Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 11/28/2000 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M. Mayor Scruggs welcomed Mr. Hiromi Tajima to the meeting. Mr. Tajima is the Chief of Program Planning for the City of Eniwa on the island of Hokkaido, Japan. He is currently enrolled in the University of Arizona's Southwest Leadership Program and was interested in learning more about the City of Glendale and its revitalization/redevelopment efforts. Mayor Scruggs also welcomed Mr. Mark Wilkins, Leader of Boy Scout Troop 764, and the boy scouts who were in attendance: Mark Gordon, Richard Hood, Mason Isaac, Darren Kidd, Nathan Machutta, Daniel Sharp, and Brandon Wilkins. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Scruggs, with Vice Mayor Eggleston and the following Councilmembers present: Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. Also present were Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Gary Verburg, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6jc) OF THE GLENDLE CHARTER A statement was filed by the City Clerk that the four resolutions and four ordinances to be considered at the meeting were available for public examination and the title posted at City Hall more than 72 hours in advance of the meeting. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2000 It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the regular Council meeting held on November 14, 2000, as each member of the Council had been provided copies in advance, and approve them as written. The motion carried unanimously. PROCLAMATIONS AND AWARDS PRESENTATION OF AWARD FROM ARIZONA STATE PARKSBOARD FOR_FY 2000 TRAILS HERITAGE FUND GRANT On September 21, 2000, the Arizona State Parks Board approved funding for the City of Glendale Skunk Creek Trail System Signage project. The Trails Heritage Fund grant award, in the amount of $29,295, will provide for design and engineering, information kiosks, and identification and interpretive signs along the Skunk Creek Trail System. 1 Mayor Scruggs introduced Mr. Robert Baldwin, Recreational Grant Coordinator for the Arizona State Parks, Arizona Heritage Fund Trails Program. Mr. Baldwin presented a check in the amount of $29,295, representing the Arizona State Parks Fiscal Year 2000 Trails Heritage Fund grant for the Skunk Creek trail system signage, to Mayor Scruggs and the City Council. CONSENT AGENDA Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager, read Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 6 by number and title. Councilmember Lieberman requested that Agenda Item No. 2 be heard separately. 1. APPROVAL OF NEIGHBORHOOD SMALL GRANT AWARD: COUNTRY HOLLOW HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION The Neighborhood Partnership "Small Grants Program" was created to serve as a resource for older neighborhoods and encourage them to seek funding for small-scale neighborhood improvements, enhancements, and creative "neighborhood building" projects. As approved by the Mayor and Council, the Small Grants Program requires each eligible applicant to match at least one-third of the amount requested with any combination of cash, "sweat equity", and/or donated services or materials. Additionally, grant amounts are "capped" at $2,500 per grant. Over the past twelve months, there have been eight small grant-funding opportunities, all of which have been publicized in program newsletters, media stories, and on the City's Internet web site. Including this grant, six different neighborhoods have applied for and received small grant funds over the past twelve months. As a result of the Fall 2000 Funding Cycle, the Country Hollow Homeowners Association (63rd to 65th Avenues, Olive to Alice Avenues) requested a small grant in the amount of $2,350 for the installation of park lighting within the Country Hollow common area parks. A total of two lights will be installed and maintained by the Salt River Project (SRP). The Neighborhood is pledging $1,000 in cash and $368.64 in sweat equity. On November 8, 2000, the "Small Grants Subcommittee" of the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods met and reviewed this request. The subcommittee voted to recommend approval of the request. The subcommittee then forwarded its recommendation to the full commission for review and approval. At its November 8, 2000 regular meeting, the Commission on Neighborhoods unanimously voted (8-0) to accept the findings of the subcommittee and recommend them to the Mayor and Council for formal consideration and approval. 2 If approved by the Mayor and Council, the total amount of the grant award will be $2,350. The request meets the required one-third neighborhood match requirement of the program. Funds are available in the Neighborhood Partnership Fund, Account Number 01-8968-8330. The recommendation was to approve the small grant request as recommended by the Commission on Neighborhoods. 3. CONSOLIDATION AND RENEWAL OF HEART MONITOR TECHNICAL SERVICE SUPPORT AGREEMENT This is a renewal and consolidation of the existing service agreements with Medtronic Physio-Control Corporation to provide regular and unscheduled maintenance on the Fire Department's LifePak heart monitors and related support equipment. Medtronic Physio-Control Corporation is the only authorized LifePak service dealer in the State of Arizona. The new agreement will consolidate the four existing service contracts, all due to expire by the end of 2000, into one single contract. Upon approval by the Mayor and Council, the contracts will be cancelled retroactive to July 31, 2000 and consolidated into a single agreement. The new agreement will cover a period of five years, from August 1 , 2000 through July 31, 2005, and will cost $15,195.53 per fiscal year, payable in quarterly installments. The total cost of the five-year agreement is $75,977.65, which is a savings of $3,388.35 from the existing separate agreements. Funding for this item is included in the Fire Department's budget, in Fire Support Services — Office Equipment Maintenance Account Number 01-3330-7410 The recommendation was to authorize the City Manager to approve the consolidated five-year LifePak heart monitor service agreement with Medtronic Physio- Control Corporation for technical service support. 4. AWARD OF PROPOSAL 00-67, WATER TESTING EQUIPMENT Two proposals were received to provide the Water Operations Division of the Utilities Department with a total organic carbon analyzer. This piece of equipment is used for the analysis of total organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, total carbon and non-purgeable organic carbon. These substances can form disinfection byproducts in treated water, which will be more closely regulated in the near future. This equipment will be used for the testing of drinking water and wastewater and is needed due to the expansion of the Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant and the addition of the West Area Water Reclamation Facility. Funding is available in the Utilities/Water Treatment's Onetime Supplemental, Account Number 50-6429-8400. An evaluation committee, consisting of staff from Water Treatment Division, reviewed the offers received. Specific evaluation criteria included compliance with monitoring standards, instrument performance and functionality, autosampler design and ease of use, software performance, technical support, training, and response time 3 for service and cost. The proposal scored highest by the committee was submitted by Tekmar-Dohrmann. The recommendation was to award the contract for a total organic carbon analyzer to Tekmar-Dohrmann in the amount $28,686.49, taxes included. 5. AWARD OF BID 00-69, INVENSYS WATER METERS AND METER PARTS Two bids were received to provide the Utilities Department with Invensys water meters and meter parts on an "as needed" basis. The contract shall begin upon approval by the City Council and continue for one year. The specifications contain an option clause that will permit the City, at the discretion of the City Manager, to extend this agreement for four additional years, in one-year increments. The lowest responsive offer was submitted by Invensys Metering Systems. Bidders submitted offers to the City based on estimated quantities listed in the Invitation for Bid. Based on this usage, the award amount is $35,424.32 with a contingency amount of $16,575.68 for water meter parts. The total shall not exceed the budgeted amount of $52,000. Funding is available in Utilities' Line Supplies Account Number 50-6443-7520. The recommendation was to award the contract for Invensys water meters and meter parts to Invensys Metering Systems in an amount not to exceed $52,000, taxes included. 6. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL - GLENDALE AVENUE BRIDGE OVER AGUA FRIA RIVER; CACTUS ROAD BRIDGE AT ARIZONA CANAL DIVERSION CHANNEL This was a request for approval of Change Order No. 1 and Final to the construction contract for Bunney's Inc. in the amount of $24,424.74. The construction contract was awarded on June 27, 2000 in the amount of $69,230.16. This change order will bring the total contract amount to $93,654.90. The original contract was to replace the expansion joints on the Glendale Avenue Bridge and to repair the west approach slab on the Cactus Road Bridge. The City's construction management consultant for this project observed structural deficiencies that would be routine maintenance in the bridge abutments and the concrete deck on the Glendale Avenue Bridge over the Agua Fria River. The repairs consisted of installing additional steel reinforcing bars and removing and replacing some concrete deck sections. A transfer in the amount of $24,424.74 needs to be made from Engineering Administration Account Number 01-6310-7330 into Street Maintenance Account Number 12-6232-8300 to cover the cost of this change order. Engineering staff has reviewed this change order and found the costs to be fair and reasonable. 4 The recommendation was to authorize the transfer of funds and approve Change Order No. 1 and Final to Bunney's Inc. in the amount of $24,424.74. CONSENT RESOLUTIONS 7. ACCEPTANCE OF STATE GRANT FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM FOR THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT The Arizona Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division, has awarded a grant to the Glendale Municipal Airport, in the amount of $3,534, for the State's share of Federal Grant No. 12 that was already accepted by the City of Glendale in the amount of $90,000 for the purchase of an Automated Weather Observing System. The State will provide 4.47% ($3,534) of the cost, with the City share being 4.47% ($3,534). Grant expenditure funds are available for the City's share within the Fund 34 Capital Plan. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution accepting the grant offered by the Arizona Department of Transportation. Resolution No. 3425 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ACCEPTING THE GRANT OFFER FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AERONAUTICS DIVISION, FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM FOR THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. 8. ACCEPTANCE OF STATE GRANT FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN AVIGATION EASEMENT TO THE NORTH OF THE AIRPORT AND AN APRON PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROJECT --- — -The Arizona Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division, has awarded a grant to the Glendale Municipal Airport, in the amount of $382,500, which is 90% of the cost for the purchase of an avigation easement to the north of the Airport ($247,500) and an apron pavement preservation project ($135,000). To receive the grant, the City must provide matching funds of $38,250, equaling 10% of the cost of the project. Grant expenditures funds are available for the City's share within the Fund 34 Capital Plan. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution accepting the grant offered by the Arizona Department of Transportation. 5 Resolution No. 3426 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ACCEPTING THE GRANT OFFER FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AERONAUTICS DIVISION, FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN AVIGATION EASEMENT TO THE NORTH OF THE AIRPORT AND AN APRON PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROJECT. 9. QWEST WIRELESS — LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SITE AT 5901 WEST GREENBRIAR DRIVE Qwest Wireless, L.L.C. ("Qwest"), formerly known as U S WEST Wireless, requested a license from the City of Glendale for the construction and operation of wireless communications facilities that will be part of Qwest's Valley-wide wireless communications system. Qwest Wireless has one existing wireless communications license for a site on City-owned property, which is a site in Sahuaro Ranch Park that Qwest constructed in 1998. The proposed site for Qwest's new facilities is located in front of an Arizona Public Service Company ("A.P.S.") substation located at 5901 West Greenbriar Drive. The approval of this license will be consistent with the City's policy of encouraging wireless communications providers to co-locate their facilities on existing poles (or on new poles that will replace existing poles) instead of adding new monopoles for antennas. As a part of the wireless site, A.P.S. will replace one of its existing, wooden utility poles with a new metal pole, on which Qwest will attach its antennas. The existing A.P.S. pole is located in the right-of-way between the substation and 59th Avenue, as will be the replacement pole. Qwest will place its ground equipment for the wireless site inside the A.P.S. substation, where it will not be visible to the public. Qwest will need only administrative approval from the City to comply with zoning requirements for the wireless site because Qwest will be using a replacement A.P.S. pole for its antennas. The effective date of the proposed agreement will be December 1 , 2000, and the agreement will expire on November 30, 2010. However, either party may terminate the agreement without cause at any time after the first year of the agreement by giving the other party one year's advance notice of such termination. Qwest will pay rent in the amount of $412 per month, with an annual inflation adjustment, for its use of the right- of-way. The City Council previously approved three License Agreements with AT&T Wireless and VoiceStream Wireless (formerly known as Western Wireless), in which the City granted the licensees the right to attach their antennas for wireless sites on utility poles located in the right-of-way. The terms of the proposed agreement with Qwest are essentially the same as the terms of the agreements with VoiceStream and AT&T, including the provisions concerning rent, construction requirements, insurance, indemnification and performance bonds. 6 The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a License Agreement for a Wireless Communications Site in City right-of-way with Qwest Wireless, L.L.C. Resolution No. 3427 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH QWEST WIRELESS, L.L.C. FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SITE IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. 10. MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING The Northwest Valley Advocacy Center provides a site for the investigation of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases. The Glendale Police Department requested authorization to accept $10,000 from the Office of the Maricopa County Attorney for the purchase of additional equipment for the Center's medical examination room and for children's playroom supplies. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office agrees to fund this proposal from the Maricopa County Attorney Anti-Racketeering Revolving Fund (RICO). There is no requirement for match funds. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of the funding offer of $10,000 from the Office of the Maricopa County Attorney. Resolution No. 3428 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE ENTERING INTO OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE NORTHWEST VALLEY ADVOCACY CENTER. Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, commented on Agenda Item No. 1 by thanking the City Council for the work they have put into the approval of neighborhood small grant awards. With regard to Agenda Item No. 4, he commended the Council for taking steps to improve water quality. It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Clark, to approve the recommended actions on Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, including the approval and adoption of Resolutions No. 3425 New Series, No. 3426 New Series, No. 3427 New Series, and 3428 New Series. The motion carried unanimously. 7 2. FALL 2000 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT GRANT REQUESTS As part of the City Council's commitment to revitalizing older neighborhoods, the Mayor and Council established the Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods to make recommendations on neighborhood enhancement and revitalization projects. For Fiscal Year 2000-01, approximately $700,000 in general fund money has been set aside for such projects. Of this amount, approximately $350,000 has been made available to neighborhoods for the Fall 200C) funding cycle. Savings from previously approved projects and funds remaining from the Spring 2000 grants cycle bring the total amount available for the Fall 2000 neighborhood grants process to $412,402.07. The Commission on Neighborhoods recently concluded a two-month review process of seven neighborhood grant requests, and recommended six of them to the Mayor and Council for approval (each of the approved grants include a contingency): 1. O'Neil Ranch Neighborhood - $249,560.05 to install new park equipment and irrigation improvements within O'Neil Ranch Park. 2. Shamrock Mobile Home Park - $79,444.94 to install sidewalk and landscaping along the south side of Glendale Avenue, from approximately 84th to 85th Avenues. 3. Rossmoor Village Homeowners Association - $40,427.56 to fund the repair of its private streets in the area of 49th and Puget Avenues. 4. Sweetwater Estates - $16,500 to fund the design of an 8-foot wall and landscaping along 59th Avenue, from just south of the canal to Sweetwater Avenue. 5. Sweetwater Estates - $7,327.95 to fund the re-paving of a public parking lot located at Desert Valley Park. The park is located on the south side of Sweetwater Road, between 61st and 63rd Avenues. 6. Arrowhead Ranch Phase I HOA - $19,141.57 to fund the construction of new decorative bollards along the east and west side of 71st Avenue, just north of Union Hills Road. The total requested, with contingencies factored in, amounts to $412,402.07. Funds for the Fall 2000 neighborhood grant recommendations are available in Account Number 01-8968-8330 (Neighborhood Projects). This item was reviewed by the Mayor and Council at the November 21, 2000 City Council Workshop. The recommendation was to approve the Fall 2000 neighborhood improvement grants as recommended by the Commission on Neighborhoods. 8 Councilmember Lieberman stated that the City of Glendale has a lot to be proud of, but he is most proud of the grants that have come through the Neighborhood Partnership Program. Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, voiced his support of Agenda Item No. 2. Councilmember Clark noted that Ms. Jean Pickett was in the hospital and she sent her best wishes. She thanked Ms. Pickett for all of her hard work on the neighborhood grants. It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Frate, to approve the recommended action on Consent Agenda Item No. 2. The motion carried unanimously. LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS 11. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-00-07 AND REZONING APPLICATION Z-00-15: 5027 WEST WAITE PLACE Mr. Brian Friedman, Senior Planner, presented this application by Joseph and Danya Butter to amend the General Plan from Single Family, 3.5-5 dwelling units per acre to Multi-Family, 8-12 dwelling units per acre, and to rezone from R1-6 (Single Residence) to R-2 (Mixed Residence). The 2.13 acre parcel is located south and east of the southeast corner of 51st and Northern Avenues. A legal non-conforming duplex occupies the front portion of the property. The applicant wishes to construct one additional single-family residence and make the duplex conforming. The property includes lots 25 and 26 of the Glendale Subdivision Amended. The applicant owns lot 26, but does not have a controlling interest in lot 25. The Planning Director has determined that the applicant does not have the authority to apply for a General Plan amendment and rezoning on lot 25. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning would be detrimental to this neighborhood. The requested change from 3.5-5 to 8-12 residential dwelling units per acre is a substantial increase in density. The majority of the Glendale Subdivision Amended has a single family residential character. A mix of single family and multiple residences is not in the best long-term interest of the neighborhood. The existing General Plan and zoning was established by City Council action in 1993 and was intended to stabilize this unique neighborhood. The property can be subdivided under the current R1-6 zoning if the existing duplex is altered or removed. Staff has also suggested the option of rezoning from R1- 6 to R1-6 PRD (Planned Residential Development). This would allow the flexibility 9 needed to construct one additional residence on the property without altering the duplex. To date, the applicant has rejected this option. At its hearing held on October 5, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended denial of General Plan Amendment GP-00-07 and Rezoning Application Z-00-15. Nine people spoke in opposition and four people spoke in favor of the applications at the hearing. The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and deny General Plan Amendment GP-00-07 and Rezoning Application Z-00-15. Councilmember Lieberman asked Mr. Friedman to enumerate the alternatives provided to the applicants. Mr. Friedman said R1-6 PRD overlay was the first option offered to the applicants. He explained that the overlay would have allowed the applicants to come forth under an entitlement action to establish an additional lot at the rear of the property to accommodate the requested single-family residence. He said the other option given to the applicants was to remove the existing non-conforming duplex and, as a matter of entitlement under the existing R1-6 zoning, subdivide the property via the plat process. He stated that both alternatives were rejected by the applicants. Councilmember Lieberman asked if any alteration to the existing non- conforming duplex would be necessary if the R1-6 PRD were accepted. Mr. Friedman stated that no alteration would be necessary. He also confirmed for Councilmember Lieberman that the City does not recognize the alley into the lot as a street. Ms. Danya Butter, one of the applicants, discussed improvements they had made to the property since acquiring it, as well as contributions they had made to the community in general. She noted that the Commission on Neighborhoods had recently recognized her and her husband for their involvement in the construction of a wall between their community and the adjacent apartment complex. She pointed out that they had also received the Neighborhood Spark Award, which is given to individuals who make a significant contribution to the revitalization of their neighborhood. Mr. Joseph Butter, the other applicant, explained that they want to build an additional home on the two-acre parcel, in which his family intends to live. He requested that the non-conforming status be removed from the existing duplex. He noted that the demolition of the existing duplex would allow construction of a center access road and potentially up to 12 new parcels that could be developed under R1-6 development standards. He acknowledged concerns that were raised regarding potential R2 zoning. He stated that they addressed those concerns in a neighborhood response letter. He explained that, although the letter listed several limitations they were willing to place on the project, City staff has been unwilling to use that avenue. He asked the Council to consider whether their request was unreasonable or unfair and, if so, what would it take to satisfy their concerns. He said they had received only two responses to the neighborhood letter they had sent out, one in favor and one in opposition. He said they are not, nor do they desire to become, professional developers. He stated that they have been, and continue to be, willing to take any and 10 all reasonable limitations to address legitimate concerns. He stated that the neighborhood could succumb to commercial development in the near future, based on past events and existing zoning and general plan designations. He said he and others in the neighborhood were contacted by a development company and he hoped the possibility of financial gain was not fueling his neighbor's opposition to his request. He asked that the Council look at their actions as citizens of the community and approve their request. Councilmember Goulet noted that they had purchased their property in 1996, three years after the current General Plan and zoning were put in place. He asked Mr. Butter if they did any type of research on the zoning prior to purchasing the lot. Mr. Butter said they did not. He pointed out that they are not professional real estate developers. Councilmember Goulet asked why the option to modify or remove the existing duplex was unacceptable. Mr. Butter said it would be economically damaging to his family. He explained that he would have to pay off the existing duplex and secure funds to build another house. Councilmember Goulet said they were placed in this position because they did not research what the zoning would allow in advance. Mr. Butter agreed. He stated that, at that time, they did not expect their family to grow as it has. Councilmember Clark commended Mr. and Mrs. Butter for the improvements they have made to their property and neighborhood. She stated that, unfortunately, those improvements do not carry any weight on the approval of their request. She asked Mr. Butter what prevented them from using the other half of the duplex. Mr. Butter explained that they would have to significantly modify the duplex. He stated the home they propose to build would also be larger than the 1,800 square foot duplex. Councilmember Clark asked if the other half of the duplex was currently being rented. Mr. Butter replied that it was. Councilmember Clark asked for clarification of the number of homesites that could be constructed on the property if R1-6 zoning were approved. Mr. Butter explained that an R1-6 lot is approximately 6,000 square feet and, with two acres, they would be able to fit a number of homes on the property. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Butter about the limitations on density and lot coverage he offered to place on the rezoning. Mr. Butter referred to the letter sent to neighbors and said they would be willing to limit the types of dwellings to exclude apartment complexes, condominiums and townhouses; limit the number of units to five per acre; and meet all perimeter and setback requirements for R1-6 or R2 zoning, whichever is more restrictive. Mayor Scruggs asked what they would do if they received the R1-6 zoning with all of the stipulations. Mr. Butter said they would build their home. He emphasized that this had been their intent from the beginning. Mayor Scruggs referred to comments that Mr. Butter had made to her that the new house would be double or triple the value of other single-family homes in the subdivision. Mr. Butter explained that, in order to secure funds to build the type of home they want to build, they need to get a loan for approximately $140,000. He said, based on average home values in the subdivision, they would be financially unable to build a home if they went with the PRD. 11 Councilmember Clark asked what guarantees there were that future development of apartments would not occur on that property. Mr. Butter said Title IX of the Arizona State Statutes indicates that Council can put legal limitations on the property, preventing such development from occurring. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Butter, hypothetically, if he would view a zoning change that would forever change the land use and impact the neighbors as setting a negative precedent for similar situations occurring throughout the City. Mr. Butter said Planning staff had no problem putting R1-4 zoning against the single-family neighborhood when they built the Northern Lakes and Stillwater Apartments. He said he was unable to answer for others who may take advantage of their zoning. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for Mr. Butter's response to staff's conclusion that they only own 1/25 of Lot 25. Mr. Butter said he did not need that lot to build his home. He noted that he and previous owners have paid taxes on that property for the past forty years; however, he would be willing to have that lot pulled from the application. He questioned whether well fees that were paid by previous owners in the 1950's granted ownership rights to the property. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Butter if he pays taxes on Lot 25. Mr. Butter said he does and, in fact, paid back taxes as well when he quit-claimed the lot from the previous owner. Mayor Scruggs asked when they would build the new home if the request was approved. Mr. Butter said he would start as soon as he was able to work out the details with the mortgage company. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Butter what would prevent him from changing his mind and developing the property in another manner. She said she would have expected him to have a definitive date as to when construction would begin. Ms. Butter questioned why their financial position was of any concern. She stated, however, that the mortgage company will only allow them to borrow what the highest valued home in the area has sold for. Councilmember Clark asked if the purpose of obtaining the R2 zoning was to make the land more valuable. Ms. Butter disagreed. She said she could get more money by subdividing the property and demolishing her home. She encouraged the Council to place restrictions on the lot as to future development. Councilmember Martinez asked if the amount they would be able to secure for a loan would be adequate to build their house. Mr. Butter said it they would have to bear the rest of the cost. 12 Councilmember Frate asked what the property itself was worth. Mr. Butter said the mortgage company assessed the value of his house at $107,000. Councilmember Frate questioned how other developers viewed his property. He stated that experience has made him leery of what could happen in the future. Councilmember Goulet referred to a comment made by Ms. Butter that they should have "dozed the house years ago and we'd be outta there". Mr. Butter explained that his wife was frustrated with the process and felt they were being attacked by the neighborhood. He said her point was that, financially, it would be easier to sell the property to someone who would demolish the duplex and erect several homes on the property. Mayor Scruggs said she had difficulty understanding the desire of the Butters to stay in the neighborhood and build a home three times the value of surrounding homes. She said there have been very rare situations where zoning has been granted, conditional on the applicant's promise to restrict use of the land to a single use and that it occur within a specified period of time. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Butter if they would be willing to agree to a stipulation that requires one single-family home be built within 18 months or the zoning would revert back. Mr. Butter said he would have to discuss it with his wife. He pointed out that the property is an oddity in that it is an in-fill parcel and the duplex sits on most of the frontage, thereby, precluding access to the back of the property from the frontage. Mayor Scruggs said those factors would work against them in being able to obtain a mortgage. Councilmember Lieberman asked Mr. Verburg if the R2 zoning and stipulations would become part of the deed. Mr. Verburg said they become part of the zoning for that parcel. Councilmember Lieberman asked how easy it would be to remove the stipulations at a future date. Mr. Verburg noted that part of the application also requests that Council amend the General Plan, making it easier to obtain amendments or deletions of the stipulations to conform to the General Plan. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the stipulations could be enforced if the property was sold in the future. Mr. Verburg said it depended on the nature of the stipulations. He noted that two other options were offered. He stated that he did not understand why the Butters were not pursuing them. He suggested the motivation behind their refusal was that R2 zoning would allow them to place 8 to 12 homes on the lot without making additional improvements. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Verburg if it would be possible to deny the General Plan amendment and still approve the zoning request. Mr. Verburg explained that State law requires zoning to be consistent with the General Plan; therefore, the only way to grant the Applicant's request would be to amend the General Plan. Councilmember Lieberman asked Mr. Friedman if they had discussions about the parameters of the stipulations. Mr. Friedman said they had not. He explained that they had one telephone conversation with Mr. Butter with regard to conditional zoning 13 and how it could further be conditioned to reach their goals. He said he explained to them that this question had to be answered by Mr. Svoboda. Councilmember Clark asked what the yield would be if it were R1-6 PRD or R1- 6. Mr. Friedman explained that R1-6 has a net yield of approximately 16 lots. He said the PRD they were looking for was adopted as an overlay to the R1-6 zoning and any number of units could be requested under that overlay. Mayor Scruggs asked if the septic tank would support that type of development. Mr. Friedman stated that Building Services staff usually looks at that; however, State laws are very strict about passing EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations. He noted that, since there are two sewer connections within 1/8 of a mile of the property, connection to existing sewer lines is possible. Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 11. Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said that, although he could sympathize with the family, Council has a large responsibility for the future of that area. He suggested that the request be postponed to continue working towards a compromise. He stated that the Butters seemed very sincere. Ms. Deborah Lecker, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, agreed that the case should be tabled to allow a compromise to be found. She said the Butters were willing to work with the neighborhood and the City. She stated that the request was not about money, but about a safe place where the Butters could raise their children. She asked the Council to work with the Butters to find a resolution. Mr. Leo Reed, resident of the City of Goodyear, said he was interested in renting half of the Butter's duplex once they had built their house. He agreed that they have cleaned up both their property and the surrounding neighborhood. He said the Butters would not try to undermine the Council's intentions for that area, they simply want to keep their duplex. He said the Butter's request could actually help the area by inspiring others to improve their properties. He asked the Council to help the Butters obtain approval. Mr. Joel Birch, a resident of the City_of Glendale Cactus District, said he presently owns three properties in the neighborhood. He said the houses in the neighborhood are approximately 60 years old, adobe, and were originally built at approximately 500 square feet. He questioned how the character of the Butter's proposed $140,000 house would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. He noted that zoning is public record and the Butters were never led to believe the process would be quick or easy. He pointed out that the Butters could have purchased the three bedroom house that was recently up for sale next door to their property. He stated he would not want to build a $140,000 dream house in an area surrounded by $50,000 homes. 14 Ms. Claudine Valentine, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, voiced her opposition of the request. She also read a letter of opposition authored by Mr. Bryan Carder. In the letter, Mr. Carder said he did not believe self-imposed deed restrictions would be honored by future purchasers. He noted that another Wal-Mart situation could occur. He said the subdivision has always been a single-family community and he believed multi-family dwellings would destroy the character of the neighborhood. He stated traffic and engineering studies, as well as surveillance reports, indicate 107,800 vehicles pass the only corner that permits access to and exit from the community. He expressed his opinion that additional vehicles and residents would increase the danger. He stated his opposition to any action that would increase the number of residential dwelling units per acre from 8 to 12 or changes the single- family atmosphere of the neighborhood. Mr. Raymond Valentine, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, voiced his opposition to the application. He said apartments would be detrimental to the community because of the related traffic. He said rezoning the property would decrease the value of their homes and the community should not be placed at risk because of the financial concerns of one individual. He noted that the addition of 25 apartment units would more than double the size of the existing community. He said everyone agrees apartments should not be allowed; however, the question is how to prevent this from happening. He said the zoning stays with the properties and, therefore, creates a risk to the neighborhood. Ms. Frances Fitzpatrick, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, expressed her appreciation for all the Butters had done for their community. She noted, however, that future development of their property was her main concern. Mayor Scruggs stated that public hearing speaker's cards were received from the following people, who indicated that they were opposed to General Plan Amendment GP-00-07 and Rezoning Application Z-00-15, and did not wish to speak. Ms. Carol Birch, a resident of the City of Peoria Mr. Eddie Birch, a resident of the City of Peoria Mr. Damon Boglio, a resident of the City of Phoenix Ms. Judith Gardner, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District Mr. William Gardner, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District Ms. Nancy Kuersten, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District Mr. William Kuersten, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District Mr. Tony Marks, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District Ms. Janice McReynolds, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District Ms. Dani Roy, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District Ms. Catherine Weaver, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District Ms. Jessica Jones, a resident of the City of_ Glendale Cactus District, submitted a public hearing speaker's card, indicating that she supported General Plan Amendment GP-00-07 and Rezoning Application Z-00-15, and did not wish to speak. 15 Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing. Mr. Dean Svoboda, Panning Director, confirmed for Councilmember Frate that R1-6 PRD would have accommodated an additional unit, while guaranteeing it would only be used for single-family use. He said the request would have had to be continued for a short time in order for the Butters to amend their application. He noted, however, that it could have been completed within two or three weeks. He said future modifications or additions to the unit would be allowed, as long as they did not encroach into the yard areas or otherwise violate the amended standards. Mayor Scruggs questioned whether the PRD would also allow for something out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Svoboda explained that certain objectives have to be met before PRD zoning could be put into place and Council would have the ability to specify the character of the architecture. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Svoboda if the Historic Preservation Commission had looked at the neighborhood. Mr. Svoboda said he believed they had looked at it and their cursory conclusion was that, because of the number of additions made over the years, a lot of the primary architectural context had been lost. Councilmember Clark asked if they could create stipulations with the PRD that would lessen the infrastructure requirements, lessening the expense to the Butters. Mr. Svoboda said they had done so in the past. He explained that, if the property was to be subdivided under the existing R1-6, the subdivision ordinance would require paved streets, full utilities and so forth. He said they suggested the PRD option because it would enable a lot split, creating a second family lot. He said a public street would not be required. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that the Butters were asking that the lot be rezoned to allow them to secure a larger loan. He said he applauded the Butters for all they had done for their neighborhood. He noted, however, that he would not be able to support their request. Councilmember Clark said she understood the Butter's desire to build a second home and was not in opposition to the concept. She stated, however, that the only way she believed such a proposal would work was with an R1-6 PRD. She said she was reluctant to grant an R2 General Plan amendment that would allow apartments on that property at any given time in the future. Councilmember Goulet thanked the neighbors who had addressed the Council. He said he also appreciated the efforts made by the Butters. He noted that they had chosen to pursue a risky and speculative project. He said he would like to see the Butters succeed in building a home for their family. He said he felt they had been offered legitimate offers. He stated that he would not be able to support the Butter's application at this time. 16 Councilmember Lieberman agreed that the Butter's had done a great deal to improve the neighborhood. He stated, however, that he could not support their request. It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Goulet, to deny General Plan Amendment GP-00-07 and Rezoning Application Z-00-15. Councilmember Martinez expressed his appreciation for the Butter's efforts in their neighborhood. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously denied the request and staff had provided options for the Butter's consideration. He said the risk was too great and he could not support the request. Mayor Scruggs noted that, having been influenced by the opposition received from the neighbors at tonight's public hearing, she believed the house would be out of character with the neighborhood and it would put the neighborhood at risk. Upon a call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. The meeting recessed for a short break. BIDS AND CONTRACTS 12. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 83RD AND 67TH AVENUES SEWAGE LIFT STATIONS MODIFICATIONS Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer, presented this request for City Council approval of a professional services agreement with Entellus, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $206,117 for construction management services and final engineering design services. This project will install odor control facilities at the sewage lift station located near 83`d Avenue and Bell Road, at the lift station located near 67th Avenue and Beardsley Road, and at the Arrowhead Ranch Water Reclamation Facility (ARWRF). Entellus will provide on-site engineering construction inspection services during the construction of the odor control equipment at the two sewage lift stations and at the ARWRF. The odor control equipment will complete the modifications at the three sites to reduce the remaining odors using updated technology. Because Entellus did the design in previous phases of this process, they were selected to provide these services. Entellus will provide the final design of shade canopies for the new odor control equipment and design new piping to provide more efficient odor control at the ARWRF. The new odor control equipment will also allow the ARWRF more flexibility in the various treatment techniques used at the treatment plant to meet future demands for recharging the effluent. Funds for these services are available in Arrowhead Sewer Lines Capital Improvement Project Account Number 50-9236-8300. The recommendation was to approve the professional services agreement with Entellus, Inc. in the amount of $206,117. 17 It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Goulet, to approve the professional services agreement with Entellus, Inc. in the amount of $206,117. The motion carried unanimously. 13. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - RETROFIT EXISTING PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE SITES Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer, presented this request for City Council award of a construction contract to Hunter Contracting Company in the amount of $138,666 for the retrofit of two existing pressure reducing valve (PRV) sites. On July 25, 2000, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with Primatech Engineers and Consultants to site, design and provide construction services for PRV installations in the City's water distribution system. During the design process, it was determined that at least six PRV sites are needed to improve the flow of water from the Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant north of Glendale into central and western Glendale. Two of the sites identified are existing and were determined to require upgrading with new piping, valves, electrical power and electronic communication equipment. Because these sites can be completed in a short period of time, it was decided to accelerate this work to provide the Utilities Department added flexibility for improving the flow of Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant water between water Zones 1 and 2 while the Cholla Water Treatment Plant is shut down for Salt River Project Canal dry up in January of 2001. The remaining four sites will be designed and constructed later. The design was completed and advertised for construction bidding. Three bids were received and opened on November 7, 2000, with Hunter Contracting Company submitting the low bid in the amount of $138,666. The City's design consultant, Primatech Engineers and Consultants, reviewed the bids and the qualifications of the low bidder and recommended award of the contract to Hunter Contracting Company. Engineering Department staff agreed with this recommendation. Funds are available for this project in the Fiscal Year 2000-01 Capital Improvement Program, Zone 1 and Zone 2 Improvements, Account Number 50-9010- 8300. The recommendation was to award the construction contract to Hunter Contracting Company in the amount of $138,666. It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to award the construction contract to Hunter Contracting Company in the amount of $138,666. The motion carried unanimously. 18 14. CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 AND FINAL - CHOLLA WATER TREATMENT PLANT ZONE 1 AND ZONE 2 WATER BOOSTER STATIONS Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer, presented this request for approval of Change Order No. 5 and Final to the contract with Hunter Contracting Company in the amount of $697,286.71. The construction contract was awarded on October 14, 1997. The original contract was $4,825,080. This change order will bring the total amount of the contract to $5,974,689.57. The original contract was to construct a new pump station and upgrade the existing pump stations for the increased water demands for the City. This contract also upgraded the existing telemetry systems and provided for new large piping to the reservoirs. This change order provides for additional work to isolate the reservoirs and install large piping. This work was necessary to reduce leakage through the existing sluice gates. During completion of the remaining construction activities, the City also requested that additional improvements be added to the project. Improvements include temporary fencing and crossing guards for a pedestrian walkway, new curb, gutter and sidewalk as well as a new paved entrance to the plant. The contractor submitted claims for costs associated with the above change order totaling $1 ,115,222. The City, the contractor and the consultant construction manager reached a negotiated settlement amount of $697,286.71 to be paid to the contractor. The City will receive a $110,000 check and a $90,000 credit from the design engineer for costs attributable to their design error. Funds for this work are available in Cholla Water Treatment Plant Zone 1 Project Account Number 50-9262-8330. Engineering staff reviewed these costs and found them to be fair and reasonable. The recommendation was to approve Change Order No. 5 and Final to Hunter Contracting Company in the amount of $697,286.71 . It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Martinez, to approve Change Order No. 5 and Final to Hunter Contracting Company in the amount of $697,286.71. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - LIQUOR LICENSES 15. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-732 — FRY'S MARKETPLACE NO. 625 This was a request for a person transfer of a series 9 (off-sale retail, all liquor) license for Fry's Marketplace No. 625, which is located at 6611 West Bell Road. The previous owner operated this business as Fred Meyer Marketplace and held a series 9 (off-sale retail, all liquor) license at this location. 19 The applicant is currently operating this establishment pursuant to an interim permit issued by the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. The approval of this license will not increase the total number of liquor licenses in this area. The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were filed during the 20-day posting period. The Planning Department, the Police Department and the County Health Department have reviewed the application and determined that it meets all technical requirements. The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for approval. 16. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-734 — HAPPY MARKET This was a request for a new series 10 (off-sale retail, beer & wine) license for the Happy Market, which is located at 6425 North 47th Avenue. The previous owner operated this business as Glendale Convenience & Deli Mart and held a series 10 (off- sale retail, beer & wine) license at this location. A new license is required because a series 10 license is not transferable. The previous owner is still operating this establishment while the application for the new license is pending. The approval of this license will not increase the number of liquor licenses in this area because the previous owner will surrender his license if a new one is issued. The establishment is over 300 feet from any school. The nearest church, Agape Christian Fellowship, is located within 21 feet of Happy Market. However, the rule prohibiting a retail liquor license from being within 300 feet of a church does not apply because the series 10 license was at this location prior to the church. No protests were filed during the 20-day posting period. The Planning Department, the Police Department and the County Health Department have reviewed the application and determined that it meets all technical requirements. The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for approval. 17. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-735 — SARGENT'S MARKET This was a request for a new series 10 (off-sale retail, beer & wine) license for Sargent's Market, which is located at 5601 West Glendale Avenue. The previous owner operated this business as Sargent's Market and held a series 10 (off-sale retail, beer & wine) license at this location. A new series 10 license is required for this location because a series 10 license is not transferable. 20 The applicant is currently operating this establishment pursuant to an interim permit issued by the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. The approval of this license will not increase the total number of liquor licenses in this area. The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were filed during the 20-day posting period. The Planning Department, the Police Department and the County Health Department have reviewed the application and determined that it meets all technical requirements. The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for approval. 18. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-736 — SEOUL JUNG This was a request for a new series 12 (restaurant) license for Seoul Jung, which is located at 10040 North 43rd Avenue, Suite 1-K. The previous owner operated this business as China One and held a series 12 (restaurant) license at this location. A new series 12 license is required because a series 12 license is not transferable. The applicant is currently operating this establishment pursuant to an interim permit issued by the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. The approval of this license will not increase the total number of liquor licenses in this area. The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were filed during the 20-day posting period. The Planning Department, the Police Department and the County Health Department have reviewed the application and determined that it meets all technical requirements. The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for approval. Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18. As there were no comments, she closed the public hearing. It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Martinez, to forward Liquor License Applications No. 3-732 for Fry's Marketplace No. 625; No. 3-734 for Happy Market; No. 3-735 for Sargent's Market; and No. 3-736 for Seoul Jung to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for approval. The motion carried unanimously. 21 ORDINANCES 19. ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CAMELBACK AND LITCHFIELD ROADS Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager, presented this item. On October 10, 2000, the Glendale City Council held a public hearing for the proposed annexation of approximately 80 acres of land at Camelback and Litchfield Roads. This annexation is necessary to grant a request from the City of Litchfield Park to change the Glendale city limits. The action was prompted by a request from the City of Litchfield Park. The affected property owner, Litchfield & Camelback Road LLC, also owns the property to the west, which is already located in Litchfield Park, and would like to develop both parcels under the same jurisdiction. The blank annexation petition was filed with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office on September 19, 2000. This action began the statutory 30-day waiting period required by law, during which time the public hearing was held. The signature of the affected property owner has been obtained and signatures have been gathered from utility companies that have facilities in the area. A sufficient number of signatures have been obtained and the Council may now adopt an annexation ordinance. The next step in the process will be the adoption of an ordinance to de-annex and change the existing City strip to exclude this property, as requested by the City of Litchfield Park. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance annexing this area into the City of Glendale. Ordinance No. 2172 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, EXTENDING AND INCREASING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 9, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 9-471, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, BY ANNEXING THERETO CERTAIN TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE TO BE KNOWN AS ANNEXATION AREA NO. 135. It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance No. 2172 New Series. Mayor Scruggs noted that she had attended a meeting last Monday night with a group of residents who had petitioned for annexation into the City of Glendale and was asked why the process took so long and why an impact analysis had to be done. She stated, for the record, that Ordinance No. 2172 New Series involves one property owner and that the purpose of the annexation is to bring a piece of property that the City of Glendale has control over, but does not have within its corporate boundaries, into its boundaries so that it can be officially de-annexed to another city, where it will remain. 22 Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none. 20. ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AT _ 71ST AVENUE, NORTH OF GREENWAY ROAD Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer, presented this item. During the process of designing the Greenway Road extension along the Arizona Canal Diversion Channel (ACDC) in conjunction with the Park Paseo project, it was discovered that a portion of the right-of-way needed for the proposed roundabout at 71st Avenue and Greenway Road, west of Mary Jane Road, was owned by the Maricopa County Flood Control District (MCFCD). The right-of-way area, which is part of a larger parcel owned by the MCFCD, is considered by the MCFCD to be excess land. The MCFCD has agreed to sell the needed right-of-way to the City. The MCFCD has had the excess land appraised and is asking $1.50 per square foot. The area needed by the City for right-of-way purposes contains 14,912 square feet, or approximately 0.342 acre. The total cost of the property will be approximately $22,400, plus customary closing costs. Funds for this acquisition are available in Greenway Road, 67th to 75 Avenues, Account Number 61-8812-8300. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents necessary for the purchase of excess Maricopa County Flood Control District land to be used for right-of- way purposes. Ordinance No. 2173 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ACQUISITION OF A PORTION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 71st AVENUE AND GREENWAY ROAD, WEST OF MARY JANE ROAD IN GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, TO BE USED FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC CIRCLE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GREENWAY ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE THIS PROPERTY. It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Goulet, to approve Ordinance No. 2173 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none. 23 21. ABANDONMENT AND DEDICATION OF A PORTION OF 83RD AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO SHIFT THE ALIGNMENT TO THE EAST Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer, presented this item. At the request of the City, the Marlin Group has agreed to dedicate property necessary to shift the alignment of 83rd Avenue slightly to the east. This request is related to the development of the site known as Glendale Northwest Retail, located at the southeast corner of 83rd Avenue and Union Hills Drive. This action will result in excess right-of-way on the westerly alignment for which Marlin Group has submitted a request for abandonment. The area to be abandoned contains 30,315 square feet and due to the contours in the streets, the dedication for the new alignment contains 31,275 square feet. There are no costs associated with this abandonment. The Marlin Group has submitted an executed deed for the dedication of the new right-of-way, which will be recorded at the time of the abandonment. The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance authorizing the abandonment of a strip of 83rd Avenue, subject to an easement for public utilities, to the underlying owner of record. Ordinance No. 2174 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE ABANDONMENT OF A STRIP OF 83RD AVENUE IN GLENDALE ARIZONA TO THE OWNERS OF RECORD OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE. It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance No. 2174 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none. 22. ABANDONMENT OF A ROADWAY EASEMENT, 51ST AND NORTHERN AVENUES Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer, presented this item. Mr. Keith Willis, the owner of the property located at the northeast corner of 51st Avenue and Northern, has requested the abandonment of a roadway easement in conjunction with the redevelopment of the site. The existing easement provides for both a roadway and public utilities to be placed along the north and east 20 feet of the property. The owner has requested that only the roadway portion be abandoned, retaining the easement for existing and future utilities. The surrounding development has not required the use of this roadway easement, which ends at the south end of the owner's parcel. Public utilities will not be affected by this abandonment. This request has been reviewed and approved by City staff. There are no costs associated with the abandonment of this easement. 24 The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an ordinance authorizing the abandonment of the roadway easement to the underlying owner of record, subject to an easement for public utilities. Ordinance No. 2175 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE ABANDONMENT OF A ROADWAY EASEMENT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 51ST AND NORTHERN AVENUES IN GLENDALE, ARIZONA TO THE OWNERS OF RECORD OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE. It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve Ordinance No. 2175 New `Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 23. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Appointment is to be made to the following boards or commissions that have a vacancy or expired term. Effective Term Date Expires Arts Commission Daniels, Denise (Yucca) Appointment 11/28/2000 08/23/2002 Aviation Advisory Commission Sue, Alan F. (Mayoral) Re-appointment 11/28/2000 11/24/2001 As Chair Sue, Alan F. (Mayoral) Re-appointment 11/28/2000 11/24/2002 Pitts, Carlton (Cactus) Appointment 11/28/2000 11/24/2002 Heyden, Ronald H. (Cholla) Appointment 11/28/2000 11/24/2002 Board of Adiustment Castro, Hector (Sahuaro) Appointment 11/28/2000 06/30/2002 25 Effective Term Date Expires Housing Advisory Commission Swedlund, Marlene (At-Large) Appointment 11/28/2000 07/01/2002 Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Gitelson, Richard (Sahuaro) Appointment 11/28/2000 04/09/2001 Personnel Board Munoz, Joe (Barrel) Appointment 12/24/2000 12/23/2001 As Chair Herman, James (At-Large) Re-appointment 12/24/2000 12/23/2002 Ojala, Lillie (At-Large) Appointment 12/24/2000 12/23/2002 Cheniae, Gordon (At-Large) Appointment 12/24/2000 12/23/2002 The recommendation was to make appointments to the various Boards and Commissions. It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Lieberman, to appoint the appointees listed above to the Arts Commission, the Aviation Advisory Commission, the Board of Adjustment, the Housing Advisory Commission, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, and the Personnel Board, for the terms listed above. The motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to vacate the City Council Workshop scheduled for December 5, 2000. The motion carried unanimously. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, thanked the Council for their diligence. He stated that he believed their actions show they care about zoning and what happens to the neighborhoods and the City. He encouraged all citizens to attend and participate in the City Council meetings. 26 Mr. Joseph S. Butter, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, said he ran into a lot of misinformation when he got involved in the zoning process and did not believe that all zoning and General Plan amendments have benefited the City. With regard to the Western Area General Plan Update, he said he was not put on the interested parties list, despite repeated requests to the Director and others in the Zoning Department. He questioned whether full citizen involvement occurred and whether information was getting out to interested parties. He said the document was very general and did not contain a full vision. He said he was also concerned about the Master Plan Development, explaining it was unfair to encourage them without provisions for owner/builders and small builders. He said provisions should be put in place and allowances should be made for all quality developments. He said he was concerned that the Planning Department only outlined a small number of workshops for review of the Western Area General Plan. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Councilmember Clark offered to visit with Mr. Butters regarding his concerns on the Western Area General Plan. She said the Western Area General Plan was due for its first public discussion on Tuesday, December 5th at 7:00 p.m. at Desert Mirage School. She pointed out that the plan was conceptual at this point and they would be asking for citizen comments. She said they would also have a City Center Master Plan Update meeting at the same location on Wednesday, December 6th at 7:00 p.m. She encouraged interested parties to attend both meetings. Councilmember Goulet congratulated the Special Event Staff for a spectacular second consecutive Glendale Glitters. He also congratulated the Country Hollow Homeowners' Association for acquiring its first small grant. He said he hoped it was the first of many applications they submit. He congratulated Mr. Verburg on his new position and wished him well in the future. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Goulet's comments. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed that Glendale Glitters is beautiful and encouraged everyone to come to Murphy Park. Councilmember Frate asked everyone to remember to drive carefully and slowly during the holiday season. Mayor Scruggs responded to Mr. Butter's comments regarding opportunities for individual or custom home builders. She stated that a zoning category for individual home builders does not exist. She explained that individual home builders buy land within master-planned communities. She encouraged everyone to patronize the shops in Glendale. 27 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9- • p.m. Pamela 0 iveira - City Clerk 28