HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 12/19/2000 (3) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
HELD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2000, 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 GLENDALE CHARTER
A statement was filed by the City Clerk that the two 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.
LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTION
1. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION DR-00-33: "ARROWHEAD COMMERCE
PARK" - 7290 WEST CAMINO SAN XAVIER
This was a request by Beus Gilbert for design review approval for the Arrowhead
Commerce Park. The 21-acre parcel is located at the northeast corner of the 73rd
Avenue street alignment and Camino San Xavier, immediately south of the Secluded
Acres neighborhood. City Council approval of this development plan is required as a
stipulation of the PAD (Planned Area Development) zoning on this property.
The applicant's development plan and project narrative show an 18—lot business
park development that will accommodate office and light industrial uses. The property
will be subdivided at a later date and be served by private streets. All uses in the park
will be subject to the City's Development Guidelines.
The Development Guidelines include approved building materials and colors, an
approved landscape palette, and design standards for perimeter walls, lighting, and
building architecture. The project is intended to be a campus-like design, compatible
with the existing neighborhood. The building setbacks from Secluded Acres will be a
minimum of 60 feet and include a 50-feet wide equestrian and bicycle path.
On July 12, 2000, the applicant met with residents to explain the project and
receive comments on the site design. Nine residents attended the meeting and
expressed support for the project.
1
This request is consistent with the North Valley Specific Area Plan, the PAD
zoning, and the City's adopted Commercial Design Expectations.
Due to several gaps within the Development Guidelines, several stipulations are
necessary to ensure an overall quality development.
The recommendation was to approve Design Review Application DR-00-33,
subject to the stipulations recommended by staff.
Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager, requested that Agenda Item No. 1 be tabled.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Clark, to table Agenda Item
No. 1 - Design Review Application DR-00-33: "Arrowhead Commerce Park" — 7290
West Camino San Xavier. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTION
2. ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION Z-00-25: 5101 WEST OLIVE AVENUE
Ms. Molly Hood, Senior Planner, presented this City Council initiated request to
amend previously approved zoning stipulations for a 39-acre property located at the
southwest corner of 51st and Olive Avenues. On September 14, 1999, the City Council
approved a request for C-2 (General Commercial) zoning, subject to 23 stipulations.
On July 6, 2000, a Development Master Plan was submitted for City review that showed
a 220,000 square foot superstore. The proposed superstore was not included on the
plan presented to the neighborhood, the Planning Commission, and the City Council
during the initial zoning process. In response to numerous concerns raised by the
community, the City Council initiated this application to amend the stipulations of
approval on October 24, 2000.
Ms. Hood stated that the proposed amendment will revise stipulations #7, #8,
and #23 and add two new stipulations #24 and #25. She said that copies of the
proposed stipulation amendments were available on the table by the entrance to
Council Chambers. Ms. Hood read the following proposed stipulations:
7. The approval of this rezoning application shall be
conditioned upon the development of the site in substantial
conformance with the site plan of development (attached
hereto as Exhibit 2) which was presented to the Planning
Commission and the City Council during public hearings and
included in the Transportation Study dated December 31,
1998, especially the sizes and locations of the six major
tenant stores depicted thereon. (There shall be no
commingling of the area of the six major tenant stores.) A
minimum of 140,000 square feet of retail space shall be built
in the first phase of development. The approval of this
rezoning application shall be conditioned further upon the
commencement of construction of the first phase of
development within two years after the date of approval of
this amended stipulation. "Commencement of construction"
shall mean the issuance of all required permits and
approvals by the City of Glendale and the start of on-site
construction or improvements and the continuous
performance of work to substantial completion. In the event
of the failure to commence the work within such two-year
period or the abandonment of work once commenced, the
City may initiate action to revert the zoning on the property
to its classification prior to September 14, 1999.
8. (Vehicular access shall not be provided on Barbara
and 53rd Avenues.)
23. There shall be no deliveries between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The stores designated as major
tenants 1 through 6 on Exhibit 2 shall not be open to the
public between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Delivered items may not be stored at any time in the parking,
loading or other areas outside of a building.
24. (No overnight parking of commercial trucks or trailers,
or recreational vehicles (RVs) will be allowed on the
premises, nor will commercial trucks or RVs be allowed to
park and idle between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m.)
25. (Temporary storage structures or containers shall not be
permitted on site.)
Ms. Hood indicated that the stipulations were written in legislative format to
reflect the changes that were made during the citizen participation process and public
hearing process to date.
Ms. Hood stated that the effects of a community level center on the area were
assessed prior to the rezoning. Based on the representations made by the property
owner, and the support of the neighborhood, the City Council determined that the
effects of a community level center would be minimal and that they could be handled by
the stipulations of approval.
The property owner provided a site plan "to determine the relationship of
proposed uses to the surrounding properties". The plan showed 6 major stores, the
largest of which is 92,000 square feet. The property owner also consistently referred to
specialty retailers such as SteinMart, Linen's Plus and Marshall's.
3
The property owner claims that a site plan, other than the one included in the
1998 traffic study, was shown to the neighborhood, the Planning Commission and the
City Council during the initial rezoning process. However, the graphic shown by Ms.
Hood at the meeting demonstrated that the two site plans are identical in regards to
building size and configuration. Both plans depict six major stores, the largest of which
is 92,000 square feet.
The City Council relied on the property owner's site plan to determine the
relationship of the proposed uses on the surrounding area. The introduction of a
220,000 superstore changes the Council's determination of minimal effect and warrants
additional scrutiny. While the square footage currently proposed is comparable to the
original site plan, the impacts of a superstore on the area are much greater than 6
smaller stores.
Big box stores are a relatively new retail model that is based on large quantities,
high margins, efficient distribution, and low overhead. To accommodate the large
quantities of merchandise, big warehouse type buildings are necessary and, over time,
they have increased in size. A 220,000 store is the largest yet proposed in the City and
the potential impacts of such a large store are unknown. What is known is that big-box
superstores draw customers from a much larger trade area than smaller stores, thereby
increasing the impacts on the surrounding area.
One of the major impacts of a superstore on the surrounding area is traffic. The
amount of traffic generated by a superstore is significantly greater than that generated
by the community level center proposed during the rezoning process. The City's
Transportation Department compiled trip generation information at two existing
superstores in the Valley and discovered that superstores generate significantly greater
traffic per day than the community center proposed in the 1998 traffic study. They
found that superstores generate much more traffic per day, especially during the
morning rush hour and during late evening hours. The intersection of 51St and Olive
Avenues is currently at capacity and the additional traffic that a superstore will generate
will result in an intersection that is inadequate and incapable of handling the traffic
resulting in significant traffic congestion, cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets and
more accidents.
In addition to the study conducted by the Transportation Department, staff turned
to several economic impact studies to determine the impacts that a superstore will have
on the surrounding property and business owners. Staff found that big-box stores:
1 . Displace existing retail sales from smaller stores;
2. Increase the vacancy rate of smaller stores;
3. Increase incidence in crime;
4. Decrease property values; and
5. Increase traffic and congestion.
4
All of these impacts will lead to the neighborhood's instability and decline and will
result in increased costs for the City.
The proposed amendments are warranted to protect the surrounding properties.
The amendments will tie future development to the plan that was represented at the
time of rezoning. Access to 53rd Avenue will be eliminated to minimize cut-thru traffic,
the hours of operation will be limited, the overnight parking of oversized vehicles will be
prohibited, and temporary storage containers will be prohibited. These are the
minimum amendments necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of
the surrounding property and business owners.
The City held a neighborhood meeting on November 6, 2000, at which 290
people signed in. At this meeting, 29 people spoke in favor of the stipulation
amendments and 10 people spoke in support of the superstore. During the Citizen
Participation process, the City also received numerous letters, e-mails and petition
signatures.
The Citizen Participation Report and the minutes from the neighborhood meeting
were distributed to the Council. The entire Citizen Participation Final Report is on file in
the Planning Department.
The Planning Department has received 56 letters in support of the proposed
amendments and 2 letters in opposition since the completion of the Citizen Participation
process.
The Planning Department also received a petition with 1,396 signatures, stating
support for the proposed stipulation amendments and suggesting some minor
modifications. The property owner submitted a petition with 1,007 signatures opposing
the proposed stipulation amendments. Copies of both petitions were included with the
Council packets which were distributed for this hearing.
Staff analyzed the location of the signatures on both petitions in response to
concerns on both sides about the legitimacy of the petition signatures. A graphic shown
by Ms. Hood at the meeting illustrated where those in support of the amendments live
and where those in opposition to the amendments live. The graphic clearly indicated
that those individuals within a mile of the site overwhelmingly supported the proposed
stipulation amendments, and those individuals in opposition, for the most part, live over
a mile from the site.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 7, 2000, at which
48 people spoke in support of the proposed stipulation amendments. Thirteen people
spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments. At the end of the three-hour
hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
stipulation amendments.
5
Ms. Hood noted that letters and e-mails which were received after the Council
meeting packets were delivered to the City Council had been distributed prior to
tonight's meeting.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve Zoning
Amendment Z-00-25
Mr. James Book, Transportation Director, discussed the traffic implications of
superstore developments. Mr. Book told the Mayor and Council that he wished to
elaborate a little bit for the reasoning behind the auxiliary studies that the City had
conducted. Kimley Horn & Associates, the firm that conducted the study at 51st and
Olive Avenues, also conducted a study for the site at 83rd Avenue and Union Hills Drive.
When Kimley Horn & Associates conducted the site study at 83rd Avenue and Union
Hills Drive, staff requested that the firm provide specific numbers for a Wal-Mart site or,
at least, for a big-box user. Staff did not receive any specific traffic generation
information at that time. When it was learned that they were looking to do a big-box
use at 51st and Olive Avenues, staff went out to get their own trip generation. He noted
that Ms. Hood had gone through and told the Council about the three things they had
seen: (1) there was a major increase in the a.m. peak hour traffic; (2) there was an
increase in the p.m. peak hour traffic; and (3) there was a total traffic increase from any
other similar use.
As a point of clarification, Mr. Book stated that, when they do trip generation,
they do it on per thousand square feet. Therefore, they know that a bigger store will
generate more trips than a smaller store. He noted that they were referring to the rate.
He stated that, since a larger big box use generates at even a higher rate, it is not
purely a square foot question. It is also a question of the rate at which those trips are
being generated.
Mr. Book noted that another concern was that 24-hour activity was disruptive to
an adjacent neighborhood. He added the fact that, when there is 24-hour activity, it
tends to extend the peak hours. Therefore, in many cases where you may have a peak
hour rush that is an hour, the peak hour gets extended when you get large traffic
generations and, all of a sudden, it goes to two hours or even three hours. This is
critical at 51St and Olive Avenues. The major reason is, if you can picture that
intersection, the Valley has always looked at traffic from a viewpoint that there are less
trips in the morning. Therefore, the classic street configuration in Phoenix and adjacent
cities is what is called a 3-1-2. There are three lanes in one direction, one continuous
left turn lane, and two lanes in another direction. What has consistently been done
there is to have two lanes inbound to Central Avenue and three lanes leaving from
Central Avenue. The major logic behind that type of a configuration is that, in the
classic sense, the commercial trip is not during the morning peak hour. Typically,
businesses do not open before 9 or 10 a.m. The reason for concern in this particular
instance is that the neighborhood is dealing with a store which will be open 24 hours a
day, thus presenting the city with a new traffic pattern. Mr. Book said that he and the
rest of the staff would be happy to take any questions the Council might have.
6
Councilmember Frate asked Mr. Book by what percentage morning traffic had
increased. Mr. Book stated that the 515t and Olive Avenues report showed a morning
peak hour rate of .99 and studies indicate the morning peak rate for a super center to
be double that rate.
Mayor Scruggs outlined the procedures for the public hearing.
Ms. Karrin Taylor, with the law offices of Biskind, Hunt& Ta Iy or,attorneys
representing Hayscale, LLC, read a statement into the record. In her statement, Ms.
Taylor said Council's decision to vote to take away the property rights granted her client
would inevitably lead to more legal and political turmoil for all parties involved. She
stated that Council had granted specific property rights to Hayscale in September of
1999, which have been relied upon and acted on by Hayscale. She said, as a land use
matter, the rezoning was approved based on facts presented by Hayscale and City
staff.
Ms. Taylor admonished people for their lack of civility during the process, stating
that the uncivil behavior has, to a large degree, been encouraged by the process. She
said her clients have had their name and reputations disparaged, not only by members
of the public, but by members of the Council as well. She expressed her opinion that
the disregard for civil discourse in this matter has been perpetrated by the Council itself.
Ms. Taylor argued that the Council had all of the information necessary to make
the land use decision it made. She referred to comments made by Mr. Dennis Powers,
a concerned citizen residing in the City of Glendale Barrel District, who stated that the
Council knew or should have known what it was doing when it granted zoning on the
property. She stated that all of the documents for the rezoning application indicated a
power center would be placed on the site and the Council relied on those documents
when it made its decision. She reviewed comments made by Councilmembers during
the September 14, 1999 meeting with regard to prohibiting a 24-hour operation and
restricting delivery hours.
Ms. Taylor said a site plan was developed as part of their Citizen Participation
Plan to communicate the layout of the development to the neighbors. She emphasized
the site plan was in front of the Council at the time the vote was taken on September
14, 1999. She stated that the Council was now using a different site plan, one that
more readily fits the political expediency of the moment. She explained that the site
plan used by the development team clearly depicts building envelopes on the site within
which all development would occur and clearly displays language specifically indicating
that the ultimate configuration of space would be determined by specific tenants. She
noted that the site plan substituted by the City would not even meet the stipulations
imposed by the Council. She emphasized the fact that the Council imposed the
requirement of having one anchor tenant of at least 100,000 square feet, stating it
greatly limited the marketability of the site. She admitted that Wal-Mart had discussions
with Hayscale prior to the zoning of the property. She stated that several potential
users approached Hayscale about the property over the course of several years.
7
Ms. Taylor's statement concluded with a brief chronology of the site and
subsequent execution of the Wal-Mart lease. She questioned what happened between
May and September of 2000 that prompted the Mayor to so dramatically change her
position on the issue. She said the Council had granted Hayscale certain rights and
imposed certain restrictions and Hayscale relied on those rights and, thus far, has lived
by the conditions.
Ms. Amy Hill, Director of Community Affairs for Wal-Mart Stores, said Wal-
Mart has been part of the community since 1990 and currently has 640 associates and
their families living in Glendale. She suggested that Council's original stipulation of one
tenant being at least 100,000 square feet in size mandated that a big box store be
located on the property. She provided additional documentation to the Council. She
noted numerous stores in Glendale that operate on a 24-hour basis. She also pointed
out that there are several locations throughout the valley where Wal-Mart Superstores
and other stores co-exist.
Mayor Scruggs informed Ms. Taylor that the Council had compiled a series of
questions for the property owners and their representatives. She asked Ms. Taylor if
she would allow her clients to be asked questions. Ms. Taylor stated that she would
not, without first having an opportunity to review the questions. After consultation with
her clients, Ms. Taylor offered to answer the Council's questions on her clients' behalf.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Taylor what the differences are, if any, between the
site plan with the disclaimer and the Exhibit 2 site plan. Ms. Taylor explained that the
material difference is the disclaimer and the building envelope clearly depicted in red on
the site plan presented to members of the Council and the community. She said the
site plan that the City chooses to use is the site plan used in the traffic report.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Taylor if Hayscale had explained, during the meetings
that were held at Pizza Hut, that the six major stores shown on the site plan could be
combined into one large supercenter. Ms. Taylor stated that she did not believe
question was ever asked. She noted that every member of the development team was
instructed to indicate that the ultimate configuration of the tenants within the building
envelope would be determined by the tenants. She stated that, although she had never
offered an affirmative explanation of that possibility, other members of the development
team might have.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Taylor if Hayscale had ever contacted SteinMart, Bed
Bath and Beyond, Linens Plus, Borders Books, or any of the other specialty retailers
listed in their marketing study submitted to the City. Ms. Taylor noted that she was not
involved in the marketing of the site. Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Taylor if Mr. Jay
Schneider knew the answer. Ms. Taylor stated it was her understanding that SteinMart
had contacted the Hurleys and were interested in the site.
8
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Taylor why Hayscale had complained about the
original stipulation requiring two 40,000 square foot retail spaces, but not the
requirement of a 100,000 square foot minimum. Ms. Taylor explained that they had
originally complained about the entire stipulation; however, staff felt it was not in the
City's best interest to amend the stipulation. She stated that, while they would have
preferred to eliminate the stipulation, they had asked the Planning Commission to
modify the two 40,000 square foot tenants to two 20,000 square foot tenants. She said
the stipulations were modified upon the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Mayor Scruggs asked if Hayscale could successfully develop the 40-acre parcel
if the City were to adopt the new zoning stipulation 7. Ms. Taylor stated that she was
not in a position to speculate on the marketability of the site.
Mayor Scruggs asked if Hayscale knew Kimley Horn & Associates had regularly
performed traffic impact studies for Wal-Mart at the time they hired them to do the
traffic study at 51st and Olive Avenues. Ms. Taylor stated that she did not know.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Taylor if Hayscale had spoken to Wal-Mart about
locating a Wal-Mart store at 51st and Olive Avenues prior to January of 1999, when
Kimley Horn & Associates submitted its traffic study to the City. Ms. Taylor stated that
Wal-Mart, as well as other big-box users, had contacted Hayscale over the years about
purchasing the property.
Mayor Scruggs asked when Hayscale first had discussions with Wal-Mart about
locating a Wal-Mart Store at 51st and Olive Avenues. Ms. Taylor stated that she did not
know.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Taylor if the discussions between Hayscale and Wal-
Mart were about a regular Wal-Mart store or a Wal-Mart superstore. Ms. Taylor stated
that she did not know because she was not involved in the marketing of the site.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Taylor when Hayscale had first informed the
surrounding neighbors that there would be a Wal-Mart Supercenter developed at 51st
and Olive Avenues. Ms. Taylor stated that she did not know. She said September 14,
1999 was her last active involvement in the case until January of 2000, when the
Hurleys indicated that they were going to survey the residents who were involved in the
Citizen Participation Plan. She stated she was contacted in May of 2000 and told that
the negotiations were well underway and the Hurleys wanted to meet with members of
the Council to share that information.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Taylor if Hayscale still believed it was appropriate,
after hearing the public's strong objections, for it to continue to press forward with plans
to develop a superstore at 51st and Olive Avenues. Ms. Taylor said Hayscale has
evidence that there is a significant amount of support for the site and, therefore, it
believes it is appropriate to move forward.
9
Ms. Taylor offered to respond in writing to questions that she was unable to
answer.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 2.
Ms. Lisa Conaway, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, noted
that she lives approximately one-third of a mile from the proposed site. She said she
supports the stipulation amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission.
She expressed her opinion that a big-box, 24-hour retailer would not fit in at that
location. She said traffic impacts would be significant and not appropriate.
Mr. Stanley H. Walters, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District,
stated that he lives approximately eight-tenths of a mile from the proposed site. He
stated that he opposed the action and was not convinced that a 40-acre hayfield was
the best economic use of that land. He said development of the site is inevitable and,
regardless of the type of development, additional traffic would be created. He said the
owners of the property have a right to reap the best economic benefits they can, without
significantly damaging the neighborhood. He questioned statements made regarding
. an increase in crime and a decrease in property values. He said citizens have to be
able to rely on promises made by their elected officials.
Ms. Dorothy Gallagher, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District,
said she lives one block from the proposed development. She noted that a stranger,
who stated that he was a representative of the Hurleys, had approached her, asking
questions. She said the gentlemen refused to disclose his last name. She noted that
other residents in the area had reported anonymous individuals calling and coming to
their homes. She questioned why the applicant was not allowing their representatives
to reveal their identity and relationship to the applicant. She stated that her husband
asked Ms. Hurley and Ms. Taylor at one of the Pizza Hut meetings if they were
considering a big-box development. She said he was assured that they were not. She
noted that citizens residing outside of the immediate area had attended the Horizon
School meeting to speak with regard to their experience in having a Wal-Mart store in
their neighborhood. She asked the Council to require future developers to reveal any
perspective tenants to preclude a similar situation from occurring again. She pointed
out that residents in the area have emailed Wal-Mart regarding their concerns and have
only received a standard response. She questioned why the Hurleys did not reveal that
they had been contacted by Wal-Mart at the initial meetings.
Mr. Mike Crusa, a resident of the City of Phoenix, stated that his office is
located approximately 16 miles from the proposed site. He explained that his company,
The Summit Group, works with neighborhoods and neighbors to provide information on
individual zoning projects. He stated that the gentleman who approached Ms.
Gallagher was from his office and he apologized if he did not identify himself. He
explained that they had been asked to attempt to contact as many residents as possible
within a one and a half mile radius of the project site to provide information about the
project, to ask residents if they knew about the inclusion of a Wal-Mart, and if they
10
opposed or supported it. He said they were unable to speak to everyone, as some
people stated that they did not care and others said they were not familiar with the
project. He referred to 923 orange dots on an aerial map representing 1,115 residents
in opposition to the project and in support of the amendments. He referred to 1,853
yellow dots representing 2,505 residents in support of the project and in opposition to
the amendments. He submitted 1,838 individually-signed statements in support of the
project. He noted that the individuals all live within one and a half miles of the site.
Mr. Marcus Moran, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that he lives approximately 60 feet from the site. He said he was originally in favor of
the Hurley's development, but now believes he and his family were deceived, tricked,
and lied to. He explained that he was shown a drawing, which provided no square
footage and did not indicate the type of stores that would be developed. He said the
Hurleys willfully deceived the neighborhood, as a Wal-Mart was planned for the site
from the beginning. He noted that neither he, nor the owners of the three homes to his
left or right, were contacted by those representing Hayscale. He noted that he had
spoken to Ms. Taylor and asked her if there was any other site in the City comprised of
a 40-acre open field, surrounded on three sides by residential homes. He said she had
acknowledged that there was not another comparable site. He stated he also asked
Mr. Jay Mr. Schneider if he believed Hayscale would have been able to gain citizen
support had the citizens known from the beginning that Wal-Mart was going to be the
major tenant. He said Mr. Schneider stated that he did not believe the citizens would
have supported the development. He questioned why he was not personally contacted
about the development. He stated that he only found out about the inclusion of Wal-
Mart after reading about it in the paper.
Ms. Violet McComsev, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said
she lives approximately one block from the proposed site. She stated that she firmly
supported the development and believed it would be an asset to the community. She
stated that the elderly residents in the area would benefit and the development would
create new job opportunities.
Ms. Kay Fulghum, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, noted
that she lives approximately three-quarters of a mile form the proposed site. She stated
that she supported the proposed amendments. She expressed her opinion that the City
Council had extended a courtesy to the developer with respect to outlining the final
details regarding square footage of tenant spaces within the main structure and that the
courtesy was misconstrued by the developer and not communicated to the community.
She stated that she had nothing against the Wal-Mart Corporation. She suggested that
Wal-Mart build a 100,000 square foot store instead. She said the action taken by the
Planning Commission with respect to the stipulation that those interior spaces remain
separate entities was entirely necessary and reasonable given the initial presentation
by the applicant. She stated that the traffic associated with a 24-hour superstore is
appropriate for a commercial corridor, not a residential neighborhood. She said the
stipulations restricting nighttime operations, deliveries, and overnight parking of semi-
trucks and recreational vehicles for the development location are critical to preserving
11
the peace and safety of the neighborhood. She questioned whether another 24-hour
operation was necessary in the City of Glendale, especially in the middle of a
neighborhood. She asked the Council to closely scrutinize the actions taken by Wal-
Mart and other project supporters in gaining support for the project. She noted that the
employees at the 59th Avenue and Bell Road Wal-Mart are afraid that they will lose their
jobs once the supercenter is built.
Mr. John Cuthbert, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said he
originally thought it was great that the Hurleys wanted to involve the community in the
development of their property. He said the Hurleys should now stand up for the
community and keep the promises they made. He clarified for Mayor Scruggs that he
opposed the Wal-Mart development and supported the proposed amendments.
Ms. Suzanne Dreher, a resident of the City of Phoenix, stated that she lives
approximately 11 miles from the site. She said she understood why the immediate
neighbors would hate to lose the field. She noted, however, that people must have
known when they purchased their homes that the location would one day be
commercially developed. She said people go to Super Wal-Mart because of the money
they can save. She questioned whether people would be willing to pay more for
products in order to support smaller businesses on the property. She said 24-hour
operations are a sign of the times and people want that kind of convenience.
Ms. Linda Hamilton-O'Sullivan, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel
District, said she lives less than one mile from the proposed site. She said she was
proud and appreciative of many of the things the Council had done for the City of
Glendale, including the recycling program, the sensory garden, and the Civic Center.
She said the people involved in the development had not informed her of the inclusion
of a Wal-Mart. She said she took issue with disparaging comments made by
Hayscale's attorney as to Mayor Scruggs' integrity stating, once the public came forth
with their concerns, she and the Council have listened to and acted upon those
concerns. She said she also had questions as to what other retailers Hayscale had
contacted. She noted that there should be letters of declination from each of those
companies and she suggested they be entered into the public record. She said, if the
Hurleys really want what is best for the community, they could withdraw their lawsuit
against the City, produce evidence of having contacted other retailers, and have Wal-
Mart provide documentation that Manistee Town Center's owners declined to have Wal-
Mart take over that property. She asked if the Council could consider vacating the
original zoning decision of September 14, 1999, basically rendering any lawsuits moot.
Ms. Malena Chapman, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District,
submitted a public hearing speaker's card, indicating her opposition to the proposed
amendments. When called upon to speak, she was not present to address the Council.
Mr. Peter Abbott, a resident of the City of Glendale, submitted a public
hearing speaker's card, indicating his opposition to the proposed amendments, When
called upon to speak, he chose not to address the Council.
12
Mr. Al DeLossa, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said he
believed the original plan which was presented to the neighborhood was a town-and-
country type development that would be neighborhood friendly. He emphasized that no
one had ever mentioned a big-box store going into the development. He questioned
why Wal-Mart was not present when the rezoning case was presented. He said the
Hurleys knew there would be opposition, but believed, if they had a contract in writing,
they would be able to fight it. He stated he was in favor of Amendment 7 and believed
it to be the right thing to do. With regard to Amendment 8, he said he had spent a lot of
time analyzing the traffic situation at 51st and Olive Avenues. He agreed that, although
traffic would increase by whatever type of development goes in at that location, a
megastore would create a tremendous amount of traffic. He stated he also supported
Amendment 23.
Ms. Julie Effron, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated that
she lives approximately one and a half blocks from the proposed site. She thanked the
Council for taking into consideration the addresses of those speaking. She stated that
she did not look forward to increased traffic and crime, or decreased property values.
She referred to an article in the Arizona Republic which reported that Glendale has a
five-minute emergency service response time. The article noted that people have
previously testified it takes emergency vehicles one to two minutes to get through the
intersection at 51st and Olive Avenues. She stated that residents north of the proposed
site would have decreased emergency service response times. She expressed her
resentment of a telemarketing call she had received. She noted that, once she said
she was not in support of the project, she was never asked how many people live at her
residence. She asked to have the public record include documentation showing when
Wal-Mart initiated conversations with Hayscale and when the deal was actually signed.
Mr. Dennis Powers, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, noted
that he lives approximately one-quarter mile from the site. He said he felt that Hayscale
overlooked his neighborhood during its surveying process. He noted that the same
group of people are involved with the Wal-Mart development at 83rd Avenue and Union
Hills Drive. He stated that previous conversations with Ms. Amy Hill revealed that Wal-
Mart's original development plan was to put a Wal-Mart at the Manistee Town Center,
with a Sam's Club at 51st and Olive Avenues. He said negotiations with Manistee were
abandoned two and a half years ago. He said this made him question how long
conversations between the Hurleys and Wal-Mart had been going on. He agreed the
site would, and should, be developed. He noted, however, that he did not believe this
particular development was appropriate for the site.
Ms. Sharon Luebkin, 5243 a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District,
stated that she lives approximately one-half mile from the site. She noted that neither
she nor her husband had received notification of the development, either early in the
process or recently. She mentioned the year-round school in their neighborhood and
stated that a large store would create serious safety hazards for the students attending
13
that school. She said she was particularly in favor of Amendment 7 because it would
address her traffic concerns.
Mayor Scruggs noted that she did not have any additional public hearing
speaker's cards in opposition to the proposed amendments.
Ms. Debra Kist, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated that
she lives approximately three-quarters of a mile from the proposed site. She pointed
out that none of the homeowners who were part of the original group meeting at the
Pizza Hut had once stated they were aware that a big-box store was being considered.
She said the residents of the area have set their lives aside for the past four months to
focus on this battle because it will have a direct impact on them. She said convenience
does not matter when compared to safety, traffic, the welfare of children, and property
values. She stated the Hurleys had promised no negative impact and an enhancement
to the neighborhood; however, those promises would not be kept if the development
proceeds. She said Wal-Mart and the Hurleys requested a tax abatement equaling
several million dollars, even though they stated in their proposal that they would pay
their share of infrastructure. She stated that the Hurley's proposal only mentioned a
discount warehouse, and not a big-box development. She said most stores have found
that it is not profitable to operate on a 24-hour basis and have gone back to an 11:00
p.m. or 12:00 a.m. closure. She emphasized that the real issue was that the
neighborhood itself was deceived.
Ms. Dee Sn der-Johnson a resident of the Cit of Glendale Barrel District,
said she lives approximately 30 yards from the proposed site. In response to Ms. Hill's
comments, she stated this was not a Wal-Mart issue. She noted that most of her
neighbors shop at Wal-Mart. She said they were opposed to a big-box development,
regardless of the specific tenant. She stated that a 24-hour big-box store would
drastically increase her travel time. Noting that quite a few disabled people live in the
neighborhood, she stated that it would no longer be safe for them to stroll through the
neighborhood. She stated that she had not been personally contacted by the Hurleys
to ask her about the proposed development and only knew about the proposed Wal-
Mart because of an article in the newspaper. She said she was assured during
conversations with the Hurleys that a big-box store would not be developed. She said
she contacted several retailers, including Barnes and Noble, Starbucks and SteinMart
and was told by Barnes and Noble and Starbucks that they had no knowledge of ever
being contacted to build a store at the site. She said Starbucks did not respond.
Mr. Rick Tennehill, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that he lives approximately one and one-half blocks from the proposed site. He said he
had attended several of the citizen participation meetings and asked the Hurleys and
their representatives specifically what stores they intended to have in their
development. He stated a big-box superstore was never mentioned. He accused the
Hurleys and their representatives of lying by omission. He cited increased traffic at an
intersection that could not easily be widened and decreased property values as two of
the major problems that the proposed development would bring to the neighborhood.
14
He said the proposed amendments are absolutely necessary and probably sufficient to
ensure that the original development plan is strictly adhered to. He asked the Council
to give the greatest consideration to those who live in the immediate neighborhood.
Mr. David Gallagher, a resident of the City_of Glendale Barrel District, said it
irritated him that the Hurleys and their representatives were now crying "foul" when they
had deceived the neighborhood from the beginning. He asked the Council to support
the amendments on behalf of everyone in the neighborhood.
Ms. Elizabeth Polak, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that she lives approximately one block from the proposed site. She said she recently
attended a meeting where the architect presented an illustration of the site plan and
mentioned verbiage contained in the site plan that indicated the layout of the stores
could be changed, depending on the tenant. She said they were never before told the
layout of the stores was dependent on the tenants. She stated the Hurleys and their
representatives deliberately misrepresented how the property would be used and asked
the Council to take that into consideration in making its decision. She also asked the
Council to give those in the neighborhood the greatest consideration.
Ms. Arline Yzquierdo, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District,
mentioned a big-box store that was built in the City of Mesa. She stated that the City of
Mesa told her that traffic in the area increased by 37%; the accident rate had gone up
by 30%, and the City of Mesa predicted it would go as high as 50% during the holiday
season. She said people who are in favor of the proposed development do not live in
the area. She stated that she lived approximately three blocks from the proposed site.
Ms. Patti Wvrick, a resident of the City_of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that she lives a little over one mile from the proposed site and was in favor of the
proposed amendments. She said the restriction against combining individual store
spaces was necessary. She stated that access to 53rd and Barbara Avenues needs to
be restricted for the safety of those residents who live in the area. She said she liked
the restriction on delivery and operation hours. She agreed that the prohibition of
overnight parking of trucks and recreational vehicles and outside storage containers
were in the neighborhood's best interest. She noted that she had previously served the
City on its Board of Adjustment and stated that she believed what was happening at
51st and Olive Avenues does not fit into the City's General Plan. She said she was
pleased to see that elected officials can admit their mistakes and attempt to correct
them.
Mr. Charlie Grim, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel_District, stated
that he supported the amendments. He said the traffic that would be generated by a
big-box store was his single biggest concern. He noted he lives approximately one-
quarter of a mile north of the proposed site. He said Ms. Taylor appeared to threaten
the City with the high cost of a legal defense. He would like to ask her, however, how
much is too much to pay to preserve their neighborhood. He pointed out the text of the
15
petition presented by Ms. Hurley at the Planning and Zoning hearing held on December
7th did not mention Wal-Mart.
Ms. Trish Edwards, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that she lives adjacent to the proposed site. She said she was in favor of the proposed
amendments and supported the work that the City was doing to separate commercial
development from residential development. She said the proposed amendments would
bring the project into conformance with the original site plan and provide the minimum
protection needed for the neighborhood. She said she had attended one of the original
meetings at Pizza Hut, at which they were shown a flat representation of the site layout,
which clearly indicated six distinct, segregated, separate businesses. She said she
specifically asked Ms. Hurley if those lines represented walls and if they would be
moved to combine spaces. She said Ms. Hurley's response was that, until they knew
who the tenants would be, they could not know the exact square footage of each
section. Ms. Edwards stated that she understood this to mean that walls would be
moved within reason of the plan presented. She said they were never told that there
was the possibility of a wall, much less all walls, being removed for combined usage.
She stated they were never notified of a Wal-Mart going into the development and had
to learn about it from the newspaper. With regard to previous statements made that
1,000 cards were sent out, surveying people as to the types of stores they would like to
see included in the development, Ms. Edwards stated that 23 cards were returned,
indicating Wal-Mart did not represent the majority.
Ms. Jordan Rich Rose, an attorney with the law firm of Jordan and Bishoff
located in the City of Scottsdale, stated that she represented Wal-Mart. She said
some of the development's supporters, including Ms. Joan Schaffer, the Mayor of the
City of Surprise, were not able to attend the meeting. She read Ms. Schaffer's letter
into the record.
Ms. Susan Stutzman, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said,
since the Hurleys promised an upscale shopping center with a relaxed atmosphere, the
amendment to Stipulation 7 was acceptable. She stated that Stipulation 8 was
necessary for the safety of their children. She said Stipulation 23 was important
because it would preserve the quiet and peacefulness of the neighborhood during the
night-time hours when children are trying to sleep. She said the restriction on overnight
parking was also important. She noted that she had led the charge in getting a stop
sign installed at 53rd and Barbara Avenues. She asked the Council to support the
proposed amendments, thereby forcing the Hurleys to keep their promises.
Mr. John Lewis, a resident of the City of Glendale Cholla District, said,
although he lives approximately 12 miles from the proposed site, his business is located
at 5132 West Olive Avenue. He pointed out that a majority of the supporters of the
development do not live in the immediate area. He said the further people live from the
proposed site, the less they care about the impacts of the development. He noted a
comment made earlier by a woman from Waymark Gardens who stated that the
16
residents of Waymark Gardens would support Wal-Mart 100% when it is built. He
noted that this would impact existing businesses in the area.
Ms. Kathleen Lewis, a resident of the City ofGlendale Cholla District, said
she lives approximately 12 miles from the proposed site and is the co-owner of the
business located at 5132 West Olive Avenue. She said they have ten employees who
work and live in the neighborhood. She asked the Council to consider the viability of
their business when making its decision. She said her customers are overwhelmingly in
opposition to a big-box development at 51St and Olive Avenues. She said big-box
stores belong in commercial corridors, not residential neighborhoods, because they
destroy property values and drive out small businesses. She said the property should
be developed in a way that complements the neighborhood. She stated that traffic at
the intersection of 5e and Olive Avenues is a nightmare and would not improve with
the introduction of a big-box store. She said the City of Glendale should be
commended for the steps it has taken to protect new and older neighborhoods,
business owners, and shopping centers.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that he lives approximately one and one-quarter miles from the proposed site. He
thanked the people in the audience for attending the meetings and addressing the
Council. He said he believed the Council made an honest mistake and has only the
best intentions for the City. He noted that emergency service vehicles have had
problems getting through the intersection. He said the principal of neighborhood
sanctity is very important and should be preserved.
Ms. Beverly Black, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said she
lives three blocks from the proposed site. She stated that she and her husband had
attended two of the meetings held at Pizza Hut and have since received two
newsletters from the Hurley family. She read excepts from the newsletters, which
acknowledged the impact the development would have on surrounding neighbors and
expressed their intent to develop a high-quality, family orientated commercial center
that would enhance the neighborhood. She said she and her husband were both in
favor of the proposed amendments and the original plan, which showed several
tenants, none of which were larger than 92,000 square feet.
Mr. Warren Doede, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District,
expressed his opinion that Wal-Mart is a predatory company and not a good corporate
neighbor. He said he was opposed to the Wal-Mart development.
Mr. William Baker, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, said he
lives approximately five miles from the proposed project. He stated that he has been
involved in many shopping center constructions and seen many of them fail. He said
most of them fail due to lack of a strong anchor store. He stated small stores do not
bring in the people necessary to sustain the shopping center.
17
Mr. Ron Prothero, a resident of the City of Glendale Ocotillo District, said he
has gone to various shopping centers and concluded that a 200,000 square foot store
would not fit in the community. He estimated his home to be located two and a half
miles from the proposed site.
Mr. Joseph Butter, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, stated
that he lives one mile south of the proposed site. He expressed sympathy for both the
Hurleys and the residents of the area. He said the City does many things well, but, in
his opinion, city planning and development does not rank amongst them. He said he
was concerned by statements made by the Planning Commission and the Council that
they had been duped. He said he had observed a Council that could easily get to the
facts and he questioned how it could have let the proposed development get by. He
expressed his opinion that the City has two competing agendas. He explained that the
Council has stated, on several occasions, its belief that there is an imbalance of
commercial and residential property in the City of Glendale. He stated his belief that
commercial development is encouraged by the Council whenever public opposition is
low, thus creating traffic hazards and the insertion of commercial developments into
residential areas. He said that, although Hayscale may have been dishonest, they went
through the process and obtained their zoning in a legal manner. He said he did not
believe the City was duped and their actions have resulted in Hayscale bringing a
lawsuit against the City. He encouraged the citizens of Glendale to remember this case
when they vote in the next City election.
Public Hearing Speaker's cards were received from the following people, who
indicated that they supported Zoning Amendment Application Z-00-25 , but did not wish
to speak:
Ms. Celle Ambers, a resident of the City of Glendale
Ms. Sandy Beauchamp, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District
Ms. Regina Boulais, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Warren Doede, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Timothy A. Gath, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Ms. Terri Harrington, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Ms. Ann Hei, a resident of the City of Glendale
Mr. James Hei, a resident of the City of Glendale
Ms. Kathy Inoshita, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Minoru Inoshita, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Ms. Gail Jackson, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Jay Jackson, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Bruce Janing, a resident of the City of Glendale
Ms. Patricia Janing, a resident of the City of Glendale
Ms. Dolores Kalowaski, a resident of the City of Glendale
Mr. Raymond Kalowaski, a resident of the City of Glendale
Ms. Helen M. Moriarity, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Thomas P. Moriarity, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Ms. Rose D. Muler, a resident of the City of Glendale
18
Mr. Wayne S. Nielsen, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Tony Remo, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Ms. Carol Robideau, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Ms. Frances Rogers, a resident of the City of Glendale
Mr. Marvin Rogers, a resident of the City of Glendale
Mr. Steve Snyder-Johnson, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Robert Stone, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Jeffrey P. Suttles, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Mike Vespoli, a resident of the City of Glendale Cholla District
Ms. Tammy Vogel, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Charles L. Wyrick, Ill, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Mr. Fred Yamashita, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuaro District
Public Hearing Speaker's cards were received from the following people, who
indicated that they opposed Zoning Amendment Application Z-00-25 , but did not wish
to speak:
Mr. Rick Butler, a resident of the City of Phoenix
Mr. Mike Ebert, a resident of the City of Scottsdale
Ms. Allison Heron
Mr. Randy Johnson, a resident of the City of Glendale Cholla District
Mr. Steve Martin, a resident of the City of Glendale Sahuaro District
Mr. Robert Miller
Mr. Mike Smothermon, a resident of the City of Glendale Cholla District
Ms. Vicky Smothermon, a resident of the City of Glendale Cholla District
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 2.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Lieberman, to approve
Zoning Amendment Application Z-00-25 amending the stipulations of approval for
the C-2 zoning previously approved under Rezoning Application Z-99-01.
Councilmember Martinez read an excerpt from the minutes of the December 7,
2000 Planning Commission hearing. He said, in his opinion, the development would
not enhance the quality of life of the citizens who live close to the project and he,
therefore, supported the amendments.
Councilmember Goulet thanked all of the speakers and residents who came to
tonight's meeting to give testimony. He said it was ironic that comments were made
implying that those in favor of the development felt threatened or intimidated, when the
first speaker, herself, sought to threaten and intimidate. He said the issue has never
been about Wal-Mart, it has been about the most appropriate land use for the
community. He said he also supported the motion.
19
Councilmember Lieberman said it was a difficult decision for him because he
knows the Hurleys and a number of people who live in his district had signed petitions
in favor of the big-box store. He said he had reviewed the plans and was aware at the
time of the original rezoning that there was the possibility of a big-box store being
included in the development. He said he had weighed what would be best for the City
in the long run and, therefore, he would support the stipulations. He noted that he was
the one who recommended the original stipulation regarding the delivery area fifteen
months ago.
Mayor Scruggs read the following prepared statement into the record.
"Over the past weeks, some of my remarks from the Council
meeting of September 14, 1999 have been used and
misused by various individuals. Significant newspaper
space has been taken up with the use and misuse of my
remarks from that evening.
Now, this evening, I have had to endure my name used in a
third party reference by Ms. Taylor with reference to a
meeting at which she was not present. At the same time,
Ms. Taylor did not recount my unfavorable reaction when
told about Wal-Mart at the May meeting she was present at.
However, nowhere have I seen certain sentences of mine
printed nor repeated. Those sentences are as follows:
"Mayor Scruggs thanked everyone who had
participated in the Citizen Participation
Program related to this case. She encouraged
the Hurley family to wisely handle the amount
of trust that has been given to them."
What we are here for tonight turns on the citizen
participation and the resulting trust given to the Hurley family
— not just by the citizens, but also by the Planning
Commission members, the City Council, and the staff of the
City of Glendale.
From the Final Citizen Participation Report prepared bv the
Hurleys dated April 8, 1999
Page 1 : "Property will likely be developed as a Community
Shopping Center, with the potential for three anchor tenants,
inline retail space, and approximately five freestanding pad
sites."
20
No word about a power center.
Page 1: "The Hurley's desire is to see that the property is
developed in a suitable manner, which will contribute to and
enhance the quality of life in Glendale and for adjacent
neighbors".
This is what the proposed amendments being
considered tonight will accomplish.
Page 2: Neighborhood effort began in July 1998. The
Hurleys implemented their own plan, devised by them and
without City of Glendale direction.
• Met with 28 adjacent residents through door-to-door
• Held 3 open houses at Pizza Hut for those residents (23
signed in)
• Distributed flyers to 226 homes within 300 feet of the site
and went door-to-door to meet the residents
• Held 2 open houses at Pizza Hut for those residents (37
signed in)
• Sent follow-up letters to all 226 homes, whether anyone
attended or not
• Sent flyers to 885 homes within an approximate one-half
mile radius
• Held open house meetings (42 signed in)
• Sent follow-up letters
Page 3: To meet the requirements of the Glendale Citizen
Participation Ordinance, over 1200 letters were mailed,
inviting people to a meeting on March 25, 1999 at Horizon
Elementary School (29 signed in)
Difference in City of Glendale Citizen Participation
Plan over Hurley plan is a wider notification area and
having all people hear the same information at the
same time.
21
Page 4: Hurleys made personal contact with 4
homeowners' associations: Rossmore — Suncrest —
Windstream —Woodglen
• Traffic was #1
• Types of uses/do not want negative uses was #3
• Impact on property values was #4
• Noise was #14
Page 7: "Frequently mentioned uses were 'nice sit down' family
restaurants. bagel and coffee shops, banks, bookstores, and other high
quality stores."
"Additionally, at the suggestion of one of the neighbors, the
Hurleys would like to work informally with a group of
neighbors in reviewing and suggesting appropriate uses for
the site."
If the last statement had been fulfilled, we most likely
would not be needing this meeting this evening. The
Hurleys and their representatives had gained the trust
of the neighbors — and therefore the trust of the
council—by this commitment and others like it.
By representations of a friendly, neighborhood oriented
shopping center filled with stores desired by the residents,
146 neighbors signed a petition that reads as follows:
"NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
We, the undersigned property owners and residents
in the vicinity of 51st Avenue and Olive in the City of
Glendale, have had an opportunity to review the
proposed Zoning and General Plan Amendment for
the proposed retail shopping center at the southwest
corner of 51st Avenue and Olive. We support the
General Plan and zoning changes to allow the
development of the proposed retail shopping center."
If the proposed retail shopping center, as alluded to
and described by the Hurley family in personal
meetings with neighborhood residents and certain
elected officials, and in the marketing and traffic
studies given to the City, was the project being
delivered now — there would be no reason for this
22
meeting. We placed our collective trust in those
representations and granted approval for those
representations to be constructed in our
neighborhood. Nowhere in this very thick Citizen
Participation Report presented to us by the Hurley
family is there any reference to any superstore - of
any brand or name. To the opposite. All references
were always to friendly, pedestrian oriented,
neighborhood compatible stores of an "upscale
nature".
To the issue of a 100,000 square foot store. After
months of hearing about Bed, Bath & Beyond, Linens
Plus, SteinMart, Barnes and Noble, and other stores
of that nature being planned by the Hurley family -
and being indicated by their marketing report as being
needed in this area - why would i or any of the other
members of the City Council - or the neighbors
themselves - expect that 100,000 square feet is not
the size of any of those retailers? When I go into a
Bed, Bath and Beyond or a Barnes and Noble store,
for example, I see a very, very large open space and I
know that there is storage and warehouse space
behind what I see.
I am sure you are just like me in that you don't know -
nor try to find out - what is the square footage of any
of those stores. But real estate brokers, and owners
of land to be leased, and retailers themselves know
that information. In this case, they knew it but chose
not to share it with us.
The Hurleys and their many representatives chose
not to protest when Glendale staff - in trying to
ensure significant development occurred but also
unaware of the limited number of retailers that
consume 100,000 square feet - developed the
original Stipulation #7.
The Hurleys and their many representatives sat
silently rather than telling us to make the changes that
would enable them to secure the retailers they
assured us were needed in our area, were interested
in our area, and which they were planning to bring to
our area. Why would they do that?
23
We had all placed our trust in the Hurley family based
NOT on how the property COULD be developed, but
on their own description of how the property WOULD
be developed by them. And it was upon that trust —
painstakingly built over a 14-month period that the
Glendale City Council gave unanimous approval to
the General Plan and rezoning requests from the
Hurley family for their property at the southwest
corner of 518 Avenue and Olive.
And that is why we are here tonight to amend the
actions of September 14, 1999 to ensure that the
Hurleys follow through with the plans that gained our
trust and gained the rezoning they desired. And that
is why I will vote in support of Zoning Amendment
Application Z-00-25: 5101 West Olive Avenue."
Upon a call for the question, the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed for a short break.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES
3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Z-00-23 BIG-BOX RETAIL IN C-1,
C-2 & C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS
Mr. Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator, stated that the next two items on the
agenda are text amendments that address the community's concern regarding the
location and operations of large retail stores. The first, Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment Z-00-23, recognizes existing zoned properties, as well as existing large
retail stores. The second, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Z-00-24, provides new
shopping center districts to better accommodate both neighborhood and community
level retail uses.
Text Amendment Z-00-23 is a City Council initiative to amend the C-1, C-2, and
C-3 zoning districts. The amendment adds new single retail uses with a gross floor
area greater than 75,000 square feet to the list of uses subject to a conditional use
permit. The amendment also requires existing single retail uses in the C-1, C-2, C-3
district with a gross floor area greater than 75,000 square feet to obtain a conditional
use permit to expand the floor area by 5% or more.
Single retail uses with a gross floor area greater than 75,000 square feet
represent a threshold for review between neighborhood scale stores to those
community level retail uses with an extended market area. This threshold provides for
anchor stores clearly community in scale to be subject to additional review through the
conditional review process.
24
The amendment provides for additional review of large retail uses through the
use permit process. The process will address the issues of whether the proposed
location is suitable for the surrounding neighborhood, including traffic analysis, site plan
review, and consideration of potential operational measures to address impacts and
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
The existing SC (Shopping Center) district that was adopted in 1993 includes a
similar provision for conditional use permit for large retail uses. This standard was
established after extensive discussions of the appropriate scale for neighborhood uses,
while allowing for approval of larger stores through the use permit process. Text
Amendment Z-00-23 adds a similar requirement to other potential shopping center
locations in the C-1, C-2, C-3 districts.
Many C-1, C-2, C-3 locations may be suited to large retail uses, but there are
also properties with this zoning that are not suited to accommodate community scale
uses due traffic impacts and operational impacts that are detrimental to the surrounding
area and community as a whole.
There are currently 22 other land uses in the C-2 zoning district, which are
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. All the uses with that category are
generally consistent with the intent of the C-2 district, but, because of their potential
impact, operational characteristics, traffic generation, or possible relationship to
adjacent uses, they are reviewed on a specific location-by-location basis to ensure that
any changes are subject to future review. The use permit process provides a review
mechanism and an ongoing basis for potential changes to the use over time. The use
permit process provides mechanisms to mitigate specific concerns on a site-by-site
basis.
The citizen participation process for the text amendment included the notification
of 1,176 property owners of C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoned properties. This was an effort to
contact as many existing property owners as possible to notify them of the proposed
changes. Additionally commercial developers and brokers familiar with the community
were contacted. Most responses were from property owners asking questions
regarding the amendment's application to their property. Representatives of WM
Grace, on behalf of K-mart and Costco, requested that their projects be exempted from
the amendment.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment Z-00-23 at its hearing held on December 7, 2000.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing, approve Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment Z-00-23, waive reading beyond the title, and adopt the
ordinance amending the text of the zoning ordinance.
25
Mr. Dean Svoboda, Planning Director, said that Mr. Jacobs presented the basic
concept and rationale for the proposed amendment and he wanted to address the need
to adopt the ordinance with an emergency clause.
Large-scale retailers bring many benefits to our community. They can also have
a detrimental effect if not properly located and regulated. The scale and mass of the
building, warehouse-style architecture, unrestricted loading, outdoor storage,
inadequate setbacks and buffers, and onsite and offsite traffic congestion are just a few
of the many issues we have dealt with over the years. Our research indicates that
these concerns are nationwide and not isolated to our community.
The impacts of a big box store and the potential options for mitigating these
impacts are affected by the location of the property, its size and shape, and its
orientation. This requires a site-specific evaluation and consideration of a wide variety
of variables that are unique to each site.
Experience leads me to believe that big box uses, as defined in the proposed
ordinance, should not be permitted outright in all commercial zoning districts under
general development standards. A conditional use permit requires a site-specific
evaluation with required findings prior to approval. I believe this is the minimum level of
regulation needed to ensure that big box uses do not adversely affect our community.
The precedent for regulating large-scale retail uses with a conditional use permit
is already established in the zoning ordinance by the SC district. The City Council first
recognized the need for this type of site-specific review when it adopted the ordinance
in 1993. The trend toward larger stores has increased since then.
The proposed text amendment simply adds the conditional use permit
requirement to the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts. These districts make up the
majority of the existing commercial zoning in our City. The parcels with this zoning are
widely scattered in a variety of settings, and this is where the majority of big box
development activity is occurring.
We currently have several big box users proposing to develop in our City. It is
important that this ordinance become effective immediately in order to minimize any
adverse effects on our community and ensure that all applicants are treated fairly.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Grant Woods, an attorney representingWal-Mart, explained that he had
been retained to handle any litigation against the City of Glendale that may occur as a
result of this action. He stated that Wal-Mart specifically requested exemption from this
ordinance. He said the substance of the lawsuit would be that the City is seeking to
enforce the ordinance upon companies that have been involved in the City's process for
some time. He said they believed arguments of estoppel, arguments of due process,
and even arguments of equal protection could be made. He urged the Council not to
26
pass the amendment and have it take into account projects that have already complied
with the City's existing rules. He said A.R.S. 9462 makes it clear that, in effect, the City
is rezoning or substantially changing the rules as they apply to Wal-Mart. He stated
that they believed the emergency clause was not appropriate or allowed by Arizona
State Statutes. He said they would take the issue to the courts if the amendment was
passed with an emergency clause because they felt no other recourse would be
available to them. He stated that there was no emergency in the City of Glendale
requiring the Council to take emergency action on a big-box ordinance. He stated that
the emergency clause was made up to keep it from being referred to the public. He
urged the Council to exempt the people who are currently in the process and, if not,
asked that the amendment not be adopted on an emergency basis. He said this would
give Wal-Mart three options: (1) beginning the process of taking the issue to the public
to see if there is support; (2) try to move through the Conditional Use Permit process
and hope it moves smoothly; or (3) do both simultaneously. He concluded by stating
that they did not want to have litigation and would not sue if the amendment was
passed without the emergency clause.
Ms. Jordan Rich Rose, an attorney with the law firm of Jordan and Bishoff
located in the City of Scottsdale, recommended that the Council follow the Planning
Commission's suggestion to give consideration to parties that are already in the
pipeline. She said passing the amendment without the recommended modification
forces all commercially zoned property in the City of Glendale to go through the
Conditional Use Permit. She explained that, by including the recommendation, the
Council would be accepting five sites: (1) Costco, (2) K-Mart, (3) Sam's Club, and (4)
Wal-Mart at 83`d Avenue and Union Hills Drive, all of which have public support, and (5)
the Wal-Mart at 51St and Olive Avenues which was taken care of through the previous
action. She recommended that they include the language "except properties that have
received first round design review comments". She stated that adopting the language
would save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation and referendum
expenses. She stated that they had research and expert outside counsel tell them that
they would be successful if they chose to bring action against the City. She urged the
Council to pass the amendment without the emergency clause.
Mr. Marcus Moran, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, urged
the Council to pass the amendment with the emergency clause in spite of the threat of
litigation.
Mr. Chuck Coughlin, with High Ground, Inc., 830 North 4th Avenue, Phoenix,
spoke on behalf of Hayscale L.L.C. and Wal-Mart. He agreed that there was no
emergency. He said the use of an emergency clause would only prevent any further
voter participation in this matter. He said, should Council decide to go forward with the
emergency clause, he would ask for a citizen's review of the Council's ability to use the
emergency clause for non-essential City services.
27
Ms. Lisa Conaway, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said
she supported the zoning ordinance amendment because it prevents what they have
seen happening tonight from happening in the future. She noted that the Planning
Commission unanimously recommended the amendment. She stated that she also
supported inclusion of the emergency clause.
Mr. David Gallagher and Ms. Dorothy Gallag er residents of the City of
Glendale Barrel District, submitted public hearing speaker's cards, but were not
present to address the Council.
Ms. Julie Effron, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, submitted
a public hearing speaker's card, but was not present to address the Council.
Ms. Dee Snyder-Johnson, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District,
said she supported the amendment. She stated that the lawyers have said they want
the issue taken to a public forum, pointing out that is what tonight's meeting provided.
She said every citizen of Glendale is welcome to come to the Council meetings. She
agreed that the emergency clause should be included because the issue at 51st and
Olive Avenues is not over.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, urged
the citizens of Glendale to patronize small businesses. He stated that they are the
backbone of the country. He said those who are willing to stand up against such huge
forces have been given a great opportunity and suggested a statewide force of
concerned citizens and neighborhood groups meet with the legislatures. He noted that
corporations are considered individuals under State law and afforded the same rights
as individuals. He stated that he did not agree with that. He said he would work day
and night to inform the citizens of Glendale on this matter. He acknowledged the threat
of litigation. He stated, however, that he did not believe that the arguments of those in
opposition to the amendment were as strong as they believed. He expressed his
opinion that this issue was worth spending money on because it protects the rights of
the citizens.
Mr. Charlie Grim, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that he supported the ordinance because the issue at 51St and Olive Avenues is going
to end up in the courts. He stated that, if all Wal-Mart and Hayscale representatives
were willing to sign and withdraw all lawsuits involving the 51st and Olive Avenues store,
there would be no emergency.
Mr. John D. Carter, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, asked
the Council to not include the emergency clause and allow time for additional input to
be obtained. He praised the Council for keeping the best interests of the City of
Glendale at the forefront.
28
Ms. Debra Kist, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, expressed
her opinion that the amendment should include the emergency clause. She noted that
no other big-box representatives were present at tonight's meeting. She said the long
run costs could well outweigh the cost of any possible litigation.
Mr. Dennis Powers, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, agreed
that, although there is a need for a big-box ordinance, the emergency issue is one of
perspective. He said the citizens of Glendale are not against big-box development,
they just want properties developed in a reasonable manner. He agreed that the 51St
and Olive Avenues issue is not over and, therefore, it probably constitutes an
emergency. He encouraged the Council to move ahead on the ordinance, including the
emergency clause. He also pointed out the lack of other big-box retailers voicing their
opposition to the ordinance.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 3.
Ordinance No. 2176 New Series was read by number and title, 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 5 (ZONING DISTRICTS) BY ADDING BIG-BOX
DEVELOPMENT AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL), C2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND C-3 (HEAVY COMMERCIAL)
DISTRICTS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Goulet, to approve Ordinance
No. 2176 New Series, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Z-00-23 regarding
single retail uses with a gross floor area greater than 75,000 square feet, and that
Ordinance No. 2176 New Series be approved as an emergency, with the
emergency clause set forth in the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Martinez said he had watched the Planning Commission
meeting at which this item was discussed and felt the Council had given the
consideration requested by the Commission. He stated that he would support the
motion.
Mayor Scruggs said the Council was appreciative of the Planning Commission's
concerns and had spent a great deal of time considering the matter.
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.
29
4. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Z-00-24 NEIGHBORHOOD AND
COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER ZONING DISTRICTS
Mr. Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator, presented this City Council initiative to
add the NSC (Neighborhood Shopping Center) and CSC (Community Shopping Center)
zoning districts to the ordinance. These new districts will better reflect the different
characteristics of neighborhood and community centers and facilitate implementation of
the General Plan. Currently, the only district that accommodates commercial level
centers is the C-2 (General Commercial) district.
The new NSC zoning district is intended to serve daily shopping needs and be
compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The maximum lot area is 20 acres. Single
retail uses with a gross floor area greater than 75,000 square feet are not permitted
within the district.
The new CSC district is intended to meet the shopping needs of large segments
of the community. The minimum lot area must be larger than 20 acres. Single retail
uses with a gross floor area greater than 75,000 square feet require conditional use
permit approval.
The new shopping center districts require a master development plan as part of
the rezoning application. The master development plan will become an integral part of
the approved zoning. Both the new districts also include performance standards for
development. This will allow a more complete review of the character and impacts of
proposed shopping centers during the rezoning process.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment Z-00-24 at its hearing held on December 7, 2000. At this hearing,
representatives of Valley Partnership and Wal-Mart requested that the item be
continued to allow further review by the development industry.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing, approve Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment Z-00-24, waive reading beyond the title, and adopt the
ordinance amending the text of the zoning ordinance.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 4.
Ms. Maeve Johnson, Executive Director of Valley Partnership, 4520 North
12th Street, Suite 201, Phoenix, explained that her non-profit organization advocates
responsible development on behalf of the commercial, industrial, and master planned
community real estate development industry. She said, although she understood the
reasons behind fast-tracking the amendment, she believed that community and industry
comment would provide a better ordinance that meets the needs of the public. She
said everyone benefits from big-box developments if the sites are well planned,
protecting adjacent residential uses while meeting the needs of the site developer and
users. She said they had met with City staff and commended them on their willingness
30
to clarify items on which they had questions. She said there were certain policy issues,
however, that the Planning Department directed them to address with Council. She
said her preference would be to have the item continued to allow them to work with the
Planning Department to address the complex issues in a more comprehensive manner.
She reviewed a letter outlining their most significant concerns.
Ms. Lisa Conaway, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that she supported the ordinance and would also support a 40-foot landscape buffer
around the perimeter of a site.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said he
strongly supported the ordinance. He stated that the Council was trying to ensure that
the needs of the citizens are met and developers are held accountable.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 4.
Mayor Scruggs said she was not comfortable with Ms. Johnson's suggestion of
one convenience use per five acres. She asked what the City would lose or gain by
Ms. Johnson's suggested modifications to the drive-thru language. Mr. Dean Svoboda,
Planning and Zoning Director, explained that, over the past eight or nine years, the
Council has made a practice of not encouraging drive-thru's to be located on the street
side of convenience uses. He stated that, although they do not want to exclude
convenience uses, they want to ensure they convey a quality development. He agreed
that, in some cases, it is difficult to place drive-thru's away from the street side and, if
Council feels flexibility is necessary, they should agree to the wording proposed by Ms.
Johnson. He said, conversely, if Council felt it was important to discourage drive-thru's
from being located on the street side, the wording should remain as initially proposed.
Mayor Scruggs asked if a developer would be able to ask for a variance if the Council
proceeded with the ordinance as written. Mr. Svoboda said it would be a provision of
the Conditional Use Permit and would not be negotiable, nor could a variance be
granted. Mayor Scruggs asked why the Planning Department placed it under the
Conditional Use Permit versus Development Standards. Mr. Svoboda said it was
intended to reflect the level of concern they believed the Council previously expressed
regarding convenience uses.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Svoboda to explain the wording regarding pad sites.
Mr. Svoboda explained that the intent of the wording was that once the first anchor went
in, the pad sites would be released for development. He said the pad sites could also
be developed concurrently with the major anchor. He stated that he was not
comfortable with the wording proposed by Ms. Johnson and believed the initial wording
was sufficient to meet the Council's intent. He offered to explore additional wording if
the Council so desired.
Councilmember Clark suggested that they pass the ordinance, but direct staff to
go back and further explore some of the issues raised. Mr. Svoboda said the Council
could continue the item for further study, could ask staff to make revisions from the
31
floor, or pass the ordinance and direct staff to continue to work with the development
community and Council to fine tune the ordinance.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Svoboda if staff would be able to complete its
reconsideration by the January 9, 2001 Council meeting. Mr. Svoboda said he would
continue to work with the development community; however, should Council choose to
do so, they would need to continue the item to that specific date. Based on comments
received from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Svoboda recommended continuing the issue to a later
date in January of 2001.
Councilmember Lieberman said he would be in favor of continuing the item. He
asked what would constitute development of the first major anchor. Mr. Svoboda stated
that the wording provides administrative discretion for the Planning Director and he
would interpret it to mean the issuance of building permits.
Mr. Flaaen suggested that they move forward with the item and, if necessary,
come back at a later date to amend it.
Mr. Svoboda stated that Ms. Johnson said she would be happy to have the
ordinance adopted and continue working with the City to pursue any necessary text
amendments.
Ordinance No. 2177 New Series was read by number and title, 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, ARITCLE 2 (DEFINITIONS), ARTICLE 4 (ZONING
DISTRICTS) ARTICLE 5 (ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS), AND ARTICLE 7
(GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) BY ADDING THE ZONING DISTRICT
FOR "NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER" AND "COMMUNITY SHOPPING
CENTER".
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance No.
2177 New Series, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment establishing neighborhood
shopping center and community shopping center zoning districts within the City
of Glendale. 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.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Martinez, to vacate the
regularly scheduled Council meeting on Tuesday, December 26, 2000, as well as
the Workshop on January 2, 2001. The motion carried unanimously.
32
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Karl Boettcher, a resident of the City of Phoenix, stated that he is the
Chief Operating Officer of the Global Group. He said they had been informed that the
Glendale Municipal Airport Manager, Mr. James McCue, would be resigning as of the
end of the month. He expressed deep concern over this development. He stated that
they had become the major tenant of the Airport terminal building. He said Mr.
McCue's vision and support helped the Airport and his company develop the brink of
active contribution to the Glendale community. He said Mr. McCue also provided the
initiatives, guidance, and experience necessary to raise funds. He asked the Council
for their guidance in solving the conflict.
Mr. Mel Smith, a resident of the City of Glendale, noted that he has five
variance cases pending before the Council under an appeal by Councilmember Goulet.
He expressed his displeasure with the City's discriminatory action against one group,
class, or individual over another group, class, or individual as it pertains to the granting
of variances. He said the Board of Adjustment rightly passed a variance for Habitat for
Humanity. He noted that all Habitat cases have passed the Board of Adjustment's
watchful eye, with no appeals being filed. He said the City's Habitat for Humanity
program is discriminatory in four ways: (1) it sets aside a full range of development fees
charged to one group, class, or individual; (2) it allows reduced design and building
standards in R-3 zoning to meet or fall below R1-6 residential standards for one group,
class, or individual; (3) it allows alley ingress and egress to homes, whereby denial is
sought in other cases; and (4) imposing 15 to 30 houses in one small area could be
detrimental to existing neighborhoods. He stated that he wanted to enter his concerns
into the record so that they might be considered when his case comes before the
Council. He asked to have his case put on the agenda in early 2001.
Mr. Joseph Butter, a resident of the City of Glendale Cactus District, said he
was concerned that the City of Glendale is engaging in reactionary zoning practices.
He encouraged the City to be more proactive in its zoning practices and suggested that
many of the commercial and residential zonings need to be updated.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, wished
the Councilmembers and community members a Merry Christmas. He commended the
Council for acting in the best interests of the community and for listening to the City's
residents. He complimented the Council on their concerns with regard to
transportation.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Councilmember Clark wished everyone a happy holiday season.
Councilmember Goulet thanked all of the people who had participated in the
meeting and wished everyone a happy holiday season. He stated that he was
extremely proud of what Habitat for Humanity has done in the community.
33
Councilmember Lieberman said he was proud of all they had accomplished at
tonight's meeting. He wished everyone the best holiday season and a healthy and
prosperous new year.
Vice Mayor Eggleston wished everyone happy holidays.
Councilmember Martinez also wished everyone a happy holiday season.
Councilmember Frate said tonight's meeting proves that city government is the
best one to serve on because it is closest to the people. He expressed his appreciation
for those who attended the meeting and wished everyone a happy holiday.
Mayor Scruggs noted that there were a number of people who submitted public
hearing speaker's cards on Agenda Item 2, indicating that they did not wish to address
the Council, but wanted to register their support of or opposition to the item. She said
31 cards in support of, and 8 cards in opposition to, the amendments were submitted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
7'"1//7
Pamela deira - City Clerk
34