HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/29/2001 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
HELD TUESDAY, MAY 29, 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, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VII SECTION 6k)SoF GLENDLE CHARTER
A statement was filed by the City Clerk that the four resolutions and four
ordinances to be considered at the meeting were available for public examination and
the title posted at City Hall more than 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 1, MAY 8, AND MAY 14,2001
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to dispense with the
reading of the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held on May 1, May 8, and
May 14, 2001 and the Special Council Meeting held on April 11, 2001, as each
member of the Council had been provided copies in advance, and approve them
as written. The motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager, read Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 5
by number and title.
1. SPRING 2001 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT GRANT REQUESTS
As part of the City Council's commitment to revitalizing older neighborhoods, the
Mayor and Council established the Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Neighborhoods to make recommendations on neighborhood enhancement and
revitalization projects. For Fiscal Year 2000-01, approximately $700,000 in general
fund money has been set aside for such projects. Of this amount, approximately
$350,000 has been made available to neighborhoods for the Spring 2001 funding cycle.
The Commission on Neighborhoods recently concluded a two month review
process of seven neighborhood grant requests and was recommending all seven of
them for approval (each of the approved grants include a contingency):
1
1. Lo La Mai Mobile Home Park — $64,100.30 to fund the construction of a
new, six foot, painted and stuccoed perimeter wall around the
neighborhood and install new landscaping on the City right-of-way along
43'.° and Missouri Avenues. The neighborhood pledged $4,305.60 in
sweat equity and $7,516 in cash to this project.
2. Orchard Glen Neighborhood - $35,000 to fund a conceptual and
architectural study of streetscape and landscaping designs for the area of
59th Drive — 61st Avenue; Glendale to Ocotillo Avenues. The
neighborhood pledged $5,529.60 in sweat equity to this project.
3. Casa de Zia HOA - $13,160 to rebuild an existing block perimeter fence
on the western portion of the neighborhood to prevent vandalism,
trespassing, and other security issues that have caused concern in the
neighborhood. The neighborhood pledged $1,336.80 in sweat equity to
this project.
4. Orangewood West and 79th Lane - $112,772.45 to construct an eight-
foot fence, install new landscaping, curb, gutter, and street improvements
along City right-of-way located at 79th Lane and Myrtle Avenue. The
neighborhood pledged $2,618.72 in sweat equity to this project.
5. Fountain Shadows HOA - $10,100.80 to help the homeowners
association repave and repair the south side of Diana Avenue and
portions of its internal street system. The neighborhood pledged
$16,339.31 in cash and $300 in sweat equity, for this project.
6. Olive Green Villas HOA - $46,793.40 for new landscaping, wall
improvements, and entry signage along the neighborhood's 59th Avenue
perimeter area. The neighborhood pledged $5,634.60 in sweat equity and
donated materials for this project.
7. Ocotillo-Rose Nei•hborhood Association - $30,000 to fund the
• incorporation of decorative sidewalks near the Ocotillo-Rose Park as part
of a larger $200,000 Community Development Block Grant-funded curb,
gutter and sidewalk project that will begin later this year. The
neighborhood has pledged $2,073 in sweat equity, for this project.
The total requested, with contingencies factored in, amounts to $311,926.95.
Funds for the Spring 2001 neighborhood grant recommendations are available in
Account Number 01-8968-8330 (Neighborhood Projects). This item was reviewed by
the Mayor and Council at the May 14, 2001 City Council Workshop.
The recommendation was to approve the Spring 2001 neighborhood
improvement grants as recommended by the Commission on Neighborhoods.
2
2. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT — 2000 ARTERIAL STREET
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
This was a request for City Council award of a construction contract to Wat-Irr,
Inc. in the amount of $165,016.50 for the installation of landscape and irrigation
improvements for the following street rights-of-way:
Northern Avenue (north side) 45th to 47th Avenues
Peoria Avenue (south side) 45th to 49th Avenues
Orangewood Avenue (south side) 51st to 53rd Avenues
This project is part of the City's 2000-2001 Arterial Landscaping/Beautification
Program. The streetscape improvements included in the project include the planting of
street trees and shrubs, as well as the installation of ground cover materials and
automatic irrigation systems. For the purpose of project and cost efficiency, the
installation of traffic signal interconnect conduit along Peoria Avenue (south side), 45th
to 49th Avenues, and Northern Avenue (north side), 45th to 47th Avenues, was included
in the scope of the design and construction for this project as requested by the
Transportation Department.
Three bids were received and opened on May 10, 2001. Wat-Irr, Inc., a qualified
and licensed contractor, submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $165,016.50. The
City's design consultant reviewed the bids and qualifications of the low bidder and
recommended award of the contract to Wat-Irr, Inc. Engineering staff agreed with this
recommendation.
Funds for this project are available in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Capital
Improvement Program Street Beautification Account Number 62-8559-8300. However,
a transfer in the amount of $44,00 needs to be made from Signal Computerization
Account Number 61-9546-8330 into the project account to cover the cost of installation
of the traffic signal interconnect conduit.
The recommendation was to approve the transfer of funds and award the
construction contract to Wat-lrr, Inc. in the amount of $165,016.50.
3. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT — HEART OF GLENDALE
LANDSCAPE PROJECTIPHASE 1
This was a request for City Council award of a construction contract to Sunburst
Landscaping in the amount of $135,185.33 for the installation of landscape and
irrigation improvements and various sidewalk improvements within the Heart of
Glendale. This project is part of the City's Capital Improvements Program — South of
Glendale Avenue. It has been a City Council goal to improve the visual quality of the
City's urban environment within the community and specifically in older neighborhoods
in the City that were not previously landscaped.
3
The streetscape improvements, for the base bid and the add alternate, include
the installation of landscape and irrigation improvements within the street rights-of-way
that currently do not have landscaping and minor site improvements, including curbing,
handicap ramps, and sidewalks. The construction bidding process for this project was
structured with a base bid for improvements along the following streets:
Lamar Road (north and south sides) 55th to 53rd Drives
Ocotillo Road (north side) 55thto b3--rd
Drives
55th Drive (east side) Ocotillo to Lamar Roads
55th Avenue (east and west sides) Ocotillo to Lamar Roads
54th Avenue (east and west sides) Ocotillo to Lamar Roads
53rd Drive (east side) Ocotillo to Lamar Roads
and one bid alternate for improvements for the following streets:
Lamar Road (north and south sides) 57th Avenue to 55th Drive
Ocotillo Road (north side) 57th Avenue to 55th Drive
56th Avenue (east and west sides) Ocotillo to Lamar Roads
Three bids were received and opened on May 10, 2001. Sunburst Landscaping,
a qualified and licensed contractor, submitted the lowest total bid in the amount of
$135,185.33. The City's design consultant reviewed the bids and the qualifications of
the low bidder and recommended award of the contract to Sunburst Landscaping.
Engineering staff agreed with this recommendation.
The total bid amount of $135,185.23 includes the base bid amount of $88,863.91
and Add Alternate No. 1 in the amount of $46,321.32. Funds for this project are
available in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Capital Improvements Program, — South of Glendale
Avenue, Account Number 12-8913-8300. Approximately $26,000 will be left in the
account, which will be carried over to next year's budget to supplement budgeted funds
for landscaping of other portions of the neighborhood in this project.
The recommendation was to award the construction contract to Sunburst
Landscaping in the amount of $135,185.23.
4. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT— SPORT COURT LIGHTING
This was a request for City Council approval of a construction contract to
Kimbrell Electric, Inc. in the amount of $38,335 for the installation of game court lighting
at Bicentennial, Chapparal and Heritage Parks. These improvements are part of the
Parks and Recreation Department's ongoing plan to upgrade existing facilities. Parks
and Recreation Department Project Coordinators notified residents and held public
meetings for each park as a part of the planning process for these improvements.
4
Three bids were received and opened on April 25, 2001. Kimbrell Electric Inc., a
qualified and licensed contractor, submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $38,335.
The City's design consultant reviewed the bids and the qualifications of the low bidder
and recommended award of the contract to Kimbrell Electric, Inc. Engineering
Department staff agreed with this recommendation.
Funds for this project are available in Parks Bonds, Park Enhancement Account
Number 36-8517-8300.
The recommendation was to award the construction contract to Kimbrell Electric,
Inc. in the amount of $38,335.
5. BUDGET TRANSFER FOR OUTSIDE LEGAL SERVICES
The City Attorney's Office was allocated $34,320 for outside legal services for
the entire year. Due to the necessity for retaining specialized outside legal counsel and
in-house civil attorney vacancies, a budget transfer is necessary to cover outside legal
services.
In January, the City Manager authorized the transfer of the City Attorney's salary
savings from the attorney vacancies to help supplement the cost for outside legal
services. However, further funding is needed before the end of the fiscal year.
The transfer of $403,000 from the General Fund Contingency Account to the City
Attorney's budget will allow for the payment of incurred and projected outside counsel
fees and costs for the remainder of the fiscal year.
The recommendation was to authorize the transfer of $403,000 from the General
Fund, Contingency Fund Account Number 01-2450-7000 to City Attorney Account
Number 01-1510-7330 for outside legal services.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
6. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARICOPA COUNTY FOR
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
This was a request to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Maricopa
County for the provision of animal control services, including enforcement of the City's
leash law and related animal control ordinances. In November of 1999 Maricopa
County determined that a new cost for services methodology needed to be
implemented that provided for full cost recovery of field services, such as animal control
officers, as well as full cost recovery for shelter-related services.
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) convened a special study
committee to review the costs associated with this program and the report of the
committee outlining the new fees for service was accepted by the MAG Regional
5
Council on March 28, 2001. Maricopa County will provide service 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, so that citizens, as well as public safety personnel, will be able to
receive service at any time.
The intergovernmental agreement is for a one-year period, with two one-year
renewals, and will take effect on July 1, 2001. The agreement also provides for
cancellation by either party, subject to 180 days' notice. City Council discussed the
additional costs for this service at the April 17, 2001 Budget review session and
directed staff to include the one-time supplemental request in the Fiscal Year 2001-02
Budget. Funds are available in City Non-Departmental Account Number 01-2440-7330.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with
Maricopa County for the provision of animal control services in an amount not to exceed
$247,113.
Resolution No. 3468 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 MARICOPA COUNTY FOR ANIMAL
CONTROL SERVICES.
7. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARICOPA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT FOR JURY SERVICES
This was a request to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the
Maricopa County Superior Court to provide the City Court with qualified jurors for jury
trials. The Superior Court has provided jury services based on similar agreements
since 1993.
The agreement includes a $1,500 one-time annual fee, a $1 .00 charge for
printing and postage for each juror Questionnaire and Summons, and reimbursement
for juror's mileage. Considerable cost savings result from utilizing this agreement.
Funds are available in the City Court operational budget, Account Number 01-1410-
7920. The total cost for jury services is estimated to be $9,335. The agreement will be
in effect from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002, with a one-year renewal option to June 30,
2003.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager and the City Judge to execute an
intergovernmental agreement with Maricopa County Superior Court to provide the
Glendale City Court with qualified jurors for jury trials.
6
Resolution No. 3469 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 SUPERIOR COURT OF
ARIZONA IN MARICOPA COUNTY FOR JURY SERVICES.
8. MARICOPA COUNTY OVERTIME AGREEMENT
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, through a grant with the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, has funds available to reimburse Arizona law enforcement agencies for
overtime costs associated with clandestine methamphetamine lab cases. This new
program is available for reimbursement on a first-come, first-serve basis, with a
maximum amount of $5,000 available per agency. Reimbursement will be requested
from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office until the grant funds are exhausted.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement between the City of
Glendale and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for the reimbursement of overtime.
Resolution No. 3470 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 MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERTIME COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE ARIZONA METHAMPHETAMINE PROGRAM.
9. CANVASS OF VOTES AND RESOLUTION ADOPTING RESULTS_OF THE
SPECIAL REFERENDUM ELECTION
On Tuesday, May 15, 2001, the City of Glendale conducted a Special
Referendum Election. Immediately following the Special Referendum Election, an Early
Ballot Board and a Ballot Verification Board were convened. The final tabulation results
are included in the canvass of votes.
The purpose of the "canvassing" of the votes is to permit the members of the
Council to review and approve the election results. These results, which include all
polling place returns, early ballots, and the ballots to be verified, constitute the official
canvass when approved by the City Council and certified by the City Clerk.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution accepting the canvass of votes of the Special Referendum Election held in
the City of Glendale on May 15, 2001.
7
Resolution No. 3471 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, DECLARING AND ADOPTING THE RESULTS OF THE
SPECIAL REFERENDUM ELECTION HELD ON MAY 15, 2001; AND ORDERING
THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Clark, to approve the
recommended actions on Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 9, including the
approval and adoption of Resolution No. 3468 New Series, Resolution No. 3469
New Series, Resolution No. 3470 New Series, and Resolution No. 3471 New
Series. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING — LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS
10. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-00-08 AND REZONING APPLICATION
Z-00-16:5129 WEST CACTUS ROAD
Mr. Brian Friedman, Senior Planner, presented this request by Earl, Curley and
Lagarde for State Savings Mortgage to amend the General Plan land use map from
Shopping Center to 5-8 residential dwelling units per acre and to rezone from C-2
(General Commercial) to R1-4 PRD (Single Residence, Planned Residential
Development) on 22.3 acres located at the southwest corner of 51St Avenue and Cactus
Road. The applicant proposes to develop a single-family residential neighborhood.
The current General Plan designation of Shopping Center is not appropriate for
the property. The location of the Arizona Canal and the Arizona Canal Diversion
Channel at the southwest corner of 51St Avenue and Cactus Road severely limits the
property from developing commercially. Single-family homes will have less impact than
retail, creating less traffic and noise.
The proposed R1-4 PRD zoning will allow a maximum of 135 single-family
residential lots in a gated community, at a density of 6.1 dwelling units per acre. The
minimum lot area is 2,708 square feet, the average lot area is 3,541 square feet, and
the largest lot is 6,505 square feet. The minimum lot width is 42 feet and the minimum
lot depth is 72 feet. A pool, spa, ramada, restrooms, barbecue, and tot lot is planned
for the recreation area located in the center of the site. Additional project features
include decorative perimeter walls, extensive landscaping, entry features, and entry
signage.
At a hearing held on April 19, 2001, the Planning Commission unanimously
voted to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment GP-00-08 and Rezoning
Application Z-00-16, with Rezoning Application Z-00-16 being subject to seven
stipulations. Three people spoke at the hearing. They were concerned about the grade
of the site in relation to the existing grade of the backyards of the homes along the
western property line, construction of the wall adjacent to the existing homes, two-story
8
homes adjacent to the neighborhood, and possible overcrowding of Marshall Ranch
Elementary School.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve General Plan
Amendment GP-00-08 and Rezoning Application Z-00-16, with Rezoning Application Z-
00-16 being subject to the seven stipulations recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Friedman how he had reconciled the fact that
there are ten design guidelines not met with this rezoning application. Mr. Friedman
clarified that it meets all of the design criteria within the single-family residential design
guidelines for house product. Councilmember Clark noted that 83% of the lots are
under the minimum lot size prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance and that the side yard
setbacks are not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. She asked what
amenity package was offered to offset the deviations from the residential design
guidelines. Mr. Friedman stated that the applicant believes the package they produce
and the design quality will result in a house product and subdivision that far exceeds
any standard R1-4 or R1-6 subdivision and staff agrees with the applicant's position.
Mr. Michael J. Curley, with the law firm of Earl, Curley & LagardeP�C.
located In Phoenix, Arizona, the applicant's representative, explained that the patio
home concept in the proposal brought before the Council came to the Council with the
support of the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. Six neighborhood
meetings were held over a two-year period and the majority of the concerns were
addressed in the application. Mr. Curley stated that, by the City's own General Plan
standards, this area is not conducive to C-2 development. He reviewed the staggering
concept that will mitigate the concerns typically seen with patio home developments.
He noted the various floor plans and elevations. He noted the large landscape setback
along the west boundary line designed to mitigate the concerns of adjacent single-
family property owners. Tremendous support was demonstrated for this site design
concept. Mr. Curley reviewed the subdivision access points and the many amenities.
He stated that there is a tremendous amount of fill on the site, which they have agreed
to remove from the site at a cost of $250,000. With respect to concerns about the
impact on the neighborhood schools, Mr. Curley noted that this project does not lend
itself to families with children and should not have a negative impact on the school
system. Nonetheless, they have come to an agreement with the school district.
Councilmember Frate stated that he had visited a similar community in the City
of Chandler and he was very impressed with the quality of the development. He agreed
that the development is more conducive to an adult lifestyle and that is what he had
perceived in Chandler.
In response to a comment made by Councilmember Fate, Mr. Curley read into
the record a stipulation addressing the developer's dedication of an equestrian
easement along a specific portion of Cactus Road.
9
Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that a neighbor of the proposed development had
shared with him a concern about the fill dirt. Mr. Curley reiterated the applicant's
commitment to removing the fill dirt.
Vice Mayor Eggleston noted the fact that the same person was opposed to the
idea of living adjacent to two-story homes and suggested that the products to the rear
of the development be single-story. Mr. Curley stated that there would be a range
between 70 and 120 feet separation between the two developments, which will create
sufficient separation. He explained why the subdivision products have to be laid out in
the manner proposed. He described the landscaping that would be installed on the
property.
Councilmember Lieberman reminded everyone that he has historically been
opposed to lots smaller than 7,000 square feet. However, when he looked at this
subdivision, he thought it was an ideal project for the land. He, therefore, stated his
support for the project.
Councilmember Clark stated that the proposed concept is appropriate for an in-
fill project. She noted, however, that she was troubled with the potential that the homes
will go to buyers who do not necessarily fit into the market that the developer is trying to
attract. She asked for information about the kind of house product that would be
marketed. Mr. Curley stated that the base price of the homes in the City of Chandler
subdivision ranges between $120,000 and $150,000, but the average cost is almost
20% more after upgrades. This demonstrates that the buyers are interested in
investing in a nicer home with significant options/upgrades. Those same options and
upgrades will be available in the City of Glendale. He confirmed that the products will
offer flexibility in the home option packages.
Mayor Scruggs noted that this is a new housing product to the City of Glendale.
She asked if Mr. Curley was involved in the City of Chandler zoning case. Mr. Curley
said he was not, but he was involved in two other similar projects by other developers.
He compared the proposed development to the referenced development in the City of
Chandler, and noted that the City of Glendale development compares favorably.
Mayor Scruggs asked how the City of Chandler reconciled the inconsistencies
between their zoning ordinance requirements and the housing product/development
they approved. She also asked about the City of Chandler development zoning
classification. She noted that the City of Glendale's design guidelines were fashioned
after those of the City of Chandler. She asked if the City of Glendale needs to adopt
different design guidelines for this type of product. Mr. Curley explained that the City of
Chandler takes a completely different approach to the patio home type of development.
He agreed that the City of Glendale design guidelines do not apply to a patio home
development. Mayor Scruggs suggested that the City of Glendale consider looking at
different guidelines for different products. She agreed that a variety of housing
products is important to a city, as the lifestyles of its residents change.
10
Councilmember Clark reiterated that the proposed development will work at this
location. She agreed that the City needs to develop strong guidelines to ensure that
quality products are built in the City of Glendale.
Councilmember Goulet commented on other successful infill projects and noted
his support fort his project.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 10. As there
were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Martinez said that, at first, he was concerned with the density
and not meeting the design standards. He indicated that he was now more comfortable
with the project. He reminded the Council that, in 1998, over 400 apartments were
proposed for the site. He said he much preferred an infill development with 135 quality
home products. He stated that was appreciative of the applicant's work with the
neighborhood. He said he was excited to see the product.
Councilmember Clark requested that she be informed of the mix of home
ownership once the development is built out.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Goulet, to approve General Plan
Amendment GP-00-08 and Rezoning Application Z-00-16, with Rezoning
Application Z-00-16 being subject to the seven stipulations recommended by the
Planning Commission, in addition to an eighth stipulation that an equestrian
easement shall be provided along Cactus Road between the curb and the
detached sidewalk within the City of Glendale right-of-way. On the northwest
corner and the northeast corner of the site, where the sidewalk is attached to the
curb, an equestrian easement shall be provided. The motion carried
unanimously.
11. REZONING APPLICATION Z-01-02: 7533 NORTH 75TH AVENUE
Ms. Teresa Halverson, Planner, presented this application by Mr. Jim West to
rezone a 4.9-acre property from R1-6 (Single Residence) to M-1 (Light Industrial). The
site is located approximately 320 feet north of the northeast corner of 75th and
Orangewood Avenues. It is currently occupied by a meat packing and processing
facility. The owner intends to develop the property with industrial uses similar to the
adjacent Glendale Business Park.
The requested M-1 zoning is consistent with the General Plan designation of
Light Industrial. M-1 is a better fit for this site than R1-6. The character of the area is
industrial and the small size of the site makes single-family residential development
unsuitable.
11
At its hearing held on April 5, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Z-01-02 subject to two stipulations. The stipulations require dedication of
half-width right-of-way on 75th Avenue and that all half-street improvements be
constructed. No one other than the applicant spoke at the hearing.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve Rezoning
Application Z-01-02, subject to the two stipulations recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 11. As there
were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Frate, to approve Rezoning
Application Z-01-02, subject to the two stipulations recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously.
12. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-01-04 AND REZONING APPLICATION
Z-01-07: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 107THAVENUE AND GLENDALE
AVENUE
Ms. Teresa Halverson, Planner, presented this request by the City of Glendale
and Mr. Joe Soldoveri to amend the City's General Plan from Business Park to Light
Industrial, and to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to M-1 (Light Industrial) a 66.9 acre
property located at the southeast corner of 107th and Glendale Avenues. The
applicants are requesting the General Plan amendment and rezoning in order to
develop the site according to the Glendale Municipal Airport Master Plan.
The General Plan amendment is consistent with the established development
pattern in the area. The Airport Master Plan shows this area to be used for
commercial/industrial uses. The proposed uses need to have access to the airfield.
Development of the property for industrial uses will be consistent with the industrial
development seen in the area.
M-1 zoning is appropriate for the site and the surrounding area. The required M-
1 zoning standards will ensure compatibility with the surrounding industrial uses. There
is enough frontage on Glendale Avenue to provide safe, adequate access to the
property.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of General Plan
Amendment GP-01-04 and Rezoning Application Z-01-07 on May 3, 2001, subject to
two stipulations. No one, but the applicant, spoke at the hearing.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve General Plan
Amendment application GP-01-04 and Rezoning Application Z-01-07, with Rezoning
Application Z-01-07 being subject to the Planning Commission's recommendation.
12
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 11. As there
were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve General
Plan Amendment Application GP-01-04 and Rezoning Application Z-01-07, with
Rezoning Application Z-01-07 being subject to the Planning Commission's
recommendation. The motion carried unanimously.
LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTION
13. ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION APPEAL ZV-00-33: _ 6626 WEST
SWEETWATER AVENUE
Mr. Rick Flaaen, City Attorney, instructed the City Council on the procedures
required for handling this application.
Ms. Tabitha Perry, Associate Planner, presented this request by Nicolae and
Robin Horga to appeal the Board of Adjustment's denial of Variance Application
ZV-00-33. The variance was a request to reduce the required east side setback to 21
feet where 50 feet is required, front setback to 13 feet where 75 feet is required, and lot
coverage of 25% where 10% is required in the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. A
motion for approval of the original request failed with a 0 to 7 vote. The Board of
Adjustment moved to amend the original motion to a front yard setback of 30 feet and
lot coverage to 20%. A motion for approval failed with a 3 to 4 vote.
On March 8, 2001, the Board of Adjustment conducted a noticed public hearing
on Variance Application ZV-00-33. The Board of Adjustment denied the request after
determining that it did not meet all of the required findings required by the Arizona State
Statutes and the Glendale Zoning Ordinance.
The required findings are as follows:
• 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;
• Due to the special circumstances, the strict application of the Zoning
Ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the same classification in the same district;
• The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the property hardship;
and
• Granting the variance will not have a detrimental effect on the property,
adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood, or the City in general.
13
The record of the March 8, 2001 Board of Adjustment hearing consists of the
following exhibits:
• Nicolae and Robin Horga's letter of appeal dated March 14, 2001.
• The Planning Department's report to the Board of Adjustment with
attachments.
• Verbatim minutes of the March 8, 2001 Board of Adjustment meeting.
The recommendation was to review the record of the Board of Adjustment,
consider the Horgas' 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 of
Adjustment's decision.
In response to a question posed by Councilmember Martinez, Mr. Flaaen
explained that it appears the Board of Adjustment's main concern was the 30-foot front
yard setback. However, the Board of Adjustment took a vote that denied all setback
adjustment requests. Absent the applicant's request for reconsideration by the Board
of Adjustment, the applicant would have to wait a year to come back to the Board of
Adjustment to renew the variance request.
Ms. Robin Horga, the applicant, expressed her appreciation to the Council for
hearing the request. She recapped the history of the situation and the variance
request. She noted that the staff report concurred that the application met findings one
and two. With respect to finding three, Ms. Horga stated that she was asking for the
amended setbacks from the Board of Adjustment to accommodate the project in
question. She explained why this is the only feasible and financially viable area to build
onto her home and stated the reason why other alternatives are not feasible. With
respect to finding four, Ms. Horga's position was that this is the smallest home in the
subdivision, and the proposed addition will only increase its value and benefit the
neighborhood. Additionally, there are three very large pine trees that create a hazard to
her house and the foundation. These would be removed. She noted that, within
Thunderbird Acres, there are many different setbacks, some as little as 22-feet. She
said she felt the 30-foot setback was a reasonable and fair amount to request.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the pool was present when the homeowner
purchased the home. Ms. Horga stated that it was not. Councilmember Goulet asked if
the homeowner had checked with the City about procedural steps for a remodeling
project prior to purchasing the home. Ms. Horga answered that she did not. She said,
based on her extensive previous experience, she had no idea she would need any type
of variance.
Councilmember Clark asked for and was provided clarification on the amount of
living space versus "under roof" space in the home. She estimated that the addition is
fifteen feet wide and will provide an additional bedroom and family room.
14
Ms. Horga described the requested setback and the distance from the sidewalk
for Councilmember Martinez.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 13. As there
were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Frate, to affirm, in whole, the
Board of Adjustment's decision.
Councilmember Clark stated that, although she sympathized with the applicant,
the Council must make its decision based on the record and Ms. Horga's clarifications.
She felt that the Board of Adjustment's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that he had looked at the property and found
no evidence that would lead him to believe the Board of Adjustment acted in a
capricious or arbitrary manner. He said he would, therefore, support the Board of
Adjustment's decision.
Councilmember Martinez stated that it was clear the Board of Adjustment
struggled with this case, yet it was unable to approve the request because it did not
meet all four findings.
Upon a call for the question, the motion carried unanimously
PUBLIC HEARING - LIQUOR LICENSES
14. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-765 - JIMBO'S
This was a request for a person transfer of a series 6 (on- & off-sale retail, all
liquor) license for Jimbo's, which is located at 12224 North 51St Avenue. The previous
owner operated this business as Jimbo's 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.
15
15. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-766 - CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL NO. 1225
This was a request for a new series 12 (restaurant) license for Chipotle Mexican
Grill No. 1225, which is located at 5880 West Thunderbird Road, No. 1. There have
been no prior liquor licenses at this location. The approval of this license will increase
the number of liquor licenses in this area by one.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were
filed during the 20-day posting period. The Planning Department, the Police
Department, and the County Health Department have reviewed the application and
determined that it meets all technical requirements.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the
application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval.
16. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-767 - LALO'S AT THE RANCH
This was a request for a new series 12 (restaurant) license for Lalo's at the
Ranch, which is located at 20219 North 59th Avenue, Suite A2. The previous owner
operated this business as Lalo's at the Ranch and held a series 12 (restaurant) license
at this location. A new license is required because a series 12 license is not
transferable.
The applicant is currently operating this establishment pursuant to an interim
permit issued by the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. The
approval of this license will not increase the total number of liquor licenses in this area.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were
filed during the 20-day posting period. The Planning Department, the Police
Department, and the County Health Department have reviewed the application and
determined that it meets all technical requirements.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the
application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item Nos. 14, 15, and
16. As there were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Clark, to forward Liquor
License Applications No. 3-765 for Jimbo's; No. 3-766 for Chipolte Mexican Grill
No. 1225, and No. 3-767 for Lalo's at the Ranch to the State of Arizona Department
of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for approval. The
motion carried unanimously.
16
PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE
17. SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR GLENDALE SISTER CITIES
PROGRAM, INC. SEPTEMBER 14, 2001 - SEPTEMBER 152001
This was a request for a special event liquor license for the Glendale Sister
Cities Program, Inc. The event is Fiesta Glendale, which will be located in downtown
Glendale between 58th and 59th Avenues, and between Glendale Avenue and Glenn
Drive. This event is sponsored by the City of Glendale. No liquor will be sold in Murphy
Park.
The event will be held from 1:00 p.m. to midnight on Friday, September 14, 2001
and from 1:00 p.m. to midnight on Saturday, September 15, 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.
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 inquired about the event closing time. She said it was her belief
that all events sponsored by the City ended at 10 p.m. Dr. Vanacour stated that he
would investigate the matter and, if he found something in the City of Glendale
ordinances prohibiting an event from going until midnight, the time would revert back to
10 p.m.
In response to a suggestion made by Councilmember Goulet, Mr. Flaaen
indicated that the Council could stipulate that liquor sales must cease at such time as is
permitted under the current City of Glendale ordinance, but no later than 12 midnight.
Mayor Scruggs said she believed the City had self-imposed a 10 p.m. event
deadline because of the proximity of the event location to residences. She said she
was concerned that the Council's action might override the Special Events
Department's control over event times. She said her desire was that they retain the
ability to restrict event closures to 10 p.m., if that was appropriate. Mr. Flaaen
concurred with Mayor Scruggs.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 17. As there
were no comments, she closed the public hearing.
17
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Clark, to forward the Special
Event Liquor License Application for Glendale Sister Cities Program, Inc., for an
event called Fiesta Glendale, to be held on September 14 and 15, 2001, to be
located in downtown Glendale, between 58th and 59th Avenues, and between
Glendale Avenue and Glenn Drive, with the stipulation that the hour of closing is
determined by the City ordinance. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE
18. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Z-01-05: SECTION 3.200
REGARDING FEES
Ms. Tabitha Perry, Associate Planner, presented this Planning Commission
Initiative to amend Section 3.200 regarding the fees required by the Zoning Ordinance.
The amendment will state that, "All fees shall be due at the time of application or
submission of the request. The City of Glendale or the City of Glendale
Councilmembers, when acting in their official capacity, shall be exempt from all fees
required by this ordinance."
The existing ordinance does not define when fees for some services are
required. The amendment clarifies that fees are due when an application or request is
filed. The proposed amendment also recognizes that City officials or Councilmembers
are exempt from fees when acting in their official capacity.
At its April 5, 2001 hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Z-01-05. At the hearing one citizen spoke in
opposition to the amendment.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing, approve Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment Z-01-05, waive reading beyond the title, and adopt an
ordinance amending the text of the zoning ordinance.
Ordinance No. 2193 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 ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
GLENDALE, ARIZONA, ARTICLE 3 (ADMINISTRATION) BY AMENDING SECTION
3.201 RELATING TO FEES; AND SETTING FORTH AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 18. As there
were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance
No. 2193 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.
18
19. SRP IRRIGATION EASEMENT, BETHANY HOME ROAD BETWEEN 74TH AND
77 AVENUES
Mr. Larry J. Broyles, Acting City Engineer, presented this item. The City's
Bethany Home,Road street improvements will require Salt River Project to relocate an
existing irrigation facility. Salt River Project has therefore requested an irrigation
easement within the right-of-way on the south side of Bethany Home Road between
74th and 75th Avenues. The relocation of this line is currently in construction. There are
no costs associated with the granting of this easement.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an easement in favor of Salt River
Project for an irrigation easement.
Ordinance No. 2194 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
IRRIGATION EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF SALT RIVER PROJECT FOR STREET
IMPROVEMENTS IN BETHANY HOME ROAD TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING
IRRIGATION FACILITY IN GLENDALE, ARIZONA; AND ORDERING THAT A
CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE BE RECORDED.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Goulet, to approve Ordinance No.
2194 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.
20. APS UTILITY EASEMENT._OASIS AQUIFER RECHARGE FACILITY, 79TH
AVENUE NORTH OF UNION HILLS
Mr. Larry J. Broyles, Acting City Engineer, presented this item. Arizona Public
Service has requested a utility easement at 19000 North 79th Avenue. This easement
is necessary in order to provide the City's Oasis Aquifer Recharge Facility with electrical
service. Arizona Public Service has been granted a right-of-entry to begin construction
at this facility. There are no costs associated with granting this easement.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an easement in favor of Arizona
Public Service for a utility easement.
Ordinance No. 2195 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, ORDINANCE NO. 2195 NEW SERIES. AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN EASEMENT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE
CITY'S OASIS WATER RECHARGE FACILITY WITH ELECTRICAL SERVICE IN
19
GLENDALE, ARIZONA; AND ORDERING THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS
ORDINANCE BE RECORDED.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve
Ordinance No. 2195 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.
21. UNDERGROUND POWER EASEMENT TO ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANY LOCATED AT SKUNK CREEK NORTH OF BELL ROAD
Mr. Larry J. Broyles, Acting City Engineer, presented this item. Arizona Public
Service Company has requested an easement to install and maintain underground
electrical power lines at Skunk Creek, north of Bell Road. Increased growth in the
Arrowhead area has mandated the need for additional feeder cable to act as a back up
to relieve pressure and prevent power outages. The plan includes installation of two
five-inch conduits tunneled under Skunk Creek.
The Army Corp of Engineers has reviewed this project and concluded that it
would not require a 404 permit (allowing the City to work within a river bottom), but
would fall under Section 404 Utility Discharge Line. The Flood Control District of
Maricopa County has also been contacted and has no opposition to Arizona Public
Service Company's proposal to underground at this location. There are no costs
associated with the granting of this easement.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance authorizing the execution of an underground power easement in favor of
Arizona Public Service Company.
Ordinance No. 2196 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TO INSTALL
AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL POWER LINES AT SKUNK CREEK,
NORTH OF BELL ROAD, IN GLENDALE, ARIZONA; AND ORDERING THAT A
CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE BE RECORDED.
It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve Ordinance
No. 2196 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.
20
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
22. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
An appointment is to be made to the following commission that has a vacancy or
expired term.
Effective Term
Date Expires
Citizen's Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods
Tosh, Susan (Yucca) Appointment 05/29/2001 06/30/2003
The recommendation was to make the appointment to the Commission.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Clark, to appoint Susan Tosh
(Yucca District appointee) to the Citizen's Advisory Commission on
Neighborhoods for a term commencing on May 29, 2001 and terminating on June
30, 2003. The motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to enter into an
Executive Session this evening, May 29, 2001, following the adjournment of this
evening's Council meeting, for the purpose of discussing the recruitment process
for the position of City Manager and receiving an update from the City Attorney
regarding the scope and application of Execution Session items, pursuant to
A.R.S. 348-431-03. The motion carried unanimously.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to hold a Regular City
Council Workshop at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, in Room 3-3 of the City
Council Chambers, to be followed by an Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. 38-
431.03. It was also moved to hold a Special Budget Evening Meeting at 5:30 p.m.
on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, in the City Council Chambers. The motion carried
unanimously.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ms. Vicki Hilb, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuar o District, stated that
she moved to Glendale four years ago and she and her son have been victims of
stalking, property damage, threats, and other crimes. She called for the City to
dedicate resources to help its residents in these types of situations. Mayor Scruggs
asked that Dr. Vanacour have the Police Department contact Ms. Hilb.
21
Mr. Robert R. Edwards, a resident of the City of Glendale Cholla Districts
advised the Council of a problem with one of his neighbors, who has 20 to 40 rabbits in
a residential neighborhood not zoned for this type of activity. He said he had called the
City's Code Enforcement Department and the Maricopa County Humane Society - to no
avail. Mayor Scruggs asked Dr. Vanacour to look into the matter.
Ms. Linda Hamilton-O'Sullivan, a resident of the City_of Glendale_Cactus
District, voiced her concern that Hayscale, Inc., in pursuit of the Walmart development,
caused the City to expend a large sum of money, which could have been better spent.
She called for the City to try to recover those costs and noted that the City of Glendale
is being watched by the nation in reference to this situation. She said she was also
concerned with what she felt was a misleading advertising campaign by Hayscale.
Mayor Scruggs directed the City Attorney to respond to Ms. Hamilton-O'Sullivan.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Councilmember Clark encouraged residents to attend upcoming public meetings
on the Western Area Plan and the Bethany Home Outfall project.
Councilmember Goulet noted that there would be a Sands Estate neighborhood
meeting on Thursday, May 31st at Landmark School.
Councilmember Lieberman cautioned parents with small children to watch their
children carefully around water.
Councilmember Martinez agreed with Councilmember Lieberman's cautionary
statement.
Councilmember Frate encouraged Glendale residents to display their flags on
Memorial Day.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Pamela Oliveira - City Clerk
22