letter filed in his case by Councilmember Goulet stated he is opposed to him having alley access to his properties, however, the Habitat for Humanity homes will be granted alley access in the design review process. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 13 Mr. Flenner stopped the discussion of Mr. Smith's case stating it was in conflict with the open meeting law. Mr. Wolfe stated he takes offense to Mr. Smith's charges of discrimination. He emphasized they are held to the same standards as any other builder. No additional comments were made Chairperson Piceno closed the public hearing portion of the case. Boardmember Koehler made a MOTION to APPROVE ZV-00-29. Boardmember Laureta SECONDED the MOTION. Chairperson Piceno opened the floor to discussion. Vice Chairperson Cheniae stated he believes all four findings were met and he would support the variance. Boardmember Koehler said he also feels all four findings were met. He suggested Mr. Smith use this case to reinforce his position of having alley access. Boardmembers Castro, Laureta and Drew and Chairperson Piceno all agreed the findings were met. Chairperson Piceno called for a Roll Call Vote. The MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7 to 0. Chairperson Piceno called for Other Business. There was none. Chairperson Piceno called for the Planning Staff Report. Mr. Jacobs apologized for the delay in delivering the Board member's packets. He explained Mr. Beck attempted to obtain pictures of the sites to enhance the presentations and asked if the Board felt they were helpful. Chairperson Piceno expressed his opinion that they were. Chairperson Piceno presented Vice Chairperson Cheniae with a plaque in recognition of his dedicated service on the Glendale Board of Adjustment. Vice Chairperson Cheniae said he has enjoyed serving on the Board and thanked the Planning and Attorney staff for their support. He explained he accepted another appointment and, as of January, would be serving on the Glendale Personnel Board. Chairperson Piceno called for Board Comments and Suggestions. December 14,2000 Board of Adjustments Page 14 Boardmember Laureta asked if the Board ever imposes a time limit on presentations based on the number of agenda items. She noted a lot of people had to wait a very long time to have their cases heard. Chairperson Piceno stated the decision to set time limits is up to the Chair. He explained his desire is to give everyone the opportunity to speak their minds, however, agreed they need to do better at keeping comments on point. Boardmember Laureta suggested the Chair announce at the beginning of the meeting that each presentation will be limited to a certain amount of time. Boardmember Castro noted it took approximately two years for him to be called to serve on a Board from the time he submitted his name. He said he is very happy and excited to be serving on the Board. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. C 4111‘ Linda Graham,Recording Secretary