Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-08 BOA MINUTESBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 8,1992 The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona was held on June 8,1992 at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers,pursuant to the notice required by law. SYNOPSIS Agenda dated June 8,1992 accepted. Minutes for regular meeting of November 14,1991 approved as presented. BA -01-92 (Jones)appeal denied. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sanchez called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Board Members Present:Ken Sanchez,Chairman Jim Pfeifer,Vice -Chairman Mari Gardner Elise Kelley Will Leffler Ken Bluntschly Staff Present: Others Present: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE ONE OF FOURTEEN William Farrell,Board Attorney Sharyn Alger,BOA City Council Liaison Sandy Whitten,Interim Executive Secretary/ Deputy Zoning Administrator Jim Nakagawa,Interim Development Services Director/Planning Division Manager Glenn Gimbut,City Attorney Rudy Esquivias,Assistant Planner Sharon Holton,Recording Secretary Mr.Tony Vehon 230 West Tepee Street Apache Junction,AZ 85220 Mrs.Maria C.Jones 288 West Smoketree Apache Junction,AZ 85220 Mr.Niel Houck 1505 South Sixshooter Road Apache Junction,AZ 85219 Mr.Charles Ponio 475 North Saguaro Drive Apache Junction,AZ 85220 Mr.Bob Lewis 330 West Smoketree Apache Junction,AZ 85220 Ms.Judy Daniels 5465 East Greasewood Apache Junction,AZ 85219 Ms.Wanda Fankhauser 2605 South Tomahawk Road Apache Junction,AZ 85219 Mr.Bruce Ferrell 1831 East 4th Avenue Apache Junction,AZ 85219 Mr.Frank Fahey 322 West Foothill Street Apache Junction,AZ 85220 Mr.Gregory Oleksak 1740 North Apache Drive Apache Junction,AZ 85220 Ms.Velsa Kane 1950 North Idaho Road Apache Junction,AZ 85220 Ms.Mona Geibel 226 West Foothill Street Apache Junction,AZ 85220 ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA )Board Members Bluntschlv/Leffler -M/S "I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE AGENDA DATED JUNE 8,1992." VOTE:6-0 Unanimous. The motion carried. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE TWO OF FOURTEEN APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC HEARINGS )Board Members Kelley/Pfeifer -M/S "I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 14,1991 AS PRESENTED." VOTE:6-0 Unanimous. The motion carried. CASE BA -01-92 )Chairman Sanchez opened the public hearing for Case BA- 01 -92,an application of Maria C.Jones,288 West Smoketree Street,appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to cease ongoing operations on her property,and asked that remarks be kept to five minutes and a spokesperson be selected to speak for a group. Deputy Zoning Administrator Sandy Whitten informed the Board that this was an appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding applicant Maria C.Jones'property,a five -acre parcel located at 288 West Smoketree.At issue is whether having a license allowing the boarding of horses includes the right to hold auctions with sale of other people's possessions;horse shows,and team events (contests between people, horses and cattle).She said that packet exhibits include the ordinance which applies in this case,as well as correspondence,publication and newspaper advertisements for horse shows on the applicant's property. She said the job of the Zoning Administrator was to interpret the Zoning Ordinance in its strictest form according to wording to determine what zoning classification permits each and all proposed uses of land under the classification.At issue in this case was the Zoning Administ- rator's decision that though the applicant is within her rights to use her property for the boarding of horses pursuant to the equine regulations,it was not permissible under Section 15.0100 GR (General Rural zoning)to use the property for horse shows,auctions where other people's possessions are being sold,and team events (contests between people,horses and cattle).In the opinion of the Zoning Administrator,these types of activities are not specifically allowed under the equine regulations on a parcel of land which meets the requirements for the boarding of horses,and under Article 3 in the Zoning Code "the express enumeration and authorization herein of a particular class of building,structure,premises or use in a zone shall be deemed a prohibition of such building,structure,premises,or use in all other zones of more restrictive classifications." BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE THREE OF FOURTEEN Ms.Whitten said a further consideration was the possible detrimental effects these activities were having on neighboring residential properties and it was this effect on the neighborhood that was of primary concern to the Zoning Administrator. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut addressed the Board saying he wished to remind them that this case constituted an appeal of a legal interpre-tation of the Zoning Code by the Zoning Administrator.At issue was not whether these activities are a "good use"or a "bad use"for the neighbor- hood,but whether the activities being conducted were "boarding activities"as contemplated by Section 6.0130(3)of the zoning ordinance.It was the position of the Zoning Administrator that horse shows,auctions with consign- ment,and team sorting,were not included as activities under "boarding"as permitted in Section 6.0130(3).He requested permission to question the applicant or her represen-tative if a presentation was made. Ms.Whitten then showed videos of the area and the activities in question.She recommended the Zoning Administrator's decision be upheld as the horse shows and/or contests between people,horses and cattle and auctioning of other people's possessions was not permitted on property zoned General Rural,nor were these activities permitted under the Equine Ordinance regarding boarding horses.She stated the reasoning was: 1)these specific activities were not listed as permitted uses under General Rural zoning which was the designation assigned to the property. 2)these specific activities were not listed as permitted uses under Section 6.0130 (Equine Regulations)on land which is five acres in area and shown as low density residential use in the Apache Junction,Arizona General Plan. 3)Section 3.0102(g)specifically states that the expressed enumera- tion and authorization for a specific class of building,struc- ture,premise or use in a zone shall be deemed a prohibition of such building,structure,premise or use in all other zones of more restrictive classification. 4)that CB -2 listed as a permitted use "auction,public:no animals", and General Rural is a more restrictive classification. 5)that C-4 zoning would require a conditional use permit be obtained before "participant and spectator sports,recreation and enter- tainment:outdoor"would be a permitted use,and General Rural was a more restrictive classification. Chairman Sanchez asked all persons wishing to address the Board to stand and be sworn in and this was done. Mr.Tony Vehon,230 West Tepee Street,questioned if Mr.Gimbut was serving as Attorney for the Board and was informed that Mr. William Farrell was legal counsel to the Board. BOARD. OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE FOUR OFTOURTEEN' Mr.Vehon then stated he owned property within 300 feet of the applicant's property and was appearing on behalf of the applicant. He said that the applicant was requesting interpretation of the ordinance as it relates to her property and that it was their intent to show that the business conducted on this property was not the same as listed in CI -2 industrial zoning.He stated the ordinance is "silent"on the specific activities and quoted from Article 3 of the Zoning Ordinance,"Application of the Ordinance"saying under item "B"of Article 3,the terms used in the ordinance shall be interpreted according to their "common,plain,natural and accepted usage when not otherwise defined."The applicant contends that if this interpretation was used,the activities in question were not what is spelled out in the CI -2 zone which staff interprets as the proper zoning for such activities. Mr.Vehon also quoted from items "D"and "F"of Article 3 that "the application of this ordinance to any property or use classified herein shall be governed by all the particular facts of each individual case"and "every application of this ordinance to any given area, the relative importance of the interests involved shall be (1)to establish conforming uses of adjacent and surrounding properties and having an equal or higher classification,and (2)the cost of tax supported and other public services to the areas affected and an increase or decrease of this cost which might be borne by said area if a proposed use or change of classification was proposed. He said it was the applicant's contention that all surrounding properties have a right to have a boarding stable on the minimum acreage,and an unlimited number of horses,and that since it was a permitted use to have horses and boarding stables,it would have no effect on tax supported services and bring no extra tax load to the community.He quoted a section under "Regulations"stating "it is the intent of the zoning ordinance to accommodate all legal uses whenever specifically identified or not identi- fied.Uses not specifically identified shall be permitted in the district where other uses in the district may create the equivalent noise,odor, vibration,traffic generation,visual impact."He said the applicant contends that horse trailers,horses,cattle,etc.,were all permitted uses in this district and all have the same amount of noise,odor and vibration. At this time Mr.Vehon screened a videotape of the property while explaining the facilities and the activities and requested Boardmembers to keep two questions in mind: 1)"What is the common,plain,natural,and accepted definition of commercial cattle feeding sales or auction yard,and a race track or sports stadium,or rodeo,as spelled out under CI -2 (Indus- trial)zoning which is being used for comparison to applicant's operation?" 2)"Were boarding and training operations allowed to go under low- density residential areas zoned for horses because it allowed for the proper buffering,and to keep similar uses together?" BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE FIVE OF FOURTEEN Mr.Vehon said the applicant purchased property in a low -density area and started her business in a proper manner;the applicant holds a business license to operate her business on the property; and that the activities in question are not the same as those spelled out in the CI -1 (Industrial)zoning and with which the family -type activities on Mrs. Jones property were being compared.He said City staff had recommended the applicant request a conditional use permit and that two uses which might fit were 1)a racetrack,and 2)a sports arena.He said the applicant does not believe the activities being conducted on her property could be compared to a racetrack or sports arena.He requested a favorable decision of the appli- cant's appeal and offered six reasons and stipulation for such a finding: 1)These activities were not specifically spelled out in the zoning ordinance. 2)The horse shows,horse training activities,and horse and tack auctions were under the scope of related activities for a boarding stable under General Rural zoning and the Equine Ordinance. 3)The open schooling horse shows be allowed a maximum of four times a year and no more than one day per event. 4)The team -sorting training exercises be allowed not more than once per week. 5)The horse and tack auctions be allowed not more than four times per year and not more than one day per event. 6)All vehicles be kept onsite in the designated parking area. Three letters of support were presented into the record;the first being from The Arizona Horse Connection publication;the second from the John Olcott family,the third from Carol and Jim Long. City Attorney Gimbut pointed to advertisements in newspaper and Bridle and Bit publications and requested an explanation of events listed as a "jackpot shotgun"event and an "open all -breed horse show". Mr.Vehon said along with the ribbons awarded, there were fees charged for the team sorting and a 75% winner "take all" payment for the jackpot shotgun event.There was a discussion regarding the interpretation of a business license granted for "raising,showing and boarding of horses"and whether this could be interpreted to include the activities which were now taking place. Mr.Gimbut asked if the applicant hadn't been advised that she could apply for a conditional use permit for the property. He said activities of team sorting and auctions are not "spelled out"under activities listed in Section 6.01302 of the Equine Ordinance regarding the boarding of horses.Under Section 15.0101 of General Rural zoning,the public riding and boarding stable activities require a minimum ten acres and this does not fit with the applicant's five acres. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE SIX OF FOURTEEN Mr.Vehon answered this was so,but he argued that the wording in the General Rural zoning section was not modified upon the city's adoption of the Equine Ordinance;thus he contended the zoning ordi- nance contradicts itself. Chairman Sanchez asked Boardmembers if they wished to question the applicant or her representative. Board Member Kelley said she had shown horses and was unaware from her own experience that team sorting was an event at horse shows.She asked Mr.Vehon if he knew that such an event was a normal activity of horse shows? Mr.Vehon answered that he did not know of a team sorting event for horse shows,but that the "working cowhorse"events included a "cutting"activity for which team sorting could be considered a preliminary training exercise. Chairman Sanchez asked if the "public at large" was invited to ride horses at the arena. Mr.Vehon answered that anyone riding horses on the property must be riding their own horse. As there were no further questions,Chairman Sanchez said,with no objections,he would call a recess at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was reopened at 9:20 p.m. Chairman Sanchez stated that the Board would hear public comments in favor of the applicant's appeal petition. Mr.Niel Houck,1505 South Sixshooter Road, Chairman of the Superstition Horseman's Association,said the Association investigated the issues of the case and it was their opinion that Mrs.Jones is under the umbrella of the GR zoning as she was issued a business license April 20,1989,specifically stating that the raising,boarding and showing of horses conforms to the GR zoning.He said the Zoning Administrator had labeled team penning and team sorting events as rodeo events in nature and thus not in compliance with GR zoning.These events are not sanctioned rodeo events,but were new horse show activities gaining popularity throughout the country. Charles Ponio,475 North Saguaro,said activi- ties which acclimate horses to being around cattle were training exercises for showing horses.He also recommended the family atmosphere and cleanliness of the establishment. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE SEVEN OF FOURTEEN City Attorney Gimbut said although team sorting was a "new"activity,he questioned whether this was an activity contemplated to be permitted on two and one-half acres in a residential area when the code was originally adopted.He said he would leave the interpretation to the Board. Mr.Bob Lewis,330 West Smoketree,said he owned six and one-half acres next to the applicant's property and had not signed the petition.He said he had not experienced excess dust,noise or traffic from activities at the arena. Ms.Judy Daniels,5465 East Greasewood,said she assumed the City had sanctioned the competition for the Lost Dutchman Days Queen which was conducted at the arena and which she was aware because her daughter had competed.She said that if events like this are not allowed in the city,there would be dollars lost because the horse owners would be attending activities and spending their money outside the city.She addition- ally stated that if there was a law against parking on Foothill Street,the street should be posted. Mr.Vehon asked if either Board members or staff could answer whether it was illegal to park along Foothill Street if the vehicles did not block the roadway? Deputy Zoning Administrator Whitten said she was unaware of "no parking"zones along Foothill Street. Ms.Wanda Fankhauser,2605 South Tomahawk Road, said she and her husband were members of the United Professional Horsemen Association and represented the American Horse Show Association,the Desert Horse Show Association,the Tennessee Walking Horse Enthusiasts of Arizona, and the American Saddle Bred Association.She stated that she and her husband train horses at Smoketree Ranch and find that it is a clean,enjoyable,family environment. Board Member Gardner asked if only those persons who board their horses at the stable participate in the shows or were any horses or riders allowed to use the facilities? Ms.Fankhauser said only those persons boarding their horses on the premises were invited to participate in the shows and they do not "trailer in"for lessons. Mr.Vehon said the trainers at the meeting work only with horses that were boarded at the stable.He stated that events such as the team sorting and horse show activities are open both to horses boarded on the property or brought in for show training. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE EIGHT OF FOURTEEN Chairman Sanchez asked about the invitation spoken of by Ms.Fankhauser. Mr.Vehon answered that the invitation was a published notice of invitation. City Attorney Gimbut further established that the activities were in fact advertised at large to the community and not confined to the owners of horses boarded at the stable. Mr.Bruce Ferrell,1831 East 4th Avenue,said he thought some of the problems have been created by a misinterpretation of exactly what the applicant's business was licensed for.It was his contention that the activities on the property were activities permitted by the City when Mrs.Jones received her business license. Ms.Maria Jones,288 West Smoketree,said it was her intention to run a boarding and training stable,raise her horses and help people who had an interest in horses.She said she never intended to disturb neighbors or upset people and if she had been contacted on a personal basis, she would have tried to work with them to solve the difficulties. Chairman Sanchez thanked the applicant and asked for comments opposing the appeal application. Mr.Frank Fahey,322 West Foothill Street,told the Board that he had pictures,a video,and a petition with 51 signatures from persons living in the general area.He passed the pictures to the Board members and read from the signed petition which read in part that "a serene setting in a quiet residential neighborhood"had been changed by "activities blatantly disrupting our quiet way of life".It was further stated that the petitioners were "unable to enjoy their homes or yards on the weekend due to the dust,noise and stench."He said there were "many horses stabled on the property as well as an arena with lights,a loudspeaker system,and a viewing stand with a Porta-Jon in plain sight." Mr.Fahey said that with the horse shows,team sorting and auctions,there were many vehicles and trailers traveling the dirt street and parking on either side of the road.He said there was an unreason- able amount of dust raised by vehicles traveling the dirt road as well as dust from dragging the arena in preparation for the horse shows.He said this activity starts as early as 7:00 am.on the weekends.He said the petition- ers were not against horses,only against the activities that were now taking place on the property.He asked permission to show a videotape that he said would show much more dust than either of the previous videos had shown. Chairman Sanchez asked if the petition signers all lived within 300 feet of the property? BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE NINE OF FOURTEEN Mr.Fahey answered that the petitioners lived from 300 feet up to a half -mile distance of the applicant's property. Board Member Gardner asked if the problems had only occurred in the past year since Mrs.Jones had lived in the area three years. Mr.Fahey said they had not complained until the the lights went up and horses and cattle were being brought in.He said before when there were just the horses he rather enjoyed watching them,but he didn't enjoy the trailers coming in every weekend. Mr.Greg Oleksak,1740 North Apache Drive, informed the Board he had purchased his property a year before the applicant moved into the area and was not informed that an unlimited number of horses could be kept on the property.He said those persons speaking in favor of the applicant's appeal lived two to six miles away and did not live with the dust and smells. Mr.Vehon asked Mr.Oleksak if he was aware that the applicant had received permits for all the work done on the property. Mr.Oleksak said he knew in one instance of the six-foot fence where approval was given after the fact. Ms.Velsa Kane,1950 North Idaho Road,said they purchased their property in 1979 and that they were told that they could not operate a business that would bother their neighbors.She said that they liked horses,but not the stench.When they contacted the caretaker of the arena regarding the problems,no-one came over to discuss it,but Mrs.Jones did call and inform them that she was operating within "her law". Ms.Kane said they were unable to have an outdoor barbecue for visiting relatives because of the smell and that the group ended up going to a restaurant instead.She said that she had flown in from Montana for this meeting to protest the appeal.She presented pictures that she said showed "piles of manure"which were not cleaned up on a regular basis.She also said it has been her habit to keep an area near her property clean to entice birds and desert animals to come around and now after the weekend shows at the arena,she is picking up beer cans,and seeing paper towels and human excrement in the area. Ms.Mona Geibel,226 West Foothill,said her objection to the activities taking place at Mrs.Jones arena is that it has totally disrupted the way of life as it used to be.She said she was told when she purchased her property that she could not operate a business from her BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE TEN OF FOURTEEN home that involved traffic coming and going.She stated that although Mrs. Jones said her activities only drew traffic during the weekends,she had found that the increased traffic was continual.The noise,the music and the announcements from the loudspeaker system could be heard in her home with the windows closed,and the increase of flies was noticeable. Ms.Ramona Sue Kane,1950 North Idaho,said she had heard that only local people attend the events held at the arena,so she didn't understand why signs needed to be posted to show the way to the arena. She also said that even with her stereo on,she was able to hear the loud- speakers at the arena.She said she and her brother like to use their property as a vacation retreat and it was no longer a peaceful,quiet place to relax. Chairman Sanchez asked Mr.Vehon if he wished to rebut any statements made by witnesses against Mrs.Jones appeal. Mr.Vehon said among the exhibits he had presented to the Board were City Police Officer reports regarding the cleanli- ness of the property.He said that some of the comments on the reports were even favorable as to the conditions of the property in regard to manure piles. He said as far as the beer cans are concerned,Mrs.Jones does not allow alcohol on the property and if anyone was found to be drinking,that person was asked to leave. Board Member Leffler asked Mr.Vehon about the sequence of events Mrs.Jones took to apply for a business license to operate a horse boarding operation as it seemed she had had the property for some time before she took out the license.He also questioned whether this matter couldn't have been negotiated with the City's staff since it appeared to be a matter of interpretation whether these activities fall "under the umbrella"of a boarding permit. Mr.Vehon answered that Mrs.Jones had original- ly built stalls and facilities for her own horses,and only later did she extend her operation to take in horses for boarding.He said there may have been some overlap in the time she began to take boarders and the time she applied for a business license to do so.He further stated that there had been a meeting with City staff in which Mrs.Jones stated she was willing for some restrictions to be placed on the activities she wished to continue,but was notified that she was in violation of the zoning code and was told she needed to apply to the Board of Adjustment for adjudication and interpreta- tion. Board Member Gardner questioned Mr.Vehon on the date that the video he had shown was taken. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE ELEVEN OF FOURTEEN Mr.Vehon said that he believed the two parts were taken in February and May of this year. Chairman Sanchez asked Mr.Gimbut if he wished to rebut for the City. City Attorney Gimbut said he would remind the Board that this case calls for a legal decision on an interpretation of the Zoning Code.He said that even though Mr.Vehon's contention was that this operation did not fall under industrial -type uses,the fact was that this was a residential district and the information has shown that there was a loud- speaker system,lights,a viewing stand,and up to 45 cars and trailers parked in the area during the particular events.He said this was not the situation when Mrs.Jones first moved into this area and the complaints to City staff started in January this year with recent events taking place on the property. The ordinance reads "boarding"and other parts of the ordinance which address stables and boarding are addressing commercial pay -for -hire boarding stables and require a minimum ten acres to be permitted.He said this meant to him that the boarding activities on 2-1/2 acres must refer to a somewhat less intense use. Mr.Gimbut remarked that a reference made by Mrs.Jones'supporters that there would be an economic loss to the area if the activity is curtailed meant to him that while it may not be industrial -type use,it was commercial activity in a residential zone.He said that it was agreed that the horse shows,team sorting and auctions include horses and equipment brought into the area and not just those being boarded by or belonging to the applicant and that these were commercial activities for profit. He posed a question to the Board if they considered these activities were what was intended when the equine ordinance was passed by the City Council.He further asked the Board to consider if Foothill Street through a residential district was envisioned as a commercial street designed for commercial activity. Mr.Gimbut said the offer by the applicant's representative to work with the City's staff to restrict or limit the frequen- cy of the team -sorting and auction events indicated that it was not a legal interpretation of the code that was required,but a conditional use permit whose function it was to grant activities within limits.He said the action to be taken was not granting a conditional use permit or deciding the proper zoning for the neighborhood or whether the activities were a good use for this property.The issue of this appeal was whether the interpretation by the Zoning Administrator that the boarding activities allowed on 2-1/2 acres as defined in the Equine Ordinance was something less than what was occurring on Mrs.Jones'property. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE TWELVE OF FOURTEEN Chairman Sanchez asked for further questions by the Board.Hearing none,he closed the public meeting at 10:42 p.m.and asked for a motion. MOTION ON CASE BA -01-92 )Board Members Bluntschlv/Kellev -M/S "I MOVE THAT THE DECISION OF THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ADMINIS- TRATOR AS IT PERTAINS TO BA -01-92 BE UPHELD BY DENYING THE APPEAL OF CHARLES AND MARIA JONES. THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE: 1)THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING REGULATIONS DO NOT PERMIT THE CITED ACTIVITIES BEING CONDUCTED AT 288 WEST SMOKETREE ON PROPERTY ZONED GENERAL RURAL. 2)CONTINUED USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE CURRENT CITED ACTIVI- TIES IS HAVING AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD PEACE AND TRANQUIL- ITY. 3)CONTINUED USE OF THIS PROPERTY FOR THE CURRENT CITED ACTIVI- TIES WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES." VOTE:6-0 Unanimous. The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS None INFORMATION AND REPORTS )Interim Executive Secretary Sandy Whitten noted that terms for Board Members Gardner and Leffler would expire this month and they had submitted letters indicating their willingness to be reappointed to the Board,which letters were in the Board packet material.She also reminded the Board of the vacancy on the Board and asked their help to locate new members. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8,1992 PAGE THIRTEEN OF FOURTEEN SELECTION VP MEETING DATES.TIMES.LOCATIONS AND PURPOSES EXECUTIVE SESSION, JULY ,13, 1992 WORK SESSION, JULY '13, 1992 ADJOURNMENT )Board Members Pfeifer/Leffler - M/S "I MOVE THAT THE NEXT EXECUTIVE SESSION BE HELD AT 6:30 P.M. ON JULY 13, 1992 IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVEL- OPMENT SERVICES CONFERENCE ROOM; AND THAT THE NEXT WORK SESSION BE HELD AT 6:45 P.M. ON JULY 13, 1992 IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. VOTE:6-0 Unanimous. The motion carried. )There being no further business to discuss, and with no objections, Chairman Sanchez adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. :40-4 Interim qtptive 5ecretary bn Sanchez, Chai BOARD- OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 8, 1992 PAGE FOURTEEN OF FOURTEEN