HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/13/2001 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M.
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; Rick Flaaen, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6(c) OF THE GLENDLE CHARTER
A statement was filed by the City Clerk that the eight resolutions and three
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.
Mayor Scruggs welcomed the members of Glendale Boy Scout Troop 667 who
were present at the meeting: Mr. Sam Miller and his father, Mr. Steve Miller; and
members of Glendale Boy Scout Troop 526 who were present: Mr, Tim Middleton and
his father, Mr. Allan Middleton. She also welcomed members of Boy Scout Troop 105
who were present: Mr. John McKinnon, Mr. James McKinnon and Mr. Mat Pickard, and
their mother, Ms. Cathy McKinnon, and Mr. Jacob Coash, and his mother, Ms. Vicki
Coash, and Mr. Zachary Reineke, and his mother, Ms. Sue Reineke
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2001
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to dispense with the
reading of the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held on January 23, 2001,
as each member of the Council had been provided copies in advance, and
approve them as written. The motion carried unanimously.
PROCLAMATIONS AND AWARDS
PROCLAMATION OF 2001 AS THE "INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF VOLUNTEERS" IN
GLENDALE
In an effort to further promote volunteerism and recognize the valuable
contributions of volunteers in communities around the globe, the United Nations
proclaimed 2001 as the "International Year of Volunteers". The year-long event pays
tribute to volunteers around the world whose compassion, gestures of goodwill, help
and encouragement, participation, and generosity are helping to foster a universal
sense of community and create a brighter future for everyone.
1
Volunteerism continues to grow and thrive in the City of Glendale. Since 1999,
the City's Community Volunteer Program, a part of the Neighborhood Partnership
Department, has coordinated 131 different community services projects involving 3,327
different participants, amounting to 11,363.25 in hours donated in the community and
$143,784.36 worth of improvements to the City of Glendale. Community-based groups
and businesses, such as the Glendale Civic Pride Ambassadors, the Glendale Human
Services Council, the Mayor's Youth Advisory Commission, Boards and Commissions,
Habitat for Humanity, Midwestern University, Schuck and Sons, and Home Depot, have
contributed volunteers, cash, and materials donations to assist with numerous other
volunteer projects. Additionally, in the last quarter of 2000 alone, 646 volunteers
contributed $140,517 in augmented services to City departments such as the City
Court, Parks and Recreation, the Fire Department, the Library, and the Police
Department.
In appreciation for all that they do, the City of Glendale's many volunteers are to
be commended for their community service efforts and tireless work for the betterment
of Glendale.
Mayor Scruggs presented a proclamation to Ms. Shandran Jones Thornburgh,
Community Volunteer Coordinator for the City of Glendale; Ms. Sharon Ibarra,
Volunteer Services Coordinator for the City of Glendale; and Ms. Mary Ann Lavine,
Director of the Glendale Human Services Council, who accepted the proclamation on
behalf of the City of Glendale's many dedicated volunteers.
Ms. Thornburgh, Ms. Ibarra and Ms. Lavine joined together to thank those who
selflessly volunteer throughout the City of Glendale and to encourage everyone who
has not yet gotten involved to contact one of them for more information on how they
can give of their time, skills and knowledge.
CONSENT AGENDA
Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager, read Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 4
by number and title.
1 . AWARD OF BID 00-70, SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS
One offer was received to supply Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
Equipment to the Glendale Fire Department on an as-needed basis. The SCBAs are
used to provide oxygen to firefighters when poor air conditions exist. Invitation for Bids
(IFBs) were sent nationally to eight suppliers that sell MSA Brand SCBAs. MSA Brand
is the standard SCBA that the Glendale Fire Department personnel have been trained
to use. Multiple brands are not desirable due to safety concerns. Under hazardous
conditions, multiple brands of personal safety equipment increase the possibility of
incorrect operation of the equipment, which could result in the loss of life.
2
All of the suppliers who were solicited are MSA Distributors. United Fire
Equipment Company is the only MSA distributor in Arizona, authorized to sell MSA
brand SCBA Equipment to Fire Departments. Pricing is based on estimated annual
usage of 10 units per year. Based on this usage, the award amount is $33,666.37 per
year. The contract contains an option clause that permits the City, at the discretion of
the City Manager, to extend this agreement an additional four years, in one-year
increments. Funding is available in Fire Support Services Account Number 01-3330-
8400.
The recommendation was to award the contract for Self Contained Breathing
Apparatus Equipment in the amount of $33,666.37 per year, taxes included, to United
Fire Equipment Company.
2. AWARD OF BID 00-75, LUBRICATION SERVICE TRAILER
Two bids were received to supply the City with a new lubrication service trailer
that will be utilized by the Landfill service technician for routine maintenance and
servicing of the landfill equipment. The equipment is an addition to the fleet and has a
full-factory warranty.
The lowest responsive and responsible offer was submitted by Southwest
Products Corporation. The bid specifications contain an option clause that permits the
City, at the discretion of the City Manager, to purchase an additional unit at the same
price for a period of one year from City Council award, and additional units at mutually
agreed upon prices any time within two years of City Council award. Funding is
available in Landfill Division One-Time Supplemental Account Number 55-6235-8400.
The recommendation was to award the purchase of one lubrication service trailer
to Southwest Products Corporation in the amount of $42,785.00, taxes included.
3. AWARD OF BID 01-02, CABLE CAMERAS
Two bids were received to supply the Cable Department with cable cameras.
The Council Chambers currently has three cameras and the Council Workshop room
has four cameras. This contract is to install five cameras in each room, which will allow
for camera shots and angles that are not currently possible. These new cameras will
provide superior picture quality over the existing cameras which are approximately
fifteen years old. Funding is available Cable Franchise Fund Account Number
54-4526-8400. The lowest responsible and responsive offer was submitted by Burst
Communications, Inc.
The recommendation was to award the contract for cable cameras to Burst
Communications, Inc. in the amount $158,675.38, taxes included.
3
4. AWARD OF BID FOR THE VOLUNTARY DEMOLITION PROGRAM -
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 59TH DRIVE AND LAMAR ROAD
This was a request for the City Council to award a demolition contract in the
amount of $26,815 to The Building & Remodeling Specialists, Inc., (TBRS, Inc.), for the
demolition and removal of five vacant and deteriorated structures. The structures are
located at 6737, 6741 North 59th Drive, and 5917, 5917-A, 5921 West Lamar Road.
The Code Compliance and Neighborhood Revitalization Departments have worked with
the property owner to eliminate the blighting influence on the neighborhood. Code
Compliance has cited it for numerous violations, including, but not limited to, electrical,
plumbing, and heating deficiencies. The property owner has been cooperative in
seeking to clear the property. The structures are beyond rehabilitation and have been
vacant for a period of time. Interest in removing these blighted structures has also
been expressed by the surrounding Orchard Glen Neighborhood Association and the
Glendale Police Department.
The Neighborhood Revitalization Department sought bids from eight licensed,
qualified contractors and advertised the project in the Glendale Star. Three bids were
received. There are five structures on the property and asbestos was found on all of
the properties. The demolition and clearance will be paid for with Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, Account Number 11-7312-7330. It is
anticipated that the demolition will occur in mid-March, after the contractor obtains the
necessary permits from Maricopa County and the City of Glendale.
The Voluntary Demolition Program began in 1981 for the purpose of eliminating
vacant, deteriorated structures that contribute to blight in neighborhoods. The program
is funded with both Community Development Block Grant funds and City general funds.
Over the past 10 years, $601,257 has been expended to remove blight through this
program and approximately 100 structures have been demolished.
The recommendation was to award a demolition contract in the amount of
$26,815 to The Building & Remodeling Specialists, Inc., (TBRS, Inc.) for the demolition
and removal of five deteriorated and vacant structures located at the southeast corner
of 59TH Drive and Lamar Road.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
5. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT — AGUA FRIA FREEWAY
LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE
This was a request for approval of an intergovernmental agreement between the
City of Glendale and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the
installation and maintenance of landscape improvements adjacent to State Route 101,
Agua Fria Freeway, Camelback Road to Northern Avenue. The ADOT landscaping
project is intended to improve the aesthetics of this portion of the Agua Fria Freeway
with the installation of trees, shrubs and ground covers. The City is responsible for
costs to increase the plant sizes and densities and related irrigation requirements from
4
Camelback Road to Northern Avenue. This cost is estimated to be $39,522.50. The
City will also be responsible for furnishing water during the construction phase and all
water thereafter necessary to properly maintain the landscape. ADOT is bidding and
managing the entire project estimated to be $1,241,095.
City funds in the amount of $39,522.50 for the landscape upgrades are available
in Freeway Landscape Enhancement Account Number 61-8807-8300.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign any and all documentation relating to
this request.
Resolution No. 3438 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 AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE ALONG THE AGUA
FRIA FREEWAY.
6. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR AFFORDABLE ACCESSIBLE HOMES
(AAH) TO APPLY FOR MARICOPA HOME CONSORTIUM FUNDS
Affordable Accessible Homes (AAH), a nonprofit organization, has submitted an
application to the Maricopa HOME Consortium for $436,000 of HOME Consortium
funds for a Homeownership Program specifically aimed towards individuals who are
disabled. The Maricopa HOME Consortium consists of the cities of Chandler, Glendale
Gilbert, Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale, and Tempe and Maricopa County. Its purpose is to
oversee the allocation of HOME funds. As part of the Consortium's application
process, agencies must submit a Resolution of Support from the local community in
which the activity will be implemented. Affordable Accessible Homes is proposing that
four to eight homes in Glendale will be part of this program. This agency is also
proposing the same program in the cities of Tempe and Mesa; both cities have given
their support to this program.
Affordable Accessible Homes was organized in 1997 for the purpose of
expanding homeownership opportunities to individuals with disabilities. Affordable
Accessible Homes works in conjunction with clients to locate existing single-family
homes for purchase. Once a home is identified, it is purchased by AAH. Structural
modifications are made to the home by the agency to accommodate the client's
disability. The modifications may include installing ramps, widening doorways and
halls, removing sink barriers, lowering light switches, thermostats and countertops,
installing grab bars, and roll-in showers.
Once the home is renovated, the client is provided with financial assistance for
the down payment and closing costs to purchase the home. The HOME funds will be
used for the structural modifications and for financial assistance to the clients. If funds
are awarded for the program, a contract will be executed between Maricopa HOME
5
Consortium and AAH. This program will be funded with Maricopa HOME Consortium
funds. The City will administer the contract on behalf of Maricopa HOME Consortium.
The City of Glendale will not be requested to provide financial support, but will provide
technical assistance.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution supporting the application by Affordable Accessible Homes (AAH).
Resolution No. 3439 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION BY AFFORDABLE
ACCESSIBLE HOMES (AAH) TO THE MARICOPA HOME CONSORTIUM FOR
FEDERAL FUNDING THROUGH THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS
PROGRAM.
7. AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF PEORIA REGARDING POSSIBLE FUTURE USE
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE'S MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY
During 1998 and 1999, the City Council conducted several study sessions
regarding the implementation of a curbside recycling program and the operation of a
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at the Glendale Landfill. The Glendale Materials
Recovery Facility was constructed with a capacity of 125 tons per day. This capacity
can be doubled to 250 tons per day by adding a second shift. This additional capacity
was constructed based on Council's direction, as provided through the 1998 and 1999
City Council study sessions, to seek a partner in the future to purchase capacity in
Glendale's MRF and to share the facility's operational costs. Subsequently, the City
Council provided direction to staff in December of 2000 to discuss a request from the
City of Peoria to purchase capacity in the City's MRF.
In October of 2000, the City of Peoria City Council considered the issue of
implementing a curbside recycling program. City of Peoria staff recommended the use
of Glendale's Material Recovery Facility for material processing (sorting, baling, and
selling of recyclables). At that time, the City of Peoria decided to ask voters if the City
of Peoria should implement a curbside recycling program. An election is scheduled for
May of 2001.
Subsequently, the City of Peoria contacted executive staff at the City of Glendale
to discuss using Glendale's Materials Recovery Facility if Peoria voters approve the
implementation of a curbside recycling program. Specifically, the City of Peoria sought
assurance from the City of Glendale regarding use of Glendale's Material Recovery
Facility.
Based on Council's direction, staff negotiated an agreement assuring that the
cities of Peoria that Glendale will negotiate an intergovernmental agreement regarding
the use of Glendale's MRF if the City of Peoria residents approve the implementation of
a curbside recycling program in Peoria's May 2001 election. It is beneficial for the long-
term welfare of Glendale's recycling program to establish the City of Peoria as a partner
6
in Glendale's MRF. The City of Peoria can then cover a proportional share of the
facility's operational costs.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the City of
Peoria regarding an assurance that Glendale will negotiate a contract with the City of
Peoria if the Peoria electorate approves the implementation of curbside recycling in the
City of Peoria's May 2001 election.
Resolution No. 3440 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 AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF PEORIA REGARDING
THE POTENTIAL USE OF THE GLENDALE MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY.
8. ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF
HIGHWAY SAFETY FOR A STATE DRUG RECOGNITION EVALUATION
COORDINATOR
The Governor's Office of Highway Safety has requested that a City of Glendale
police officer become the State Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) Coordinator and will
reimburse the officer's salary via a grant totaling $54,506.
The coordinator's responsibilities will include the following:
• Act as information clearinghouse and central communication point for the
Arizona DRE Program;
• Assist in the coordination of training and other support activities for all
agencies participating in Arizona's DRE Program;
• Coordinate the assignment of instructors in response to requests for service
from federal, state, and local sources; and
• Develop and/or enhance and/or implement programs that identify impaired
drivers and educate the public in the identification of drug impaired drivers.
This assignment will be for one year and the Governor's Office of Highway
Safety will be reimbursing the Police Department the salary costs for the
officer assigned.
Benefits to the Police Department include the following:
• Increased accessibility to state and federal grants pertaining to highway
safety; and
• Enhanced exposure of the City of Glendale during regional and nationwide
training sessions and state highway safety policy-making sessions.
7
The Police Department would like to assign this officer to the Governor's Office
of Highway Safety and, since the salary will be reimbursed, the Police Department
requested that its authorized strength be increased by one Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
This FTE will then be eliminated after one year or when the grant is not renewed.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution
authorizing the submittal and acceptance of the grant offer from the Governor's Office
of Highway Safety for the State Drug Recognition Evaluation Coordinator and increase
the Police Department's sworn strength by one FTE.
Resolution No. 3441 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 SUBMISSION AND ACCEPTING THE
GRANT OFFER FROM THE ARIZONA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF HIGHWAY
SAFETY FOR A STATE DRUG RECOGNITION EVALUATION (DRE)
COORDINATOR.
9. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER — ALHAMBRA SCHOOL
DISTRICT
The Alhambra School District for Barcelona Elementary School and the Glendale
Police Department have drafted a contract, which continues the assignment of one
police officer to the elementary school during the current school year.
The assigned officer participates in educational programs such as D.A.R.E.
(Drug Abuse Resistance Education), and G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education
Training), which help students deal successfully with peer pressure, child abuse, gangs,
and related areas. The police officer also investigates cases of school-related criminal
activities and assists school administrators in addressing these matters. The Alhambra
School District has enjoyed a similar relationship with the Phoenix Police Department
for the past seven years, and with the Glendale Police Department for the past six
years.
Under this agreement, the school district will pay the City $35,085, which covers
the officer's salary and benefits during the time the officer is at the school. The officer
works on campus while school is in session and, during the summer and other
recognized breaks, the officer completes duties as assigned by the Police Department.
This type of partnership helps to continue the Police Department's educational efforts in
local schools, while enhancing the ability to increase visibility and presence in the
community, at a lower cost, with no decline in other service levels. The program has
been ongoing since 1993.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the
Alhambra School District for assignment of one police officer at Barcelona Elementary
School.
8
Resolution No. 3442 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 AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ALHAMBRA SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR THE PLACEMENT OF ONE POLICE OFFICER AT BARCELONA ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL TO ASSIST WITH THE PREVENTION OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF
STUDENTS AND INSTRUCT THE D.A.R.E. AND G.R.E.A.T. CLASSES.
10. HIGH SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER — GLENDALE UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT
The Glendale Union High School District for Independence High School and the
Glendale Police Department have drafted a contract, which continues the assignment
of one police officer to the high school during the current school year.
The assigned police officer participates in educational programs that help
students deal successfully with peer pressure, child abuse, gangs, and related areas.
The officer also investigates cases of school-related criminal activities and assists
school administrators in addressing these matters.
Under this agreement, the School District will pay the City $22,048. The
remaining portion of the salary is paid by the C.O.P.S. Universal grant. The officer
works on campus while school is in session and, during the summer and other
recognized breaks, the officer completes duties as assigned by the Police Department.
This type of partnership helps to continue the Police Department's educational efforts in
local schools while enhancing the ability to increase visibility and presence in the
community, at a lower cost, with no decline in other service levels.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the
Glendale Union High School District for assignment of one police officer at
Independence High School.
Resolution No. 3443 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 AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE GLENDALE UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF ONE POLICE OFFICER AT INDEPENDENCE
HIGH SCHOOL TO AID IN REDUCING CRIME ON THE SCHOOL CAMPUS
THROUGH EDUCATION, POSITIVE INTERACTION AND ENFORCEMENT.
9
11. HIGH SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER — DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
The Deer Valley Unified School District for Deer Valley High School and the
Glendale Police Department have drafted a contract, which continues the assignment
of one police officer to the high school during the school year, starting August 16, 2000
and ending June 2, 2001.
The assigned officer participates in educational programs that help students deal
successfully with peer pressure, child abuse, gangs, and related areas. The officer also
investigates cases of school-related criminal activities and assists school administrators
in addressing these matters. The Deer Valley Unified School District has enjoyed a
similar relationship with the Phoenix Police Department for several years.
Under this agreement, the School District will pay the City $22,048. The
remaining portion of the salary is paid by the C.O.P.S. Universal grant. The officer
works on campus while school is in session and, during the summer and other
recognized breaks, completes duties as assigned by the Police Department. This type
of cooperation helps to continue the Police Department's educational efforts in local
schools while enhancing the ability to increase visibility and presence in the community
at a lower cost and with no decline in other service levels.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the
Deer Valley Unified School District for assignment of one police officer at Deer Valley
High School.
Resolution No. 3444 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 AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE DEER VALLEY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF ONE POLICE OFFICER FOR
DEER VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL TO AID IN REDUCING CRIME ON THE SCHOOL
CAMPUS THROUGH EDUCATION, POSITIVE INTERACTION AND ENFORCEMENT.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item Nos. 1 through
11.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel Pjtrjct stated
that Glendale Community College has an excellent training program for firefighters. He
said he was glad to see the City move forward with the self-contained breathing
apparatus and other programs aimed to improve safety for firefighters. He expressed
appreciation for the installation and maintenance of landscape improvements adjacent
to State Route 101, Agua Fria Freeway, Camelback Road to Northern Avenue. He said
he would like to attend any meetings the City has regarding issues faced by physically
challenged residents.
10
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing on these items.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Goulet, to approve the
recommended actions on Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 11, including the
approval and adoption of Resolution No. 3438 New Series; Resolution No. 3439
New Series; Resolution No. 3440; New Series Resolution No. 3441 New Series;
Resolution No. 3442 New Series; Resolution No. 3443 New Series; and Resolution
No. 3444 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
Councilmember Lieberman said he was happy that the City is providing resource
officers to three schools and he saw this as a positive step.
Councilmember Clark congratulated Mr. Steve Willis, Police Corporal,
Neighborhood Patrol - Central, on his new position as the Evaluation Coordinator.
PUBLIC HEARING - LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS
12. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION ZU-00-12: 5810
WEST THUNDERBIRD ROAD SAFEWAY GAS STATION
Ms. Teresa Halverson, Planner, presented this appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a gas station in the C-2
(General Commercial) zoning district. The property is a 38,322 square foot vacant pad
in the Safeway Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of 57th Drive and
Thunderbird Road.
The proposal will allow ten fueling stations under a 3,698 square foot canopy and
a 230 square foot kiosk to house a cashier. There is no convenience store associated
with this use. The site plan shows the proposed canopy set back approximately 55
feet from Thunderbird Road and 137 feet from 57th Drive. Customers will access the
site from internal shopping center drives. There is no direct access to the adjacent
public streets.
At its September 21, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit ZU-00-12, by a vote of 6-0, subject to one stipulation.
Councilmember Frate subsequently filed this appeal on October 2, 2000. The
proposed circulation pattern for gasoline tanker trucks and the number of convenience
uses in the surrounding area was the basis for the appeal.
The site plan approved by the Planning Commission required gasoline tanker
trucks to exit through the main shopping center lot. The applicant has revised the site
plan to enable tanker trucks to circulate behind the shops in the shopping center in the
same manner as other delivery trucks. This resolves the circulation concern. Whether
or not the addition of another convenience use at this location will adversely affect the
character of the area remains debatable.
11
The proposed use is compatible with other commercial uses in the immediate
area. Nearby convenience uses include three banks with drive-thru teller lanes, a fast-
food restaurant with a drive-thru window, and a gasoline service station with a car wash.
The size and shape of the parcel is generally adequate for the proposed use.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and determine if
Conditional Use Permit Application ZU-00-12 meets the required findings for approval.
If the City Council decides to approve this Conditional Use Permit, the approval should
be subject to the two staff recommended stipulations.
Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Halverson if she believed Finding A had been
met. Ms. Halverson said the Zoning Ordinance allows gas stations in the C-2 zoning
district, with Conditional Use Permit approval. Councilmember Clark asked if access to
public streets and circulation were adequate. Ms. Halverson said they were. She
explained the revised plan dated February 9, 2000 which allows tanker trucks to leave
at a controlled intersection. She confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the
stipulations meet Finding E.
Mr. Michael Curley with the law firm of Earl, Curley & Lagarde, P.C., the
applicant's representative, introduced Mr. Joe Salvatore, principal of the architectural
firm, Architekton, and Mr. Jim Madison, a consultant. He said the problems typically
associated with gas stations were not found in this particular request. He explained that
the request does not locate the gas station on a corner, does not include any access
driveway cuts, is not placed near residential properties, and does not include a
convenience store. He stated that, although Councilmember Frate's reasons for
appealing the action were legitimate, the Applicant's revised plan addressed
Councilmember Frate's concerns. He said Stipulation 3 memorializes the shopping
center representative's agreement to allow the curb on the northeast corner of the site
to be modified. He stated that Stipulation 5 limits the hours of delivery. He explained
that approximately 40% of the site would be landscaped and the architecture would
blend well with the site. He said Stipulation 1 ensures a convenience store would not
be requested at a future date.
Mr. Madison said the current proposal to link grocery stores and gas stations is
the wave of the future and he complimented the City of Glendale on developing the
prototype. He said a similar situation currently exists is Show Low, Arizona and has
worked well. He stated that traffic engineers do not like to mix different types of traffic
flow, which is why they do not typically like to see convenience stores located on
corners. He said the opportunity to put a gas station where additional access onto the
arterial streets would not be necessary is a logical and safe approach. He noted that
the proposal could actually reduce traffic by consolidating trips.
Councilmember Frate questioned Mr. Curley about the expected gasoline sales
and trips per day.
12
Mayor Scruggs said she had expressed her concerns regarding underground
tanks on the property during a recent conversation with Ms. Mary Smith of Safeway's
Real Estate Department. She said Ms. Smith offered to include a stipulation requiring
full removal of the underground tanks should the gas station close. Mr, Curley
confirmed Ms. Smith's willingness to include such a stipulation.
Councilmember Goulet asked what a reasonable time period would be for the
removal of the tanks. Mr. Curley said he had not yet discussed the time period and
suggested they work that out with the City Attorney's Office, after researching any
federal regulations that might be involved.
Mr. Salvator noted that there are federal and state laws requiring that tanks be
removed if the station is closed down. He explained that the tanks have to be
monitored while under removal and the soil around and underneath the tank has to be
tested for contamination. He stated that remediation would be done immediately if any
contamination was found and the tanks would be taken to a hazardous waste disposal
site for proper disposal. He said the State Department of Weights and Measures and
the State Fire Marshall would both be onsite, observing the removal of the tank,
dispensers, and piping. He said the applicant would be assessed fines if the tanks
were not removed immediately.
Councilmember Frate noted that the second part of his appeal was based on
land use.
Mr. Curley explained that Ms. Smith's instructions to him were that the above
ground structures also be removed
Councilmember Frate explained that at 60,000 gallons per week, between 700
and 800 trips would be made each day. Mr. Curley pointed out that customers at the
Safeway store who are also in need of gas are not forced back out onto the street,
resulting in less interruption and conflict on the arterial streets.
Councilmember Goulet asked for confirmation from Mr. Curley that trip reduction,
based on onsite use, would be 50%. Mr. Curley said that 50% of sales at other
Safeway stations throughout the west are from store customers.
Councilmember Frate asked how many service stations Safeway currently has in
the State of Arizona. Mr. Curley stated that Safeway has eight stations in Arizona.
Councilmember Frate expressed concern with regard to the 21 other businesses
located on the 23 acre parcel. He questioned whether this was the highest and best
use for the pad.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 12.
13
Mr. Robert Steiger, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuaro District, said
he agreed with Councilmember Frate's reasons for appealing the Planning
Commission's approval of ZU-00-12. He explained that he was concerned with the
additional traffic it would cause in the area. He noted that there are 25 gas stations
located within two miles of the site, as well as two additional stations under
construction. He stated that the medical offices and credit union being built in the area
would also add to the congestion.
Ms. Bonnie Steiger, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuaro District, said
she was in favor of the appeal of the Conditional Use Permit. She expressed her
opinion that too much traffic already exists in the area and that 57th Avenue cannot
handle any additional traffic. She asked what would happen in the event of a gasoline
spill or if one of the tanks leaked.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing on these items.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Curley to address the safety aspects of an unmanned
fueling station. Mr. Curley explained that cameras and security systems broadcast a
signal into the store, which would be monitored 24 hours a day. He noted that the kiosk
would be manned until 10:00 p.m.
Councilmember Frate thanked the applicant for modifying its originally proposed
circulation pattern. He said, while the new circulation pattern adds a degree of safety to
the project, he was still concerned about the specific use. He said the intersection at
59th and Thunderbird Avenues is still one of the busiest in the City and adding a gas
station would increase the strain. He questioned whether a gas station was truly
needed at that location. He noted that a service station already exists at the
intersection and two others are being built within one mile. He said he still believed the
location was inappropriate and, therefore, he would not support the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit.
It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Eggleston, to reverse the decision
of the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Goulet agreed that this was a land use issue and the
appropriateness of a gas station in neighborhoods is always sensitive. He expressed
his opinion that the location is appropriate for a gas station and said he believed the
concessions made by the applicant could work. He said, if this request was denied
based on the increase in traffic, other developments proposed for the area would also
have to be denied. He stated that he would not support Councilmember Frate's motion.
Mayor Scruggs said the City is reaching a point where every land use decision
must be made more carefully than in the past because there is not much land left. She
said she was concerned that they were limiting their ability to diversely develop land.
She noted that fueling stations are not an identified use in C-2 zoning. She said she did
not believe this to be a good land use for the property because of the 25 fueling stations
14
that are already in existence and the two fueling stations currently under construction
within a two mile radius. She said it was the City Council's responsibility to make the
best land use decision and, therefore, she would support reversing the Planning
Commission's decision.
Councilmember Clark said she has always been opposed to gas stations
because they ultimately ask for liquor licenses. She pointed out, however, that this
station would not include a convenience use. She said she currently shops at the
Safeway located at 83`d Avenue, south of Camelback Road, and purchases gas at its
fueling station because it is five cents cheaper. She stated that she would rather see a
supermarket sell gas than a convenience store. In terms of Finding B, Councilmember
Clark said she did not see the gas station use as being materially detrimental to the
health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhoods. She said the 21-
acre parcel itself is being developed too intensely, thus generating the increase in
traffic. She expressed her opinion that the proposed site is adequate and she would be
much more comfortable with the addition of Stipulation 6 regarding the federal and state
mandated removal of tanks and above ground accessory equipment. She questioned
whether the federal and state fines imposed on tanks left in the ground were sufficient
to encourage their removal. She said she was also concerned about the proliferation of
gas stations throughout the Valley. She stated that Safeway's concept was good
because it pulls from traffic already entering the shopping center rather than attracting
additional traffic off the street. She expressed her opinion the five findings were met.
She stating that she would not support Councilmember Frate's motion.
Councilmember Martinez said area residents usually oppose gas stations;
however, this is not the case. He stated that the applicant has worked hard to
accommodate the concerns originally expressed by Councilmember Frate. He pointed
out the fact that the approval of this gas station does not ensure the approval of
subsequent requests for gas stations. He stated that he supported the Planning
Commission's decision and would vote against Councilmember Frate's motion.
Councilmember Lieberman said there are several issues involved in this case.
He calculated that 570 cars a day would access the station. He said 570 cars spread
out over a 24 hour operation would not necessarily result in congestion. He questioned
whether traffic would be worse or better than that of a fast food restaurant or
convenience store. He explained that, based on his faith in the Planning Commission
and because the applicant modified its plan to accommodate Councilmember Frate's
concerns, he would support the Planning Commission's decision.
Vice Mayor Eggleston voiced his opinion that it would not serve the public to
have a gas station at that location and that a more appropriate use could be found. He
said the station would attract traffic beyond that of Safeway shoppers.
Mayor Scruggs acknowledged the fact that traffic would increase regardless of
what is built on the site. She pointed out, however, that another use could also provide
jobs and sales tax dollars for the City.
15
Upon a call for the motion, the motion to reverse failed by a vote of 3 to 4,
with the following Councilmembers voting "aye": Eggleston, Frate, and Scruggs.
Councilmembers voting "nay: Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Goulet, to approve the Conditional
Use Permit, subject to the two staff-recommended stipulations, the five
stipulations offered in the February 9, 2001 letter submitted by the Applicant, and
by adding an additional stipulation requiring the removal of underground tanks
within the timeframe provided by state and federal regulations, but, in any event,
not more than six months after the service station ceases operations and removal
of the above ground accessory structures not more than three months after the
removal of the underground tanks, with staff having the option to negotiate an
extension if necessary.
In response to Councilmember Frate's question, Mr. Flaaen confirmed that the
Conditional Use Permit could be transferred to new owners. Councilmember Frate
expressed his concern.
Councilmember Clark asked if the motion should be amended to add an
additional stipulation, terminating the Conditional Use Permit should Safeway
discontinue the gas station operation. Mr. Flaaen said that a stipulation could be
included to specifically place the conditional Use Permit with Safeway as the operator,
thus requiring another user to come back before the Council.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Goulet, to restate and add to the
motion as follows: "Approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the two staff-
recommended stipulations, the five stipulations offered in the February 9, 2001
letter submitted by the Applicant, adding an eighth stipulation requiring the
removal of underground tanks within the timeframe provided by state and federal
regulations, but, in any event, not more than six months after the service station
ceases operations and removal of the above ground accessory structures not
more than three months after the removal of the underground tanks, with staff
having the option to negotiate an extension if necessary and adding a ninth
stipulation requiring any new applicant wishing to purchase the rights from
Safeway reapply for a Conditional Use Permit."
Mr. Curley said the applicant would agree to all of the stipulations.
In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Mr. Flaaen explained that zoning
actions need to be reversed. He stated that revocation of the Conditional Use Permit
would not be automatic - a future Council would have to take action to revoke it.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said he was convinced that the Council should not
approve the Conditional Use Permit based on its struggle with the stipulations.
16
Upon a call for the motion, the motion carried, with the following
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez.
Councilmembers voting "nay": Eggleston, Frate and Scruggs.
Mr. Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator, presented Agenda Item Nos. 13, 14, 15,
16 and 17, which were heard together. Councilmember Goulet recused himself from
these agenda Items.
13. ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION APPEAL ZV-99-28: 6829 NORTH 61ST
AVENUE (REMOVE FROM TABLE)
This was a request by Councilmember David Goulet to appeal the Board of
Adjustment's approval of Zoning Variance Application ZV-99-28. The variance request
will reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3
(Multiple Residence) zoning district. The property is located at 6829 North 61st Avenue.
On July 13, 2000, the Board of Adjustment conducted a noticed public hearing
on Zoning Variance Application ZV-99-28. The Board approved the request after
determining that it did meet all of the required findings required by the Arizona State
Statutes and the Glendale Zoning Ordinance. The required findings are as follows:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property,
including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings which were
not self imposed by the owner;
2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties of the same classification in the same zoning district;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship;
and
4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property,
adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the City in general.
The record of the July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment hearing consists of the
following exhibits:
A. The Planning Department's report to the Board of Adjustment with
attachments.
B. Verbatim excerpt from the minutes of the July 13, 2000, Board of Adjustment
meeting.
C. Councilmember David Goulet's letter of appeal dated July 19, 2000.
D. Excerpt from the minutes of the October 10, 2000 City Council meeting.
17
E. Letter from Mr. Mel Smith dated January 3, 2000 (2001).
F. Letter from Mr. Mel Smith dated January 29, 2001 .
Mr. Mel Smith, the property owner, was granted a continuance at the October 10,
2000 City Council meeting to an unspecified Council meeting in January or February of
2001 . The property owner has requested that this matter be continued again so that he
may obtain new legal counsel.
The recommendation was to remove this item from the table, review the record
of the Board of Adjustment and the City Council, consider Councilmember Goulet's
appeal and, based upon the evidence before the Board of Adjustment, act to affirm or
reverse, in whole or in part, or modify the Board's decision.
14. ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION APPEAL ZV-00-10: 6825 NORTH 61ST
AVENUE REMOVE FROM THE TABLE
This was a request by Councilmember David Goulet to appeal the Board of
Adjustment's approval of Zoning Variance Application ZV-00-10. The variance request
will reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3
(Multiple Residence) zoning district. The property is located at 6825 North 61st Avenue.
On July 13, 2000, the Board of Adjustment conducted a noticed public hearing
on Variance Application ZV-00-10. The Board approved the request after determining
that it did meet all of the required findings required by the Arizona State Statutes and
the Glendale Zoning Ordinance. The required findings are as follows:
1 . There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings which were
not self imposed by the owner;
2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties of the same classification in the same zoning district;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship;
and
4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property,
adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the City in general.
The record of the July 13, 2000, Board of Adjustment hearing consists of the
following exhibits:
G. The Planning Department's report to the Board of Adjustment with
attachments.
18
H. Verbatim excerpt from the minutes of the July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment
meeting.
I. Councilmember David Goulet's letter of appeal dated July 19, 2000.
J. Letter from Mel Smith, dated October 5, 2000.
K. Letter from Mel Smith, dated January 3, 2000 (2001).
L. Letter from Mel Smith, dated January 29, 2001.
Mr. Mel Smith, the property owner, was granted a continuance at the October 10,
2000 City Council meeting to an unspecified Council meeting in January or February of
2001. The property owner has requested that this matter be continued again so that he
may obtain new legal counsel.
The recommendation was to remove this item from the table, review the record
of the Board of Adjustment and the City Council, consider Councilmember Goulet's
appeal and, based upon the evidence before the Board of Adjustment, act to affirm or
reverse, in whole or in part, or modify the Board's decision.
15. ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION APPEAL ZV-00-11: 6735 NORTH 61sT
AVENUE (REMOVE FROM THE TABLE)
This was a request by Councilmember David Goulet to appeal the Board of
Adjustment's approval of variance application ZV-00-11. The variance request will
reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3 (Multiple
Residence) zoning district. The property is located at 6735 North 61st Avenue.
On July 13, 2000, the Board of Adjustment conducted a noticed public hearing
on variance application ZV-00-11. The Board approved the request after determining
that it did meet all of the required findings required by the Arizona State Statutes and
the Glendale Zoning Ordinance. The required findings are as follows:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings which were
not self imposed by the owner;
2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties of the same classification in the same zoning district;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship;
and
4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property,
adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the city in general.
19
The record of the July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment hearing consists of the
following exhibits:
M. The Planning Department's report to the Board of Adjustment with
attachments.
N. Verbatim excerpt from the minutes of the July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment
meeting.
O. Councilmember David Goulet's letter of appeal dated July 19, 2000.
P. Letter from Mel Smith dated October 5, 2000.
Q. Letter from Mel Smith dated January 3, 2000 (2001).
R. Letter from Mel Smith dated January 29, 2001.
Mr. Mel Smith, the property owner, was granted a continuance at the October 10,
2000 City Council meeting to an unspecified Council meeting in January or February of
2001 . The property owner has requested that this matter be continued again so that he
may obtain new legal counsel.
The recommendation was to remove this item from the table, review the record
of the Board of Adjustment and the City Council, consider Councilman Goulet's appeal,
and, based upon the evidence before the Board of Adjustment, act to affirm or reverse,
in whole or in part, or modify the Board's decision.
16. ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION APPEAL ZV-00-12: 6830 NORTH 60TH
AVENUE (REMOVE FROM THE TABLE)
This was a request by Councilmember David Goulet to appeal the Board of
Adjustment's approval of variance application ZV-00-12. The variance request will
reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3 (Multiple
Residence) zoning district. The property is located at 6830 North 60th Avenue.
On July 13, 2000, the Board of Adjustment conducted a noticed public hearing
on variance application ZV-00-12. The Board approved the request after determining
that it did meet all of the required findings required by the Arizona State Statutes and
the Glendale Zoning Ordinance. The required findings are as follows:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings which were
not self imposed by the owner;
2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties of the same classification in the same zoning district;
20
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship;
and
4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property,
adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the city in general.
The record of the July 13, 2000, Board of Adjustment hearing consists of the following
exhibits:
S. The Planning Department's report to the Board of Adjustment with
attachments.
T. Excerpt from the minutes of the July 13, 2000 Board of Adjustment meeting.
U. Councilmember David Goulet's letter of appeal dated July 19, 2000.
V. Letter from Mel Smith dated October 5, 2000.
W. Letter from Mel Smith, dated January 3, 2000 (2001).
X. Letter from Mel Smith dated January 29, 2001.
Mr. Mel Smith, the property owner, was granted a continuance at the October 10,
2000 City Council meeting to an unspecified Council meeting in January or February of
2001. The property owner has requested that this matter be continued again so that he
may obtain new legal counsel.
The recommendation was to remove this item from the table, review the record
of the Board of Adjustment and the City Council, consider Councilmember Goulet's
appeal, and based upon the evidence before the Board of Adjustment, act to affirm or
reverse, in whole or in part, or modify the Board's decision.
17. ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION APPEAL ZV-00-13: 6833 NORTH 60TH
AVENUE (REMOVE FROM THE TABLE)
This was a request by Councilmember David Goulet to appeal the Board of
Adjustment's approval of variance application ZV-00-13. The variance request will
reduce the required side setbacks from 20 feet to 5 feet and 10 feet in the R-3 (Multiple
Residence) zoning district. The property is located at 6833 North 60th Avenue.
On July 13, 2000, the Board of Adjustment conducted a noticed public hearing
on variance application ZV-00-13. The Board approved the request after determining
that it did meet all of the required findings required by the Arizona State Statutes and
the Glendale Zoning Ordinance. The required findings are as follows:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings which were
not self imposed by the owner;
21
2. Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties of the same classification in the same zoning district;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship;
and
4. Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property,
adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the City in general.
The record of the July 13, 2000, Board of Adjustment hearing consists of the
following exhibits:
Y. The Planning Department's report to the Board of Adjustment with
attachments.
Z. Excerpt from the minutes of the July 13, 2000, Board of Adjustment
meeting.
AA. Councilmember David Goulet's letter of appeal dated July 19, 2000.
BB. Letter from Mel Smith dated October 5, 2000.
CC. Letter from Mel Smith dated January 3, 2000 (2001).
DD. Letter from Mel Smith dated January 29, 2001.
Mr. Mel Smith, the property owner, was granted a continuance at the October 10,
2000 City Council meeting to an unspecified Council meeting in January or February of
2001. The property owner has requested that this matter be continued again so that he
may obtain new legal counsel.
The recommendation was to remove this item from the table, review the record
of the Board of Adjustment and the City Council, consider Councilman Goulet's appeal,
and based upon the evidence before the Board of Adjustment, act to affirm or reverse,
in whole or in part, or modify the Board's decision.
Dr. Vanacour asked the Council to remove Agenda Item Numbers 13, 14, 15, 16
and 17 from the table.
Mr. Flaaen informed the Council that Mr. Smith had submitted a letter, requesting
further continuance of Agenda Item Numbers 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 He said Mr.
Smith's request for continuance would be denied if Council decided to remove the items
from the table, whereas if the items were continued, either by vote or by lack of motion
to remove them from the table, Mr. Smith's request would be granted.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Clark, to remove Agenda Item
Numbers 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 from the table. The motion carried unanimously.
22
Mayor Scruggs explained the rules governing the proceedings, as set forth in the
City's Zoning Ordinance Section 3.709.
Councilmember Goulet, the appellant, said he represented the Orchard Glenn
Neighborhood Association with regard to the land use. He said the application was
contrary to the General Plan adopted by the City Council in 1994. He stated it was
contrary to the conservation area that overlays the neighborhood. He submitted and
reviewed a handout, outlining his opinions on the four required findings. With regard to
the first finding, Councilmember Goulet stated that Mr. Smith purchased the lots
knowing, or he should have known of, the limitations regarding the setbacks which were
imposed on R-3 properties in 1993. As to the second required finding, he said all R-3
properties in the area are subject to the same setback requirements. He said Mr.
Smith's properties are not being treated any differently than others and to grant the
variance would grant Mr. Smith greater privileges than those enjoyed by other R-3
property owners, With regard to the third required finding, Councilmember Goulet said
Mr. Smith is not being deprived of all use of his property, as narrower units could be
constructed on the property which would not require a variance. He stated that, while
the narrower units could be less profitable to Mr. Smith, the City is not required to
assure any purchaser of land a certain level of profitability. With regard to the fourth
finding, he said the variances granted, if upheld, would increase the density and
intensity of the usage on these properties, having a long-term detriment to the
neighborhood and adjoining properties. He noted that neighbors testified at the Board
of Adjustment hearing that this level of density and intensity of usage, with access from
the alley for the back units, would have a detrimental effect on their neighborhood. He
quoted from the General Plan and stated that the increase in density and intensity on
the lots, as proposed by Mr. Smith, was contrary to the stated plan and goals of the
City. He characterized the area as being one of the most, if not the most, densely
populated area of the City. He said increasing the density would negatively impact the
efforts of the City to rehabilitate this important and vital part of the City's downtown
neighborhood. He asked the Council to deny the variance passed by the Board of
Adjustment,
Councilmember Clark asked Councilmember Goulet to expand on his comments
regarding Finding 2, She pointed out that most development in the neighborhood
occurred before the current R-3 zoning district standards were put in place.
Councilmember Goulet said determining the origination of zoning in the neighborhood
has been one of their biggest challenges. He expressed his opinion that part of the
original zoning was intended to enable people to rent out part of their property;
however, that use no longer exists. He said the neighborhood has a strong desire to
decrease intensity of use and to re-establish a neighborhood character.
Councilmember Clark asked if there were any other situations where a
residential and rental structure exist together on one lot. Councilmember Goulet said
there are many properties with additional structures and many legal non-conforming
uses exist in the area.
23
Councilmember Martinez noted that eight neighbors who were opposed to the
request attended the Board of Adjustment hearing. Councilmember Goulet explained
that 10 to 12 of the neighbors attended the meeting and were in opposition to the
request; however, not all of them spoke.
Councilmember Lieberman referred to a comment made by Councilmember
Goulet. He asked Councilmember Goulet if the issue of Mr. Smith's ability to maximize
his profit on the property came up during the Board of Adjustment hearing.
Councilmember Goulet clarified that he did not speak at the Board of Adjustment
hearing. He said the statement he made that the City was not responsible for a
property owner's profitability was a conclusion he came to based on one of the variance
requirements. He stated it was not within the purview of any City Council to ensure
someone maximizes their profitability.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if that statement could be considered since it
was not previously addressed at the Board of Adjustment hearing. Mr. Flaaen said he
did not consider it to be new evidence, but a commentary on evidence previously
submitted. He said Councilmember Goulet's statement that it was not the City's
responsibility to ensure that a property owner maximizes his or her profit was accurate.
Councilmember Clark asked how large the Orchard Glenn neighborhood was.
Councilmember Goulet explained that the neighborhood goes from 59th to 63rd Avenues
and from Glendale Avenue south to Lamar Road. He estimated that there were 175
structures, with approximately 35 active members in the association. He pointed the
fact that a number of the units in the area are rentals and they typically do not
participate in the Neighborhood Association.
Ms. Darin Sender of Sender Associates, Mr. Smith's representative, said they
were requesting that the Board of Adjustment's decision to grant the variances be
upheld and that the appeal be denied. She explained that the Board of Adjustment is
empowered by State Statute to specifically hear variances. She said it was not
something that could be easily overturned, as certain rules and criteria have to be met.
She said State Statute was recently amended to allow variance appeals to go directly to
court or to a legislative body, such as the City Council, and then to court. She noted the
standards do not differ, regardless of the path taken. She reiterated that no new issues
may be introduced and that the Council and/or court is limited to reviewing those issues
on record. She quoted comments made by various Board of Adjustment members at
the hearing just prior to the vote being taken. She said it was clear that the appeal
criteria for variance standards was limited and very narrow in scope. She stated that all
four of the Board members who voted in favor of the variance felt the criteria were met.
Ms. Sender cited 11 instances in the record where the main issues in Councilmember
Goulet's appeal letter were discussed at length by the Board. She explained that pages
7, 8, 12, and 13 all dealt with specific instances and comments regarding alleyway use
and density, while pages 5, 9, and 11 dealt with other issues. She stated that pages
17, 18, and 19 contained comments from each of the Board members in favor of the
request, addressing the fact that it would have a positive impact. She said other
24
comments made during Councilmember Goulet's presentation fall outside the scope of
the review. She reiterated that all four of the Board of Adjustment members stated for
the record that they felt the four criteria were met.
Councilmember Clark referred to Vice Chairperson Gordon Cheniae's verbatim
testimony on page 19, stating that the Board was saying, based on the very narrow
criteria, they had no choice but to approve; however, they were moving it on to the
Council. Ms. Sender interpreted Vice Chairperson Cheniae's comments to mean that
social issues were not strong enough to deny the variances and that social and political
problems which were not part of the variance request or handled within the variance
criteria would better be handled by the Council. She explained that the Council could
adopt policies, ordinances, or resolutions that are outside the scope of a quasi-judicial
body's review.
Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Sender to clarify why the circumstances were
not self-imposed by the property owner. Ms. Sender said, because of the platting and
size of the lots with regard to the allowed usage under R-3, it was considered not to be
self-imposed. Councilmember Clark asked Ms. Sender if it was the property owner's
responsibility to do due diligence when purchasing a property, thereby making it a self-
imposed circumstance. Ms. Sender said she did not agree that it was a self-imposed
circumstance because the use and density were allowed. She said any property owner
is allowed to apply for a variance meeting those specific criteria.
Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that it was a detriment to the
neighborhood. She noted that they do not typically allow new single-family
developments to be built on 55 foot wide lots. She said the applicant was proposing to
place two residences on the property. She asked why that would not be considered
detrimental. Ms. Sender said infill redevelopment increases property values in general.
She stated that the Council is charged with reviewing the record and the Board of
Adjustment's decision; therefore they cannot re-weigh evidence heard at the Board of
Adjustment hearing. She said the lots were platted a long time ago and the variance
procedure allows property owners to obtain relief where the Zoning Ordinance does not.
Councilmember Clark stated that the Board of Adjustment's decision was based on the
four findings and it was Council's job to determine whether that criteria was, in fact, met.
Mr. Flaaen said Ms. Sender's letter references an Arizona Court of Appeals case that
states Council cannot receive additional evidence or re-weigh evidence previously
considered, stating, however, that Council can make a determination as to whether the
Board of Adjustment acted arbitrarily and capriciously in making its determination that
the evidence supported the findings. He said the Council cannot substitute its judgment
for the judgment of the Board of Adjustment. He confirmed that the Council has the
right to ask for clarification on issues from the record.
Mr. Flaaen confirmed for Councilmember Lieberman that the Board of
Adjustment requires four votes, regardless of the number of members present at the
hearing.
25
Councilmember Goulet reviewed comments made by Mr. Smith at the Board of
Adjustment hearing, which he believed might have had an impact on their decision. He
said Mr. Smith was emphatic and stressed that the properties would have zero to one
cars. He questioned the validity of Mr. Smith's statement. He noted that it could have
affected the Board's perception of what the variance would bring to the neighborhood.
He expressed his opinion that significant issues did not accurately depict the end use of
the property. He stated that the variance would bring a detrimental use that would
impact the neighborhood and surrounding properties. He stressed the fact that the
request was not in conformance with the General Plan or the intended use of R1-6 and
was not in conformance with the Conservation Area.
Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Jacobs how many units could be
constructed on the properties if the variances were not granted. Mr. Jacobs said the
existing R-3 zoning would permit two additional units; however, because of existing
standards and lot sizes, a variance would probably be required for construction of most
any residential unit.
Councilmember Clark asked what the typical width of homes in the area was.
Mr. Jacobs pointed out that much of the construction was done prior to development
standards being put into place. He said the predominant lot size is 50 feet by 180 feet.
Mayor Scruggs explained that the Council could affirm the decision of the Board
of Adjustment, thereby upholding the variances granted; reverse the decision of the
Board of Adjustment, thereby denying the variances to Mr. Smith; or modify the
decision of the Board of Adjustment.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Eggleston to reverse the decision
of the Board of Adjustment with regard to ZV-99-28.
Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the Board of Adjustment did
not address all of the statutory requirements for granting such a variance, especially
those with regard to Findings 1 and 4. She stated, therefore, that she could not support
upholding the Board of Adjustment's decision.
Councilmember Martinez said he did not find it easy to reverse the Board's
decision; however, he did not believe Finding 4 was met. He expressed his opinion
that, based on comments made at the Board of Adjustment hearing, the variance would
have a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
Mayor Scruggs said she did not believe the Board of Adjustment had sufficient
evidence to find for Finding 4 and, based on the record, had sufficient evidence that
Finding 4 was not met.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was in favor of reversing the Board of
Adjustment's decision.
26
Upon a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously with the following
members voting aye: Clark, Lieberman, Frate, Martinez, Eggleston and Scruggs.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Martinez, to reverse the
decision of the Board of Adjustment with regard to ZV-00-10. Upon a roll call
vote, the motion carried unanimously with the following members voting aye:
Clark, Lieberman, Frate, Martinez, Eggleston and Scruggs.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to reverse the decision
of the Board of Adjustment with regard to ZV-00-11. Upon a roll call vote, the
motion carried unanimously with the following members voting aye: Clark,
Lieberman, Frate, Martinez, Eggleston and Scruggs.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Clark, to reverse the decision
of the Board of Adjustment with regard to ZV-00-12. Upon a roll call vote, the
motion carried unanimously with the following members voting aye: Clark,
Lieberman, Frate, Martinez, Eggleston and Scruggs.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Clark, to reverse the decision
of the Board of Adjustment with regard to ZV-00-13. Upon a roll call vote, the
motion carried unanimously with the following members voting aye: Clark,
Lieberman, Frate, Martinez, Eggleston and Scruggs.
Mayor Scruggs stated that Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of
Glendale Barrel District, had submitted a public hearing speaker's card regarding
Agenda Item Numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, but was not called upon to speak
because the Council was prohibited from accepting new testimony.
Public Hearing Speaker's Cards were submitted by the following people, who
indicated that they opposed Agenda Item Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, but did not wish
to speak.
Mr. John Barrera, a resident of the City of Glendale Ocotillo District
Ms. Rafaela Barrera, a resident of the City of Glendale Ocotillo District
Mr. Terry Barrera, a resident of the City of Glendale Ocotillo District
Ms. Rosil n Miller a resident of the Cit of Glendale Ocotillo District
Ms. Natalie Stahl a resident of the Cit of Glendale Ocotillo District
18. REZONING APPLICATION Z-00-12: 8501 NORTH 59TH AVENUE
Mr. Ricardo Toris, Senior Planner, presented this rezoning request submitted by
Brown Family Communities to rezone 4.8 acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to R1-6 PRD
(Single Residence, Planned Residential Development), located 130 feet north of the
northeast corner of 59th Avenue and Evergreen Road.
27
The proposed R1-6 PRD will allow a maximum of 17 single-family lots, at a
density of 3.54 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot area is 6,039 square feet and
the average lot area is 7,950 square feet. The minimum lot width is 55 feet and the
minimum lot depth is 105 feet. The PRD proposes 18-foot front yard setbacks on even
numbered lots and 21-foot front yard setbacks on odd numbered lots. Five-foot and
ten-foot side yard setbacks and twenty-foot rear yard setbacks will be provided.
Currently there is an existing 8-foot wide alley located along the entire north side
of the Thunderbird Estates subdivision, located to the south of this site. This project will
dedicate an additional 8-feet, in order to complete a 16-foot wide alley. The alley will be
gated at both ends to eliminate vehicular traffic. Questions have risen regarding the
negative impact that gating the alleyway may have on the surrounding community.
Difficulties may arise when trying to service a gated alley. Issues of maintenance,
utilities, safety, and illegal dumping had also been raised
This PRD plan is the second phase of "The Villages on 59th Avenue" which was
approved by the City Council on June 22, 1999. The final subdivision plat for phase
one, which is located immediately north of this site, was approved by the City Council
on October 24, 2000.
At a hearing held on December 21 , 2000, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend approval of Z-00-12, subject to eight stipulations.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve Rezoning
Application Z-00-12, subject to the eight stipulations recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Clark asked how the front yard setbacks in the R1-6 standards
compare to those in the proposed R1-6 PRD standards. Mr. Toris explained that the
proposed 18 foot front yard setback would be measured to the garage. He explained
that the request for 18 and 21 foot setbacks was made to allow for variation in the front
yard setbacks. He noted the 18 feet is measured from the property line.
Councilmember Martinez asked if staff recommend not gating the alley. Mr.
Toris said staff recommended being consistent with the Planning Commission's
recommendation to gate the alley. He noted that internal concerns were raised by other
departments.
Councilmember Frate asked if the alley was necessary. Mr. Toris explained that
they could not get 100% consensus from all of the property owners to the south in
Thunderbird Estates and, therefore, the only way to address the requirement for an
alley was to have this subdivision dedicate another eight feet. Councilmember Frate
asked if there was 100% consensus on gating the alley. Mr. Toris said there was not.
28
Mr. Jon Froke, planning consultant representing the applicant, stated that Brown
Family Communities purchased the subject property based on suggestions made by the
City of Glendale that it would make a great addition to Phase I. He explained that the
requested zoning is R1-6 PRD, the same category reviewed in 1999 for Phase I. He
stated that the zoning pattern is consistent with the General Plan, as well as the existing
zoning on surrounding properties. He expressed concern regarding Stipulation
Numbers 6 and 7. He said restricting them to single-family homes was problematic and
he asked that they be allowed to modify the stipulation to allow some percentage of
two-story homes. He said the lots are unusually deep and they are providing a 16 foot
buffer beyond that for the alley. With regard to Stipulation Number 7, Mr. Froke
explained that 8 feet has already been dedicated by virtue of the subdivision plat platted
in 1971. He stated that they have explored various options and have to give up the
additional 8 feet to accommodate the 16 foot alley. He said they were willing to either
gate or not gate the alley.
Councilmember Martinez asked if those individuals who attended the
neighborhood meeting wanted an alley. Mr. Froke referred to the Citizen Participation
Final Report, stating that there was not a consensus at the neighborhood meeting
regarding the alley. Councilmember Martinez asked if Phase I was limited to single-
story houses. Mr. Froke said Phase I does not have any restrictions on single family
homes.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if City crews would have access to the alley if
it was gated at both ends. Mr. Froke said their primary concern was, if the alley was
gated at both ends, they did not want to have to pave the alley. He stated that the
Planning Commission had discussed gating the alley and providing various City
departments with keys. Councilmember Lieberman asked what type of surface the
alley would have. Mr. Froke said the surface was not discussed at the Planning
Commission hearing; however, they envisioned a dust-free surface. Councilmember
Lieberman recommended that they add a stipulation requiring the alley be paved. He
explained that any other dust-free surface would have to be maintained to prevent
deterioration. He questioned how crews would keep track of the keys. Mr. Froke
reiterated that they were willing to strike the requirement that the alley be gated. He
agreed that the gate could cause problems. He stating that they had expressed their
concerns to staff. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he would like to see the alley
brought up to the paved specifications of other alleys in Glendale.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the people who currently use the alley have trash pickup
in the alley. Mr. Froke said they did not. He explained that the 16 foot alley width is the
City standard for alleys and the alley would not be used by the Sanitation Department.
He said utilities are located in the alleyway and access to those utilities has to be
provided. He stated that they did not anticipate providing gated access to the alley from
lots 3 through 16. Mayor Scruggs asked if the alley would be gated via the use of
actual gates or if a chain would be used simply to prevent vehicles from entering the
alley. She noted that, in her subdivision, residents hired people to create gates in their
separation wall to provide access to the alley and asked if that could happen in this
29
subdivision as well. Mr. Froke said they had not gotten to that level of detail, but he
envisioned having a solid gate at each end of the alley. He said the stipulations were
written to provide some flexibility in the design. Mayor Scruggs said a solid gate would
allow the opportunity for people to hide or establish temporary living quarters in the
alleyway. Mr. Froke said one issue brought up at the neighborhood meeting was that
children in the area use the property to go from 59th Avenue to The American Graduate
School of International Management. He stated that the stipulation was more of an
effort to keep pedestrian traffic out of the alley.
Councilmember Lieberman asked what would happen if the residents wanted a
gate to the alley. Mr. Flaaen said the City could require that a one foot non-vehicular
access easement, running along the back of the lots, be recorded with the development
to prevent anyone from using the alley to gain access to their property.
Dr. Vanacour recommended that the alley be paved since it would get some use
and that it be left open because solid gates would create a dangerous zone.
Councilmember Clark agreed with Dr. Vanacour. She said gates could create
liability issues. With regard to the two-story homes, she said the lots in her subdivision
were also very deep and she believed they were wrong not to restrict two-story homes
on the lots to the north. She explained that the lots to the north are much smaller than
hers and their two-story homes look directly into their backyards. She recommended
that the stipulation prohibiting two-story homes remain as is.
Councilmember Goulet concurred that the alley should not be gated. He said he
was also concerned about the two-story homes and did not believe they would be
appropriate.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the subdivision would have a homeowners
association. Mr. Froke said it would.
Councilmember Martinez noted that the petition submitted by property owners to
the south asked that two-story homes not be allowed directly behind them. He asked if
the applicant was proposing that a percentage of the homes located further north be
two-story. Mr. Froke explained that, although the zoning allows for two-story homes,
the stipulations do not. Councilmember Martinez agreed that two-story homes should
not be built immediately adjacent to the existing subdivision.
Councilmember Lieberman noted that the stipulation does not include lots 1 and
17. He asked if two-story homes could be built on those lots. Mr. Froke said they could
be.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item Number 18.
30
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the Citypf Glendale Barrel District, said he
lives next to the subject property and people in his neighborhood use the alley to gain
access to the only park in the area. He said many children also use the alley to get to
school. He asked that the alley be left open and that it be paved. He said there are a
lot of people who want a traffic light at Evergreen Road. He stated that he was never
informed of the neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Andrew Apostolik, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel Distirct,
submitted a public hearing speaker's card, indicating that he did not wish to speak, but
wished to make a statement only. His card stated that he wanted to strongly encourage
the inclusion of a locked gate at the unused alley.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Mr. Kevin Haskell, Brown Family Communities, stated that they did not
suggest gating the alley and were not comfortable with doing so. He said the Council
had asked them to purchase the land, which they did, based on their being given the
ability to place the same product on these lots as the other lots in Phase I. He asked
the Council to reconsider the two-story issue, allowing them to provide more diversity.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Haskell what size of single-family homes would be
built. Mr. Haskell was unable to give square footage. He explained that it is based on
the calculations for setbacks and lot coverage. He stated that they would offer the
same products as offered in Phase I and estimated the homes to be 1,500 to 2,100
square feet.
Councilmember Clark said they were getting 45% lot coverage rather than the
standard 40%, which should accommodate larger single-story homes. Mr. Haskell said
it would not be cost efficient to design 15 larger single-story homes for the project.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Clark to approve Z-00-12 as
recommended by staff, with the exception of removing the requirement that the
alley be gated at both ends.
Councilmember Lieberman recommended that the motion be amended to modify
the stipulation to say "The alley shall be paved."
Vice Mayor Eggleston said some residents do not want the alley paved.
Councilmember Lieberman said the City Manager had recommended, and he
and Councilmember Clark agreed, that the alley should be paved.
31
Mayor Scruggs asked if they could require that the alley be paved, but that the
improvements standards be left up to the City Engineer. Mr. Flaaen said there are
certain improvement standards that go along with paving, such as the depth of the
pavement, if a sub-base is required, and so forth. He said requiring that the alley be
paved and leaving the requirement that it be approved by the City Engineer were not
necessarily inconsistent.
Councilmember Clark stated that gravel disappears over time. She asked who
would be responsible for re-graveling the alley in the future. She recommended that
the alley be paved.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Clark to approve Z-00-12, as
recommended by staff, except that the entire 16 foot wide alley along the south
property line be paved when the property is developed, with improvement
standards being approved by the City Engineer and removing the requirement
that the alley be gated at both ends. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed for a short break.
BIDS AND CONTRACTS
19. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - BETHANY HOME ROAD STREET
AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer, presented this request for City Council award
of a construction contract to Nesbitt Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $1,778,529.15
for the construction of street and storm drain improvements to Bethany Home Road
between 67th and 75th Avenues.
This project will improve Bethany Home Road from a two-lane road to a five-lane
arterial, with two travel lanes east and west and a center two-way turn lane. The
improvements will include new curb and gutter, sidewalks, pavement widening, frontage
road, street lighting, landscaping, and minimal storm drain improvements.
To ensure that the contract amount would not exceed the construction budget for
this project, two add alternates were included in the bid schedule. Add Alternate A is
for a minimal storm drain facility that can be constructed as an interim system to help
alleviate standing storm and nuisance water. Add Alternate B is for a complete storm
drain system between 67th and 75th Avenues that includes the main storm drain and all
pertinent catch basins, pipe laterals, and manholes.
Six bids were received and opened on January 18, 2001. Nesbitt Contracting,
Inc., a qualified and licensed contractor, submitted the lowest base bid in the amount of
$1,478,219.15. It was recommended that Add Alternate A for the minimal storm drain
be added at a cost of $300,310, for a total construction contract award of
$1,778,529.15. Add Alternate B in the amount of $3,811,384.90 was not recommended
for award due to budget constraints.
32
Funds for this project are available in Bethany Home Road, 67th to 83rd Avenues,
Account Number 61-8816-8300.
The recommendation was to award the construction contract to Nesbitt
Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $1,778,529.15.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Frate, to award the
construction contract to Nesbitt Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $1,778,529.15.
The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSES
20. SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR ARIZONA YOUTH BASEBALL —
FEBRUARY 26, 2001
This was a request for a special event liquor license for Arizona Youth Baseball.
The event is a golf tournament/ fundraiser, which will be located at the Arrowhead
Country Club, 19888 North 73rd Avenue.
The event will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Monday, February 26,
2001. If this license is approved, the total days expended by this applicant will be 1 of
the allowed 10 days this calendar year.
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 4-203.02, the State of Arizona
Department of Liquor Licenses and Control may issue a special event liquor license
only if the City Council recommends approval of such license.
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.
21. SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY
ASSOCIATION — MARCH 12, 2001 (ARROWHEAD COUNTRY CLUB)
This was a request for a special event liquor license for the Muscular Dystrophy
Association. The event is a golf tournament/fundraiser, which will be located at the
Arrowhead Country Club, 19888 North 73rd Avenue. The event at the Arrowhead
Country Club also includes a dinner and silent auction after the tournament.
The event will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Monday, March 12, 2001.
If this license is approved, the total days expended by this applicant will be 2 of the
allowed 10 days this calendar year.
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 4-203.02, the State of Arizona
Department of Liquor Licenses and Control may issue a special event liquor license
only if the City Council recommends approval of such license.
33
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.
22. SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY
ASSOCIATION — MARCH 12, 2001 (THE LEGEND GOLF RESORT
This was a request for a special event liquor license for the Muscular Dystrophy
Association. The event is a golf tournament/fundraiser, which will be located at The
Legend Golf Resort, 21027 North 67th Avenue.
The event will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Monday, March 12, 2001 .
If this license is approved, the total days expended by this applicant will be 1 of the
allowed 10 days this calendar year.
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 4-203.02, the State of Arizona
Department of Liquor Licenses and Control may issue a special event liquor license
only if the City Council recommends approval of such license.
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. 20, 21, and
22. As there were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Clark, to forward Special
Event Liquor License Applications for (1) Arizona Youth Baseball for a golf
tournament/fundraiser to be held on February 26, 2001 at the Arrowhead Country
Club located at 19888 North 73rd Avenue; (2) the Muscular Dystrophy Association
for a golf tournament/fundraiser to be held on March 12, 2001 at the Arrowhead
Country Club located at 19888 North 73rd Avenue; and (3) the Muscular Dystrophy
Association for a golf tournament/fundraiser to be held on March 12, 2001 at The
Legend Golf Resort located at 21027 North 67th Avenue, to the State of Arizona
Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for
approval. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - LIQUOR LICENSES
23. LIQUOR LICENCE NO. 3-745 — THEE PITTS AGAIN
This was a request for a new series 12 (restaurant) license for Thee Pitts Again,
which is located at 5558 West Bell Road. The previous owner operated this business
as Winger's and held a series 12 (restaurant) license at this location. A new license is
required because a series 12 license is not transferable.
34
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.
24. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-747 — WESTSIDE LES'
This was a request for a person transfer of a series 6 (on- & off-sale retail, all
liquor) license for Westside Les', which is located at 5114 West Camelback Road. The
previous owner operated this business as the Westside Cocktail Lounge and held a
series 6 (on- & off-sale retail, all liquor) license at this location.
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 Numbers 23 and
24. As there were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Frate, to forward Liquor
License Applications No. 3-745 for Thee Pitts Again and No. 3-747 for Westside
Les' to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval. The motion carried unanimously.
35
ORDINANCES
25. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY CODE — LIQUOR LICENSE
PROCEDURES AND FEES
Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director presented this item. Any person applying for a
State liquor license located in the City of Glendale, except for a special event or wine
festival license, must obtain a Glendale liquor license pursuant to Chapter 4 of the City
Code. Each applicant for a Glendale liquor license must pay an application fee for
processing the application and an annual license fee. The application and license fees
are based on the City of Glendale's direct personnel costs and indirect administrative
costs related to liquor licenses.
The City of Glendale has not adjusted its liquor license fees since 1986. Staff
recommended changes to the application and annual license fees for liquor licenses to
more accurately reflect the City of Glendale's costs related to such licenses. The actual
fee adjustments was proposed for adoption by resolution on a separate agenda item at
tonight's meeting.
Staff recommended changes to Chapter 4 of the City Code in conjunction with the
fee adjustments. These Code changes will do the following:
• Delete unnecessary or outdated definitions and provisions.
• Bring other definitions and provisions into conformity with State liquor laws.
• Clarify certain procedures for processing applications to conform them to
existing practices. (E.g., an applicant who has obtained an interim permit
from the State will be expressly authorized to sell liquor without a Glendale
liquor license while the applicant's request for a license transfer or a new
(replacement) license is pending).
• Recognize a new category of "inactive" Glendale liquor licenses for fee
purposes, similar to what the State does. Inactive license fees will apply only
if a licensee de-activates its State liquor license and can no longer sell liquor.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title, conduct a public
hearing, and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the City Code concerning
liquor license procedures and fees.
Ordinance No. 2183 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CHAPTER 4, RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSES.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item Number 25. As
there were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
36
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to approve Ordinance No.
2183 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.
26. PURCHASING ORDINANCE REVISION
Mr. Bill Brewer, Materials Management (Purchasing) Manager, presented this
item. A performance and management assessment study of the Utilities Department in
1999 contained specific recommendations to streamline the procurement process and
increase the delegation of authority. As a result, revisions have been made to the
Purchasing Ordinance addressing these issues. The two major changes are: (1);
raising the formal bid and proposal limit from $25,000 to $50,000, and (2); award of bids
and proposals by staff if the award is within the authorized budgeted amount and no
protest was received. An administrative award report will be issued monthly to keep
Council and others informed of the actions taken by staff.
Wording and process changes are also included in the Purchasing Ordinance
revisions for clarification, consistency, simplicity, and to match current practices. The
revision will also allow for the disposal of surplus property, using electronic auctioning
services. The proposed revisions to the Purchasing Ordinance have been reviewed by
the Leadership Team, the Acting City Attorney, and the City Auditor.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt the
revisions to the Purchasing Ordinance.
Ordinance No. 2184 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE V, DIVISION 2, RELATING TO THE PURCHASING
PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY OF GLENDALE; AMENDING THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF GLENDALE, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE V, DIVISION 3.1, RELATING TO THE
DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS AND OBSOLETE CITY PROPERTY; AMENDING THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE VII, RELATING TO
UNCLAIMED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Goulet, to approve Ordinance No.
2184 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.
27. NEW POLICY FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRPERSONS TO
BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Martin Vanacour, City Manager, presented this item. In an effort to improve the
effectiveness of the City of Glendale's Boards and Commissions, the Council
37
Government Services Committee has recommended that all Vice Chairpersons be
appointed by the City Council. During training for Boards and Commission members
last year, participants indicated that there were differing methods being used by Boards
and Commissions to select Vice Chairpersons. Consensus from Boards and
Commission members participating in the training indicated a desire to have the City
Council make all Vice Chairperson appointments.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance amending Glendale City Code Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division I, by adding a
new section 2-268 relating to the appointment and terms of Vice Chairpersons for City
Boards and Commissions. The term of appointment for the Vice Chairperson shall be
one year, subject to reappointment.
Ordinance No. 2185 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING GLENDALE CITY CODE CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE
VIII, DIVISION 1 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 2-268 RELATING TO THE
APPOINTMENT AND TERMS OF VICE-CHAIRPERSONS FOR CITY BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS.
It was moved by Martinez and seconded by Frate to approve Ordinance No.
2185 New Series.
Councilmember Clark stated that she would not support the motion because she
believed Boards and Commissions should be allowed to choose their own Vice
Chairpersons.
Councilmember Martinez said the appointment of Vice Chairperson can be
difficult because a standard procedure does not exist.
Councilmember Lieberman said he would support the ordinance if it brings a
standard method to all Boards and Commissions.
Councilmember Clark said a system could have been devised that would have
left control in the hands of the Boards and Commissions.
Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following members voting "aye":
Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members voting
"nay": Clark.
PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION
28. LIQUOR LICENSES — FEE RESOLUTION
Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, presented this item. Any person applying for a
State liquor license located in Glendale, except for a special event or wine festival
38
license, must also obtain a City of Glendale liquor license. Each applicant for a
Glendale liquor license must pay a one-time application fee for processing the
application and an annual license fee. The application and license fees are based on
Glendale's direct personnel costs and indirect administrative costs related to liquor
licenses.
The City of Glendale has not adjusted its liquor license fees since 1986. The
revenues generated from some of Glendale's liquor license fees do not cover
Glendale's costs associated with such fees. Staff recommended changes to the
application and annual license fees for liquor licenses to more accurately reflect and to
more fully recover Glendale's licensing-related costs.
The proposed fee changes were studied at a Workshop session held on January
9, 2001 .
The recommended fee changes are summarized as follows:
• The application fee will increase from $200 to $700 for all licenses, except for
special event, wine festival, and government licenses.
• The license fees for most licenses will stay at their present levels. Eighty two
percent of the current licensees in Glendale will see no fee increases as a
result of the fee changes.
• Higher license fees will be set for the licenses that require the most law-
enforcement activities -- in particular, Series 6 (bar, all liquor) licenses. The
license fees for these licenses will be increased from $800 to $1 ,400 per
year.
• A new license fee in the amount of $50 will be established for inactive liquor
licenses to reflect the decreased costs related to such licenses.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title, conduct a public
hearing, and adopt a resolution establishing new application and license fees for liquor
licenses.
Resolution No. 3445 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING APPLICATION AND LICENSE FEES, PURSUANT
TO GLENDALE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 4, FOR LIQUOR LICENSES; AND SETTING
FORTH AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item Number 28. As
there were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Clark and seconded by Lieberman, to pass, adopt, and
approve Resolution No. 3445 New Series. The motion passed unanimously.
39
REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to hold a City Council
Workshop on Tuesday, February 20, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., to be held in Room B-3 of
the City Council Chambers, to be followed by an Executive Session pursuant to
A.R.S. 38-431.03. The motion carried unanimously.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District spoke
about his friend whose wheelchair is falling apart. He said he would like to speak with
his representative from the Barrel District to see if there was some way the City could
help him. He thanked the Council for their efforts in trying to locate the new stadium in
the West Valley. He suggested that Westmarc (Western Maricopa Coalition) and the
West Valley mayors get together to attract some other major facilities.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Councilmember Clark wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day.
Councilmember Lieberman said he had received several positive comments on
the Chocolate Festival. He expressed his pride in the volunteers who serve the City of
Glendale.
Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that there are 30 events scheduled at the Civic
Center over the next 30 days.
Councilmember Frate reported that he was having a special Sahuaro District
meeting at Desert Valley Elementary School at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 15th to
discuss the City of Glendale's transportation plan. He invited everyone to attend.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
C _ „
Pamela(� ' ei City Clerk
40