HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/28/2002 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
HELD TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, with Vice Mayor
Thomas R. Eggleston and the following Councilmembers present: Joyce V. Clark,
Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, and Manuel D. Martinez. Councilmember H. Philip
Lieberman was absent.
Also present were Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City
Manager; Rick Flaaen, 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 ten resolutions and 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.
Mayor Scruggs introduced Mr. Wyatt Karo, Scoutmaster, and Mr. Bryan Karo,
Boy Scout from Glendale Boy Scout Troop # 828 who were present at tonight's meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 14, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to dispense with the
reading of the minutes of the May 14, 2002 City Council Meeting, as each member
of the Council had been provided copies in advance, and approve them as
written. The motion carried unanimously.
PROCLAMATIONS AND AWARDS
PRESENTATION OF AWARD TO JIM COLSON FOR THE 2002 ECONOMIC
DEVELOPER OF THE YEAR
Glendale's Economic Development Director, Mr. Jim Colson, who played a key
role in attracting the Phoenix Coyotes to a new arena in Glendale, has been named the
State's top economic developer.
Mr. Colson received the 2002 Economic Developer of the Year Award from the
Arizona Association of Economic Development (AAED) at the association's annual
conference held last weekend in Page, Arizona.
1
The City of Glendale is being recognized for all of its economic development
achievements. The association recognized Mr. Colson for making significant
contributions to the state's economic development efforts and for making a positive
impact in Glendale and the Northwest Valley region.
"Glendale is making a substantial investment in its economic future for the
betterment of the community," says John Bowers, Executive Director of AAED. "Just by
the competition Mr. Colson faced in winning this award, it's clear to me that Glendale's
investment is paying off."
Last year, Glendale's Economic Development Department was responsible for
completing the location or expansion of 20 companies that represented more than $70
million in capital investment in the City and over 1 ,000 new jobs.
One of Mr. Colson's key accomplishments in 2001 was his significant contribution
in bringing the NHL (National Hockey League) Coyotes to Glendale. The
Glendale/Coyotes' soon-to-be-constructed 17,500-seat arena -- which is scheduled to
open in late 2003 -- will serve as the anchor for a 223-acre, mixed-use project near the
Loop 101 and Glendale Avenue. When built out, the project will feature six million
square feet of retail, entertainment, dining, office, hotel and residential development.
The Coyotes' project will not only serve as an impetus for future economic growth
in Glendale. The mixed-use development will also be an economic engine and
destination attraction for the entire western region of Maricopa County.
"In just a few years, Jim Colson has managed to bring grand-scale projects, new
jobs and capital investment to Glendale that required vision, creativity, complex
negotiation and management skills," says Glendale City Manager Ed Beasley. "He has
also worked extremely hard in successfully elevating the status and perception of
Glendale among the development and business communities. As a result, Jim has
positioned Glendale as the location of choice for many businesses over the next
decade."
Mr. Colson has been with the City of Glendale since 1999. He came to the City
of Glendale from the Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC), where he was Senior
Director of Corporate Locations. Prior to GPEC, Colson was the Senior National
Marketing Representative with the Arizona Department of Commerce, where he was
responsible for attracting new businesses to the State.
Since the representative from the Arizona Association of Economic Development
was unable to attend the meeting, Mayor Scruggs stated that the award presentation to
Mr. Jim Colson, the City's Economic Development Director, would take place at a later
date.
2
RECOGNITION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION MEMBERS
Mr. Adam Watkins, Ms. Erica Marshall, and Mr. Christopher Kelly, recently
completed terms on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The purpose of
the Commission is to act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters related
to parks and recreation facilities and programs.
Mr. Adam Watkins served on the Commission from April 25, 2000, to November
18, 2001. Mr. Christopher Kelly served on the Commission from February 27, 2001, to
May 26, 2002. Ms. Erica Marshall served on the Commission from February 27, 2001,
to May 26, 2002.
During their collective tenure, they have spent numerous volunteer hours
reviewing park plans, recreation programs, park rules and regulations, and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council for adoption. The Commission began the process
to update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in January of 1999. This document will
provide policies and strategies for the continued development of Parks and Recreation
facilities and programs for the next ten years. The Commission dedicated numerous
hours at public meetings and forums and reviewed, revised, and recommended
adoption after consideration at 11 Commission meetings. The plan was adopted on
February 26, 2002.
Mr. Watkins, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Marshall are to be commended for their
commitment, dedication, and contributions to the citizens of Glendale in support of
parks and recreation facilities and programs.
Mayor Scruggs presented plaques to Ms. Erica Marshall, and Mr. Christopher
Kelly for outstanding service to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Adam
Watkins was unable to attend the meeting to accept his plaque.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, read Agenda Item Numbers 1 through 5 by
number and title, and Ms. Pam Oliveira, City Clerk, read Agenda Item Numbers 6
through 13 by number and title.
1. SPRING 2002 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 the Fiscal Year 2001-02, 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 2002 funding cycle.
3
The Commission on Neighborhoods recently concluded a two-month review
process of eight neighborhood grant requests, and was recommending all eight of them
for approval (each of the approved grants include a contingency):
1. Orchard Glen Neighborhood Partnership — $91,766.40 to fund streetscaping
(new trees, irrigation and granite) and accessibility ramps along 5e Drive
from just south of Glendale Avenue to Lamar Road and from 59 h Drive and
Lamar Road east to 59th Avenue. The neighborhood pledged $1,152 in sweat
equity, $576 in non-project sweat equity, and $25,441 in cash and donated
items to this project. Of this amount, $25,000 comes from a successful State
of Arizona Urban Forestry Land Grant that was applied for and received last
year.
2. Acapulco Neighborhood Association — $75,119 to fund the installation of
pedestrian and street lighting on the west side of 55th Avenue from Greenway
Road to Acoma Avenue. The neighborhood pledged $552.96 in non-project
sweat equity and $75 in cash donations to this project.
3. Mountain View Meadows Estates Neighborhood Association - $89,596 to
fund the removal and replacement of a substantial number of cracked and
broken sidewalks, and install accessibility ramps between 51St Avenue and
53rd Avenue, Mercer Lane and Christy Drive. The project also includes two
entryway monuments located at the northwest and southwest corners of 51St
Avenue and Mercer Lane. The neighborhood pledged $840.96 in sweat
equity, $501.12 in non-project sweat equity, and $405 in donated items to this
project.
4. Suncrest Homeowners' Association — $13,639.53 to repave its neighborhood
streets. The neighborhood is located between 51St Lane west to 52nd Avenue,
Sanna Drive north to Olive Avenue. The neighborhood pledged $27,579.08
in cash donations toward the project.
5. Woodglen Village Townhouse Association — $27,268.55 to repave its
neighborhood streets. The neighborhood is located between 47th Avenue
west to 47th Court, Olive Avenue north to Sanna Street. The neighborhood
pledged $54,537.05 as a cash match for this project.
6. Terrace Green Homeowners' Association - $2,072.93 to fund the installation
of new access gates for neighborhood refuse containers within the
neighborhood. The neighborhood is located just north of Northern Avenue on
48th Avenue. The neighborhood pledged $138.24 in sweat equity, $345.60 in
non-project sweat equity, and $4,023.91 as a cash match for this project.
4
7. Northern Manor West II HOA — $30,500 to fund the installation of concrete
"valley" (drainage) gutters at various locations within the neighborhood. This
neighborhood is located between 57th to 59th Avenues, Crocus to Acoma
Avenue. The neighborhood pledged $1,843.20 in sweat equity and $43,391
in cash for this project.
8. Oakhollow Homeowners' Association — $7,170 to fund the construction of a
new entryway monument at the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Cholla.
The neighborhood pledged $23 in sweat equity and $115 in non-project sweat
equity.
The total requested, with contingencies factored in, amounts to $337,132.41.
Because of project savings from previously approved projects, and remaining funds
from the Fall 2001 grants cycle, approximately $385,000 is available for the Spring 2002
neighborhood grant requests.
Funds for the Spring 2002 neighborhood grant recommendations are available in
Account Number 01-8968-8330 (Neighborhood Projects).
The recommendation was to approve the Spring 2002 neighborhood
improvement grants as recommended by the Glendale Citizens' Advisory Commission
on Neighborhoods.
2. AWARD OF PROPOSAL 02-17, WATER AND WASTEWATER TESTING
EQUIPMENT --�---- ---___
Five proposals were received to provide the Water Quality Laboratory with a gas
chromatograph mass spectrometer (GCMS) and a gas chromatograph dual electron
capture detector (GCDECD). This equipment is used for the analysis of organic
compounds such as pesticides, trihalomethanes and haloacetic acid. These
instruments will provide the laboratory with the state of the art technology needed for
compliance testing required by the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and will validate water quality. These items will supplement existing units that are over
five years old, and are not able to meet new stringent testing requirements. The current
equipment will continue to be utilized by the Water Quality Laboratory for testing of both
drinking water and wastewater.
An evaluation panel, consisting of staff from the Water Quality Laboratory,
reviewed the offers received using specific evaluation criteria which included customer
support, compliance with specifications, references, and cost. The offer scored highest
by the panel was submitted by Joint Analytical Systems, Inc. The laboratory testing
equipment is new and has a full-factory warranty. Funding is available in the Water
Quality Laboratory capital lease budget, Account Number 50-6429-08400. The contract
contains an option clause that permits the City, at the discretion of the City Manager, to
purchase an additional water and wastewater testing equipment system at the same
price within one year of receipt and acceptance of the original order.
5
The recommendation was to award the purchase of one GCMS and one
GCDECD to Joint Analytical Systems, Inc. in the amount of $134,794.17, taxes
included.
3. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - GLENDALE VETERAN'S
MEMORIAL
This was a request for City Council approval of a construction contract to AFC
Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $106,207.46, for the construction of the site
improvements at the Glendale Veteran's Memorial at 59th and Brown Avenues. The
work under this contract includes paving, landscape and irrigation, electrical, and the
foundations for the sculptural pieces for the memorial. Construction is projected to take
sixty days from issuance of notice to proceed.
Five bids were received and opened on March 21, 2002. AFC Contracting, Inc.
submitted the lowest base bid in the amount of $80,902.22. Alternate Number 1 was
offered in the bid and provided for flagpoles, bollard lighting, trash receptacle, and
drinking fountain. City staff recommended that Alternate Number 1 be added to the
contract, for a total of $106,207.46, and that the contract be awarded to AFC
Contracting, Inc., a responsible and responsive bidder.
This contract, in the amount of $106,207.46, will be funded out of the Municipal
Arts Fund, Account Number 70-9700-8300. The Municipal Arts Fund has a current
balance of $817,310.
The recommendation was to approve the award of the construction contract to
AFC Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $106,207.46.
4. AWARD OF PROPOSAL 01-06, DEVELOPMENT TRACKING SYSTEM
This was a request for City Council award of a bid to Hansen Information
Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $509,595 for the purchase of a new development
tracking system. On May 7, 2002, the City Council directed staff to prepare an award of
bid for Hansen Information Technologies, Inc. The new development tracking system
will increase staff efficiency in providing enhanced customer service.
The City currently uses a software application that was developed "in-house" to
track planning and permitting information. This system is inadequate for current and
future needs. In addition, the system is not relational and information is not shared
between various City departments, resulting in manual tracking of information and
additional work for City personnel. Staff developed a Request for Proposal, which was
issued with the intent of obtaining an "Enterprise Solution" or City-wide solution which is
consistent with the City's direction in implementing an E-government solution. This
solution would allow for Internet access to City records, which would result in improved
customer service and a more efficient means for City personnel to perform their duties.
6
Five proposals were received. An evaluation panel, consisting of staff from the
Information Technology Department, the Building Safety Department, the Planning
Department, and the Deputy City Manager's Office, reviewed the offers using specific
evaluation criteria, including compliance with specifications, project team qualifications,
cost and references. Vendors who were believed to meet the requirements of the
specifications performed demonstrations of the software. The offer which scored the
highest by the evaluation panel was submitted by Hansen Information Technologies, a
provider of an "Enterprise Solution" of multiple modules.
The modules that are to be currently purchased include Construction and Use
Permits, Code Enforcement, Dynamic Portal, Cashiering, Mobil Permit Inspections,
Mobil Work Management, OLE Container, Nag System and Work Notice. The proposal
contains an option clause that allows the City, at the discretion of the City Manager, to
purchase additional modules, which could be used by other City departments and to
extend the agreement for four additional years in one-year increments. Future modules
for purchase may include Municipal Billing, Parks Management, Plant/Fleet
Management, Pavement/Street Management, Asset Valuation and Contract
Management.
Funding for the purchase of the modules, installation and setup, project
management, analysis of existing systems for conversion of data, training and annual
service and maintenance has been identified in Non-Departmental Account Number 01-
2440-7640 in the amount of $188,178, Utilities Operating Budget Account Number 50-
6417-7330, in the amount of $241,417, and in Fund 91 Account Number 91-5215-7640
in the amount of $80,000, for a total of $509,595. Future years maintenance costs
would be funded by the Information Technologies Operating Budget account in the
amount of $42,570 per year.
The recommendation was to award the purchase of an Enterprise Solution of
software to Hansen Information Technologies in the amount of $509,595, taxes
included.
5. FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FP-02-01 : FIRESIDE VILLAS. 6830 WEST
BETHANY HOME ROAD
This was a request by AEC Consultants, Inc. for final plat approval for a
subdivision titled Fireside Villas. This in-fill site is located west of the northwest corner
of 67th Avenue and Bethany Home Road.
The subdivision includes nine single-family lots on 2.3 acres, at a density of 3.9
dwelling units per gross acre. Lot sizes vary from 4,679 square feet to 4,998 square
feet, with an average lot size of 4,964 square feet. The proposed minimum lot width is
45 feet and the proposed minimum lot depth is 104 feet.
7
The final plat is consistent with the General Plan, the R1-4 PRD (Single
Residence, Planned Residential Development) zoning district and the preliminary plat.
All stipulations of the Preliminary Plat have been satisfied.
The recommendation was to approve Final Plat Application FP-02-01.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
6. AUTHORIZATION TO SELL GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
Over the past months, Finance Department staff worked on the various debt
structures that can be used to maximize the amount of money available to finance City
projects. These efforts primarily focused on the issuance of general obligation bonds.
During April of 2002, available bond capacity was presented to the management team
based on the market conditions that existed at that time. This analysis was prepared
based on the City's total financing needs as highlighted in the capital improvement plan
(CIP), including reimbursement of certain CIP expenditures already incurred, and
market conditions allowing for an efficient refinancing of existing bonds. This bond sale
will fund the following projects covered by 1999 or prior voter authorizations:
Flood control $3.0 million
Multi-purpose recreational facilities 16.0 million
Parks 2.6 million
Refunding of outstanding 1996 general obligation bonds 4.6 million
Streets, traffic control, and parking 11 .7 million
Water feature on city-owned land at Glendale and 94th Avenues 2.4 million
If sold, an additional $4.7 million of bonds would be used for costs of issuance,
additional refunding opportunities, and additional voter-authorized projects. In total,
authorization is sought for the sale of general obligation bonds in an amount not to
exceed $45,000,000.
Contingent upon the Council's approval, staff will proceed with the publication of
the resolution authorizing the sale of the bonds. Staff will also prepare and publish a
Preliminary Official Statement for the bonds. The statement will be sent out to potential
underwriting firms who are interested in buying the City's bonds. In addition, staff will
present the rating agencies with additional information on the strengths of the City.
Staff will work in conjunction with the Independent Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel
to monitor the changes in the marketplace and the legal disclosure issues that may
arise.
Once the proposals are received from the underwriting firms, staff and the
Independent Financial Advisor will evaluate and verify the bids received to assure their
accuracy and benefit to the City. These bids will then be brought to the Council for their
review. Should the Council elect to accept the most responsible bid for the bonds, it
8
may accept the winning bid at its June 11, 2002 afternoon special meeting by adopting
the bond ordinance that contains the bond purchase agreement.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the sale of general obligation bonds not to exceed $45,000,000.
Resolution No. 3570 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, ORDERING THE SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $45,000,000
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF CITY OF GLENDALE, ARIZONA GENERAL OBLIGATION
AND REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES JUNE 1, 2002; AUTHORIZING CERTAIN
OTHER DOCUMENTS AND THE TAKING OF CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ORDER OF SALE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
7. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SHELLY CONSTRUCTION L.L.C.
This was a request for approval of a development agreement with Shelly
Construction, L.L.C. for off-site and park improvements for a joint city school park site
on 77th and Orangewood Avenues. The City Council approved the final plat for
Orangewood Estates on April 23, 2002 for Shelly Construction, L.L.C. to develop 202
single-family lots on 60 acres of land located south of Orangewood Avenue between
75th and 79t Avenues.
The City has purchased five acres of land, and the Glendale Elementary School
District has purchased land for a school site and five additional acres for a park site.
The City and the School District are in the process of developing an intergovernmental
agreement to develop a joint ten-acre neighborhood park site within the development.
Shelly Construction, L.L.C. will complete half street improvements on the west
half of 77th Lane from Northview Avenue to Orangewood, the north half of Northview
Avenue, and the south half of Orangewood from 77th Lane along the edge of the City's
portion of the joint park site. The improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalks,
streetlights, and the undergrounding of electrical facilities. The developer will also clear
the land on the City park site in exchange for a retention basin.
The estimated cost of street improvements is $137,989.79 and the cost to clear
the land was $79,300, for a total of $217,289.79. Shelly Construction, L.L.C. will
contribute $39,000 in lieu of building a tot lot, and the City will receive a credit of
$55,828.85 for the value of the one-foot deep retention basin located on the park site.
The total reimbursement to Shelly Construction, L.L.C. is estimated at $122,460.94 and
shall not exceed $150,000. Funds for the reimbursement are available in Zone 1
Development Impact Fee Account Number 14-8548-8300.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement with Shelly
Construction, L.L.C.
9
Resolution No. 3571 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SHELLY CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C.; AND
DIRECTING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE RECORDED.
8. APPROVAL OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM ON GLENDALE AVENUE
This was a request for approval of an intergovernmental agreement with the
Arizona Department of Transportation to install traffic signal conduit and fiber optic
cable on Glendale Avenue, from 43rd to 99th Avenues.
The installation of the conduit and cable is a key component of the City's future
Computerized Traffic Signal Management System, in that it will allow approximately
eighteen traffic signals to be connected to the system on Glendale Avenue.
The conduit and cable on Glendale Avenue will provide a fiber optic connection
to the new Coyotes Hockey Arena that will allow the City to manage traffic from hockey
games and other events at the arena. The conduit and cable on Glendale Avenue will
also be used to provide a fiber optic connection to the proposed Police/Fire and Parks
facility on 83rd Avenue at Bethany Home Road. (The installation of traffic signal conduit
and fiber optic cable on 83rd Avenue from Glendale Avenue to Bethany Home Road is
currently being designed under a separate project.)
The estimated cost for construction of the traffic signal conduit and fiber optic
cable on Glendale Avenue is $468,000. Federal funding (CMAQ) is available in the
amount of $441,000. The City portion of the cost is $27,000, with funds available in
Signal Computerization Account Number 61-9546-8330.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign any and all documentation relating to
this request.
Resolution No. 3572 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CITY'S COMPUTERIZED SIGNAL SYSTEM LOCATED ON GLENDALE AVENUE
FROM 43RD AVENUE TO 99TH AVENUE.
10
9. APPROVAL OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM ON 59TH AVENUE �®
This was a request for approval of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with
the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to install traffic signal conduit and
fiber optic cable on 59th Avenue, from Camelback Road to Union Hills Drive. The
installation of the conduit and cable is a key component of the City's future
Computerized Traffic Signal Management System in that it will allow approximately
twenty-seven traffic signals to be connected to the system.
The City's Transportation Department currently has three miles of conduit and
fiber optic cable on 59th Avenue, from Glendale to Peoria Avenues, with the fiber optic
cable running into City Hall. The City's Information Technology Department is using the
fiber optic cable for communications between City Hall and the Main Library at Brown
Street and also to the Fire Station at Mountain View Road. The work proposed by this
IGA will provide for the installation of conduit and fiber optic cable on the portions of 59th
Avenue that currently do not have cable or conduit. Also included are the installation of
cameras to monitor traffic at five intersections along 59th Avenue. The cameras will be
on 59th Avenue at Camelback Road, Olive Avenue, Peoria Avenue, Thunderbird Road,
and at Bell Road.
The estimated cost for construction of the traffic signal conduit, fiber optic cable,
and cameras on 59th Avenue is $845,000. Federal funding (CMAQ) is available in the
amount of $796,835. The City's portion of the cost is $48,165, with funds available in
Signal Computerization Account Number 61-9546-8330.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign any and all documentation relating to
this request.
Resolution No. 3573 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CITY'S COMPUTERIZED SIGNAL SYSTEM LOCATED ON 59TH AVENUE FROM
CAMELBACK ROAD TO UNION HILLS ROAD.
10. APPROVAL OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARICOPA
COUNTY FOR AZTECH SMART CORRIDORS
This was a request for approval of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with
Maricopa County to design and install cameras, vehicle detection systems, and
changeable message signs at various intersections on 59th Avenue and also at the
11
intersection of 67th Avenue and Thunderbird Road under the AZTech partnership with
the City of Glendale.
AZTech has designated ten arterial streets throughout the Phoenix metropolitan
area as Smart Corridors due to the regional character of these streets. Two of these
streets pass through the City of Glendale — 59th Avenue and Thunderbird Road.
Maricopa County, acting as the lead agency for AZTech, will design and install
intelligent transportation system equipment on 59th Avenue and on Thunderbird Road in
order to improve traffic flow on these two streets. Changeable message signs will be
installed on 59th Avenue, north of Bell Road and south of Myrtle Avenue. Cameras to
monitor traffic will be installed on 59th Avenue at Northern Avenue, Cactus Road,
Greenway Road, Union Hills Drive and at Behrend Drive. Vehicle detection systems will
be installed at the intersections of 59th Avenue and Union Hills Drive and also at 67th
Avenue and Thunderbird Road.
There is no cost to the City for the design and construction of the project, as the
entire cost will be the responsibility of Maricopa County. After the equipment is
installed, the City will take ownership of the equipment.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign any and all documentation relating to
this request.
Resolution No. 3574 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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DESIGN, INSTALLATION,
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT TO BE USED IN THE CITY OF
GLENDALE'S TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
11. MARK MITSUBISHI DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Mark Mitsubishi dealership located at 44th Avenue and Glendale is 25 years
old and needs major renovation. The projected cost of the project is $760,000.
Redevelopment of the center will allow the dealership to add more than 30 employees
over the next 5 years, with wages averaging $20.00/hour.
The dealership requested abandonment of a public utility easement/alley. This
easement has no dedicated utilities, currently creates a dead-end alley and is not
required for area access. Mark Mitsubishi's development plans will improve the
aesthetics of the easement area.
12
Also, Mark Mitsubishi was requesting $193,335 in financial assistance. A
$120,000 reimbursement through the Visual Improvement Program was approved by
the City Council on April 23, 2002. Staff was requesting that $73,335 be repaid through
50% net new sales tax revenues. Net new sales tax will be calculated over a base
annual sales tax of $219,939, capped at $73,335.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution that will authorize the City Manager to enter into a development agreement
with Mark Mitsubishi.
Resolution No. 3575 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH MARK MITSUBISHI; AND DIRECTING THAT
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE RECORDED.
12. DON SANDERSON FORD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Sanderson Ford plans to construct an 81,800 square foot truck sales and service
center on 13 acres located immediately south of the current car dealership at Grand and
51st Avenues. The new facility is projected to cost $5.6 million to construct. This will be
a completely new venture, providing for the sale and service of trucks, recreational
vehicles, and other large vehicles.
The project will generate additional sales tax revenues to the City of between
$350,000 and $400,000 per year, which would be in addition to the $922,000 generated
annually by the existing car dealership. Over a six-year period, the expansion project
will generate approximately $1.9 million in new economic benefit to the City.
Deal points in the development agreement with Don Sanderson Ford are:
• The City agrees to rebate 50% of net new sales tax revenues generated by
the Truck Sales and Service Center
• The sales tax rebate will be used to off-set up to $406,000 in impact and
permit fees and up to $191 ,415 of cost to improvements to accommodate
changes planned as part of the Grand Avenue improvement project (a
maximum of $597,415).
• Only annual sales generated by Sanderson Ford above a base level of
$922,000 would be eligible for rebate at the 50% level.
This project will significantly improve the appearance of the site. The truck sales
and service center will add additional 50 high-paying jobs to the community. No zoning
or variance requests are anticipated for this project.
13
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution that will authorize the City Manager to enter into a development agreement
with Don Sanderson Ford, Inc.
Resolution No. 3576 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH DON SANDERSON FORD, INC.; AND
DIRECTING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE RECORDED.
13. AUTHORIZATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT FOR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
PURCHASES
Over the years, the City has successfully utilized lease-purchase financing as a
tool to accelerate and enhance services to its citizens. This technique allows essential
equipment to be acquired as needed, to be utilized in areas such as street construction,
trash collection, and water testing. Finance Department staff worked on capital lease
financing opportunities related to budgeted capital outlay in various Departments,
including reimbursement of up to $1,198,000 already disbursed.
In February of 2002, Finance Department staff conducted a survey of the lease
financing needs of all departments . Follow-up to initial responses took place in April of
2002 and results were shared with Budget Department staff. Items anticipated to be
funded in this capital lease purchase include reimbursement for the acquisition of five
automated side-loader trucks, a stake-bed truck, and water-pull tractor. Plans also
include acquisition of a rear-loader truck, and laboratory instruments for water analysis.
Staff, the independent financial advisor, and bond counsel reviewed the
proposals received through the May 17th deadline, and will make a recommendation this
evening. Each proposal's benefit to the City was evaluated based on best interest rate,
pre-payment terms offered, and conformity to requested specifications.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing and providing for the execution and delivery of a lease agreement
in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 for the purpose of funding certain projects and
related costs.
Resolution No. 3577 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 PROVIDING FOR THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF A LEASE AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$2,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO PAY ALL OR A
PORTION OF THE COSTS OF CERTAIN PROJECTS OF THE CITY AND TO PAY
ALL NECESSARY LEGAL, FINANCIAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING AND
OTHER COSTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF
SAID LEASE; AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS AND THE TAKING
14
OF CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF THE LEASE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, asked
for more information concerning the homeowners association grant and if the City
intended to accept the homeowners association's offer to contribute $27,000. He
commended the City on spending extra money to ensure that the City's drinking water is
safe. He stated that he was happy the City was building a Veteran's memorial by the
Main Library.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to approve the
recommended actions on Consent Resolution Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 13, including the approval and adoption of Resolution No. 3570 New
Series, Resolution No. 3571 New Series, Resolution No. 3572 New Series,
Resolution No. 3573 New Series, Resolution No. 3574 New Series, Resolution No.
3575 New Series, Resolution No. 3576 New Series, and Resolution No. 3577 New
Series. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING — LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTION
14. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-01-06 AND REZONING APPLICATION
Z-01-12: 21432 AND 21448 NORTH 75Th AVENUE
Mr. Brian D. Varney, Planner, presented this request by R. Mark and Julia R.
Rounsaville to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on an approximate
seven-acre property from Residential 1-2.5 dwelling units per acre to Limited Office.
The applicant was also requesting to rezone a 1.62 acre property from A-1 (Agricultural)
to C-O (Commercial Office). The property is located on the west side of 75t Avenue,
south of Deer Valley Road.
The requested designation of Limited Office is appropriate for the site. Since the
adoption of the General Plan in 1989, the character of this area has changed
significantly. A child daycare center has been developed to the north, medium density
residential to the east, with a large church-school facility to the south, making low-
density residential no longer an appropriate land use here.
The proposed C-O (Commercial Office) zoning is consistent with the proposed
General Plan Amendment, and is appropriate for the site and surrounding area. The
C-O development standards will ensure compatibility with surrounding development.
At its hearing held on April 18, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of General Plan Amendment GP-01-06 and Rezoning Application Z-01-12, with
Rezoning Application Z-01-12 being subject to three stipulations. No one, other than
the applicant, spoke at the hearing.
15
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve General Plan
Amendment Application GP-01-06 and Z-01-12 and Rezoning Application Z-01-12, with
Rezoning Application Z-01-12 being subject to the stipulations recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 14. As no
comments were made, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Goulet, to approve General
Plan Amendment Application GP-01-06 and Rezoning Application Z-01-12, with
Rezoning Application Z-01-12 being subject to the stipulations recommended by
the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously.
LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTION
15. ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION APPEAL ZV-02-04: 6001 WEST
PARADISE LANE
Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director, presented this request by Mr. Paul Lejman to
appeal the Board of Adjustment's denial of Zoning Variance Application ZV-02-04. The
variance was a request to allow a side yard setback of 23.4 feet where 50 feet is the
minimum required, a front yard setback of 22 feet where 75 feet is the minimum
required, 28.9% lot coverage where 10% is the minimum allowed, and increase the
allowable accessory structure height to 22 feet where 20 feet is the maximum allowed in
the A-1 (Agricultural) zoning district. The requested variance is intended to
accommodate an addition to the existing residence and to construct a 2,304 square foot
accessory building in the rear yard.
On March 14, 2002, the Board of Adjustment conducted a noticed public hearing
on Zoning Variance Application ZV-02-04. A motion to approve the request failed, with
a vote of 3 to 2.
On March 14, 2002, the Board of Adjustment approved a motion to reconsider
Zoning Variance Application ZV-02-04, with a 5 to 0 vote.
On April 11, 2002, the Board of Adjustment conducted a noticed public hearing
on Zoning Variance Application ZV-02-04. The motion to approve the request failed,
with a vote of 3 to 3. The Board did not agree on the provisions of the stipulations
included in the motion to approve the applicant's variance request. The stipulations
included a fence in the public right-of-way, removal or relocation of an existing shade
structure located on the east property line. The applicant did not want to remove the
shade structure but suggested that it could be moved to another location on the
property. There was extensive discussion of the existing shade structure as to whether
it should be removed or relocated in relationship to the new accessory building.
16
At both hearings, the Board of Adjustment determined that the requests did not
meet all of the 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.
The recommendation was to review the record of the Board of Adjustment,
consider Mr. Lejman's appeal and, based on the evidence before the Board of
Adjustment, act to affirm or reverse, in whole or in part, or modify the Board's decision.
Mr. Flaaen advised that, when considering an appeal of a decision of the Board
of Adjustment, the Council does not rehear the matter. He noted that the Council is
limited to only reviewing the record of evidence before the Board of Adjustment. He
stated that no new evidence, including statements from neighbors or others, may be
accepted or considered by the Council. He identified items that the Council can
consider as being: (1) Mr. Paul Lejman's letter of appeal dated April 19, 2002; (2) the
April 11, 2002 Planning Department report to the Board of Adjustment, including
attachments thereto; (3) the verbatim minutes of the April 11, 2002 Board of Adjustment
meeting; (4) excerpt of the minutes of the March 14, 2002 Board of Adjustment meeting;
and (5) the March 14, 2002 Planning Department report to the Board of Adjustment,
including attachments. He stated that the burden of proof is on the applicant to show
that the Board of Adjustment's decision was against the weight of the evidence,
erroneous or illegal as a matter of law.
Councilmember Clark asked how closely the applicant's request would match the
setbacks and requirements for an SR-17 lot. Mr. Froke stated that the request would
more closely match the setbacks for SR-17 than for A-1.
Mayor Scruggs asked why the shade structure has to be moved. Mr. Froke
stated that the structure does not meet the side yard setbacks for an accessory
structure of its size and height.
17
In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Froke said the Board felt the
structure would clutter the Paradise Lane streetscape. He stated that, while some form
of screening might have changed the Board's position, the applicant had not indicated a
willingness to provide such screening.
Councilmember Martinez agreed that the structure is obtrusive. He pointed out
the fact that the applicant was willing to move it.
Councilmember Clark asked about the storage units located to the east of the
subject property. Mr. Froke estimated the storage units to be 17 to 20 feet high, with
approximately two to three feet between the units and the shade structure. He
confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the shade structure would not be visible from
59th Avenue. Councilmember Clark asked if anyone from the surrounding
neighborhoods had filed any complaints or made any comments for the record. Mr.
Froke said two residents participated in the citizen participation, neither of which appear
to oppose the applicant's proposal.
Mr. Froke confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the residence is non-conforming.
She questioned why the shade structure had to be moved if the house would remain
non-conforming. She expressed concern about the applicant's opinion that the City is
making an example out of him.
Mr. Paul Lejman, the applicant, clarified that he was attempting to construct a
barn, and not a garage. He explained that he was led to believe, when he originally
purchased the property, that the existing building height limit was 35 feet and the lot
coverage limit was 40%. He noted that the shade structure was a selling point of the
house, for which he paid extra. He said he was not asking for anything that does not
already legally exist and asked the Council to reverse the Board's decision. He noted
that one of the members of the Board apologized to him after the last meeting for the
way the Board acted on his request.
It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Goulet, to reverse the Board's
decision, subject to the following stipulations: (1) that the variance shall apply to
the improvements depicted in the site plan dated March 19, 2002 and (2) that the
existing shade structure on the east property line shall be moved to a location on
the property approved by the Planning Director.
Councilmember Clark asked for further discussion on the stipulations. Mr.
Flaaen explained that Councilmember Frate could withdraw his motion and
Councilmember Goulet could withdraw his second to allow Councilmembers to vote on
the stipulations separately.
Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Lejman if he was still willing to relocate the
shade structure. Mr. Lejman responded that he was. He said he would like to place it
directly behind the garage.
18
Mr. Lejman clarified for Councilmember Clark that he did not care if the shade
structure remained in the same location or was relocated, so long as he was allowed to
keep the structure.
Councilmember Frate thanked Mr. Lejman for going through the process.
Upon a call for the question, the motion carried unanimously.
BIDS AND CONTRACTS
16. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - WEST AREA
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY EXPANSION PROJECT
Mr. Glenn Compton, Senior Civil Engineer, presented this request for City
Council approval of a professional services agreement with the firm of Malcolm Pirnie,
in an amount not to exceed $ 3,338,262 for performance of the engineering services
needed for preparation of a Reclaimed Water Reuse Master Plan and for the
preliminary design of the expansion of Glendale's West Area Water Reclamation
Facility.
The existing West Area Water Reclamation Facility (WAWRF) was brought
online during the summer of 2000, with a rated capacity of 4.3 million gallons per day
(MGD). Shortly after the WAWRF was completed, the Phoenix Sub-Regional Operating
Group (SROG) determined that wastewater metering stations had been under-reporting
Glendale's wastewater flows to the jointly-owned treatment plant. As a result,
Glendale's SROG capacity (coupled with the 4.3-MGD capacity of the WAWRF) was
not adequate to allow for any increase in wastewater flows resulting from population
growth in Glendale, which meant that the WAWRF required expansion more quickly
than was originally expected.
On April 24, 2001, the Council approved a professional services agreement with
Malcolm Pirnie to provide the engineering services needed to upgrade/re-rate the
WAWRF to a capacity of approximately 7-MGD. While the 7-MGD capacity rating will
provide adequate treatment capacity in the short-term, additional plant capacity will be
needed within the next few years. Furthermore, with the expansion of the West Area
Water Reclamation Facility comes the need to reuse or recharge the additional effluent.
Since it does not appear feasible to expand the existing Aquifer Recharge Facility
without adversely affecting the Glendale Landfill, an effluent reuse master plan is
needed to determine how the City will handle the additional effluent produced when the
WAWRF is expanded.
On November 9, 2001, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent to a list of 17
engineering consultants listed in the City's Engineering Department consultant
database, which have expertise in water reclamation facility design. On December 13,
2001, three proposals were received. These three proposals were reviewed and ranked
by eleven City staff members, composed of one Deputy City Manager, four
19
representatives from the Engineering Department, four representatives from the Utilities
Department, and two representatives from the Environmental Resources Group. Based
on the proposal reviews and rankings, the team headed by Malcolm Pirnie was selected
as having presented the best qualifications, and team and project approach, to
complete the work required. Subsequent to this selection process, City staff negotiated
a scope of services and fee with Malcolm Pirnie for preparation of the reclaimed water
reuse master plan and for the preliminary design of the reclamation facility expansion.
During this phase of the work, Malcolm Pirnie will develop a water recycling
master plan, which will include a reuse conveyance facilities (pipelines) conceptual
design and alignment study. During this phase of the work, Malcolm Pirnie will perform
evaluations of the existing Raw Sewage Pump Station and Airport Sewage Lift Station,
in order to determine what changes and/or improvements will be needed in order for
these facilities to handle increased wastewater flows. Malcolm Pirnie will also review
the existing reclamation facility and its process technologies, and review alternate
process technologies; and evaluate the pros and cons of expanding the facility to an
intermediate capacity of 10 MGD vs. expansion of its ultimate planned capacity of 15
MGD. Finally, during this phase, Malcolm Pirnie will perform the preliminary design of
the selected plant expansion process technologies and capacities. At or near the
completion of this phase of the work, staff will negotiate an agreement amendment with
Malcolm Pirnie to cover the design and construction engineering phases of the
reclamation facility expansion work. The exact scope of work and fee for design and
construction engineering will be determined during the first phase, and the amendment
covering subsequent work will be brought to the Council for approval.
Funds for this project are available in the 2001-2002 and the 2002-2003 Capital
Improvements Program, Utilities Funds, West Area Water Reclamation Account
Number 50-9246-8300.
The recommendation was to approve the professional services agreement with
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $3,338,262.
Councilmember Clark asked if Malcolm Pirnie would also be looking at whether
the design would be better at an intermediate range of 10 million gallons per day rather
than 15. Mr. Compton answered in the affirmative. He stated that it was the
consultant's belief that the expansion to 10 million gallons per day would serve the
City's ultimate waste water treatment needs. He explained that 15 million gallons per
day would be predicated on the reuse master plan identifying potential reuse markets
that the City is not yet aware of. He noted, however, that significant changes in how
western Glendale develops could result in more waste water generation than currently
expected.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the amendment covering subsequent work
referenced in the Council communication would involve a fee. Mr. Compton confirmed
that additional work beyond that which is identified in the scope of the agreement would
result in the need for additional funds.
20
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that he saw the critical importance of keeping the future in mind when redesigning the
facility. He asked if it would make more sense to construct to full capacity now to avoid
higher costs in the future. He also questioned whether it was customary for engineering
firms to be closely related to construction firms. He expressed his opinion that the City's
population will exceed the projected 260,000 people. He asked whether the facility
would need to be moved to accommodate the City's growth.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Frate, to approve the professional
services agreement with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$3,338,262. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING — LIQUOR LICENSES
17. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-823 TIME OUT BAR
This was a request for a person transfer of a series 6 (on- & off-sale retail, all
liquor) license for Time Out Bar, which is located at 9250 North 43rd Avenue, Suites 17
& 18. The previous owner operated this business as the Time Out Bar 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.
18. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-824 LAST CALL BAR & GRILL
This was a request for a new series 12 (restaurant) license for Last Call Bar &
Grill, which is located at 5830 West Bell Road. The previous owner operated this
business as Red Robin Restaurant, that subsequently starting doing business as Doc
Hollywoods, and held a series 12 (restaurant) license at this location.
The approval of this license will not increase the total number of liquor licenses in
this area.
21
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. 17 and 18.
As there were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Martinez, to forward Liquor
License Applications No. 3-823 for Time Out Bar, and No. 3-824 for Last Call Bar &
Grill to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval. The motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCES
19. ARIZONA HANGARS, L.L.C., RATIFICATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE
AGREEMENTS
Mr. Mark Ripley, Airport Manager, presented this item. Arizona Hangars, L.L.C.,
created the Glen Harbor Hangar Association to operate and manage the hangar
complex containing 20 individual units located on the northwest corner of the Airport.
The City Attorney's Office staff reviewed the sub-lease agreement between Glen Harbor
Hangar Association and the individual hangar tenants to confirm that the interest of the
City is protected, while allowing the hangar association to exist. Items incorporated in to
the agreement include the airport rules and regulations, minimum operating standards,
and the City's ability to conduct hangar inspections.
Arizona Hangars, L.L.C. was requesting a ratification of the previous
assignments associated with Lease C-3649 and to assign Leases C-3649 and C-3880A
to the Glen Harbor Hangar Association.
Arizona Hangars, L.L.C. was requesting that the City ratify the following
purported lease assignments associated with Lease C-3649; #1 the assignment dated
June 19, 1998 from Doug Woodin and Barbara Woodin, husband and wife, to Dean
Forschler and Marlene Forschler, husband and wife, and #2 the assignment dated
February 5, 1999 from Dean Forschler and Marlene Forschler to Charles Grindstaff
d.b.a. Arizona Hangars, L.L.C.
Arizona Hangars, L.L.C. was requesting to assign said interest of Lease C-3649
to Glen Harbor Hangar Association and was requesting a ratification of the assignment.
22
Arizona Hangars, L.L.C. was requesting a ratification of the Assignment of
Ground Lease C-3880A, between Arizona Hangars, L.L.C., and the City of Glendale, to
the Glen Harbor Hangar Association.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond title and adopt an ordinance
authorizing the ratification of the assignments.
Ordinance No. 2257 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, RATIFYING THE PREVIOUS ASSIGNMENTS TO LEASE
AGREEMENT NO. C-3649 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND
MANAGEMENT OF AIRCRAFT HANGARS AT THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN ADDITIONAL
ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDALE AND
GLEN HARBOR HANGAR ASSOCIATION.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Frate, to approve Ordinance No.
2257 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following members
voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members
voting "nay": none.
20. ANNEXATION ABANDONMENT
Mr. Rick Flaaen, City Attorney, presented this item. On November 29, 2002, the
City Council adopted and approved Ordinance Number 2229, New Series, extending
and increasing the corporate limits of the City of Glendale, Maricopa County, Arizona,
by annexing the territory described and depicted in Exhibit A to Ordinance Number
2229, New Series. Prior to the expiration of the thirty-day protest and contest period,
the owner of one of the parcels subject to the annexation filed a petition in the Maricopa
County Superior Court contesting the annexation. The City has filed its answer to the
petition and has been actively defending its action to annex the territory in question.
While the petition to contest the annexation is pending, the annexation of all the
parcels that were part of the annexation will be delayed until the matter is resolved in
court. Although the City strongly feels that the courts will uphold its annexation process,
the delay threatens development planned by owners of parcels who support the
annexation of their property into the City of Glendale. In order to avoid the delay
caused by the contest of the annexation, and the potential threat of such delay to the
development on parcels whose owners support the annexation of their property by the
City of Glendale, the City Manager and City Attorney recommend that the City Council
abandon the annexation action approved by Ordinance Number 2229, New Series, and
commence new annexation actions of those parcels whose owners support the
annexation of their property into the City of Glendale.
23
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance repealing Ordinance Number 2229, New Series, and abandoning the
annexation originally approved by the City Council in Ordinance Number 2229, New
Series.
Ordinance No. 2258 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2229, NEW SERIES, THEREBY
ABANDONING THE ATTEMPT TO ANNEX THE PARCELS OF PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN ANNEXATION AREA NO. 137; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Goulet, to approve Ordinance No.
2258 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following members
voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and Scruggs. Members
voting "nay": none.
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION
21. GLENDALE 2025-THE NEXT STEP
Ms. Kate Langford, Senior Planner, presented this item. The Glendale 2025-The
Next Step update of the 1989 General Plan was initiated by the City Council approving
the planning consultant contract with Community Sciences Corporation on May 8, 2001.
The 1998 Growing Smarter and 2000 Growing Smarter Plus legislation requires
the update of the General Plan every 10 years and adds new elements such as open
space, growth area, cost of development, environmental planning, and water resources.
The legislation also requires voter ratification of the General Plan. The current General
Plan was adopted on January 24, 1989.
The General Plan study area includes the entire Glendale Municipal Planning
Area (MPA). The MPA includes the current municipal boundary generally east of 115`
Avenue and the strip annex area west of 115th Avenue to Perryville Road and from
Peoria/Northern Avenues to Camelback Road. This total MPA is approximately 100
square miles in size.
The City Council approved the Citizen Participation Program for Glendale 2025-
The Next Step on June 26, 2001. The Citizen Participation Plan was implemented
through City-wide participation activities, including the ten public focus group meetings,
four City-wide general plan workshops and three gaming sessions, ten board and
commission meetings, and four area meetings.
Citizen communication was accomplished through feedback questionnaires,
information papers, citizen evaluation, interviews, newspaper articles, and television
coverage on KGLN 11. Electronic methods were used to communicate with citizens
through a Glendale 2025-The Next Step Web site and interactive discussion of issues.
24
Planning coordination was accomplished through 15 Technical Committee
meetings assuring coordination with City departments, distribution of presentation draft
plan and implementation program to surrounding communities, Maricopa County,
Maricopa Association of Governments, and State agencies for the mandatory sixty-day
review period that ended May 6, 2002.
Various City plans were incorporated into the General Plan, including the
Transportation Plan, the Parks and Recreation Plan, the Western Area General Plan
Update, the City Center Master Plan, the Grand Avenue Improvement and Image Study,
the Luke Air Force Base General Plan, the Glendale Municipal Airport Master Plan, and
the West Valley Recreation Corridor Study.
The Glendale 2025-The Next Step project reached out to involve youth, cultural
groups, school districts, service organizations, Chamber of Commerce, employers,
health care, major landowners, and neighborhood leaders in the focus group and
activities.
Public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on February 21 , 2002 at
Midwestern University, March 7, 2002 at Independence High School, and March 21 ,
2002 at City Hall. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
GP-01-03, the General Plan and Implementation Documents, to the City Council with
recommended changes to the text and recommendations regarding eleven requested
map amendments.
The General Plan contains sections on how to use the plan, Glendale's planning
vision, planning assumptions, plan administration, including major/minor general plan
amendment definition and nineteen plan elements that include goals and objectives for
each element. The General Plan would be adopted by resolution incorporating the
Western Area General Plan Update, the Arrowhead Ranch Specific Plan, the North
Valley Specific Plan, and the City Center Master Plan. The General Plan would be
ratified by the voters at the November 5, 2002 special election and become effective, if
approved by voters, on December 1, 2002. The General Plan will be the official policy
statement of the City Council to guide both the private and public physical development
of the community.
The Implementation Program contains policies for each plan element, action
steps for plan implementation, performance measures, and statutory plan requirements.
This is a detailed implementation program and is not part of the General Plan or subject
to voter ratification.
This has been a citizen-driven planning process, where the planning consultants
listened carefully to the citizens' vision, goals, and objectives for the community and
reflected those in the General Plan.
25
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve the General
Plan resolution (GP-01-03) and Implementation Program resolution, including
recommended text amendments and Planning Commission recommendations regarding
eleven requested plan amendments, planning consultant recommended text changes in
response to 60-day review comments, and staff recommendation to amend the roadway
functional classification map by adding a statement regarding Northern Avenue super
street and using a dashed line for Northern Avenue super street between Grand Avenue
and the Loop 303.
Ms. Langford clarified that the General Plan is a foundation document for the City
and does not change existing zoning. She said, however, the plan would effect zoning
requested on subsequent zoning applications. She stated that a vote is required every
ten years upon adoption of a new General Plan or a complete revision of an existing
General Plan. She said major amendments do not require voter ratification. She noted
that a Letter of No Objection was received from Luke Air Force Base on May 20, 2002.
She read a letter of support for the Glendale 2025 General Plan submitted by the
Chamber of Commerce.
Councilmember Clark asked if the Council's approval of 2025 The Next Step sets
in motion their ability to put it up for voter ratification this fall. Ms. Langford responded in
the affirmative. She confirmed that there would be additional opportunities for the public
to review and comment on the plan. Councilmember Clark asked if up-to-date maps
and information would be available on the City's website. Ms. Langford stated that
updated information should be available within four to six weeks and will be published
on the City's website.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 21.
Mr. Charles Christensen, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District,
representing the O'Neil Ranch Association, stated that he had served on the focus
group pertaining to the plan. He commended those involved in the process for their
professionalism. He voiced his support of the plan and offered to answer questions.
Mr. Cris Brownlow, a resident of the City of Glendale, spoke on behalf of
Commander of the 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base. He expressed the
appreciation of Luke Air Force Base for being asked to participate in the General Plan
update process. He said, in accordance with their written comments, they supported
staff's recommendations and Glendale 2025 as a guide for land uses that are
compatible with operations at Luke Air Force Base. He thanked the Mayor, Council,
and City staff for their support of Luke Air Force Base.
Ms. Barbara Murphy, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated
that she had also served on the focus group for the General Plan. She voiced her
support of the plan and implementation program. She said a number of specific area
plans, transportation plans, and citizen comments had to be considered when
developing the General Plan update, making it a very formidable process. She stated
26
that she was pleased that the environmental planning included elements such as water
resources and open space.
Mr. Harold Mountan, a resident of the City of Glendale Cholla District, stated
that the focus group, of which he was a member, represented neighborhood
associations, the two major universities, a major healthcare provider, and a major utility
company. He said the consultants willingly accepted all suggestions and were very
interested in what they had to say.
Ms. Wendy Riddell, representing the law firm of Beus Gilbert located in the
City of Phoenix, spoke on behalf of Suburban Land Reserve. She explained that 800
of her client's 4,000 acres fall within the Glendale planning area. She said her client
does not object to the Luke Compatible Uses designation for the 160 acres that fall
within the noise contour area. She said her client's concern was with the remaining 640
acres that fall outside of the contour area, outside of the flight corridor, and four miles
away from the southern departure route. She asked that the proposed General Plan
designation for that property of 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre be increased to 1 to 2.5.
She said they would be willing to transition to a lower density as it gets closer to Luke
Air Force Base. She explained that her client believes the increased density would be
more appropriate because other properties in the area are slightly more dense and
because it would make the employment retail corridor planned for the area more
sustainable.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District,
commended the City for involving the public in the Glendale 2025 process. He
expressed concern that voter ratification would not be necessary on major
amendments. He stressed the need to retain Luke Air Force Base, especially
considering its ability to guard the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant. He said he would like to
see the historical part of the First Baptist Church preserved. He asked that the Grand
Avenue improvements be done in such a way that it does not separate the City.
Mr. Sheila Gordon, a resident of the City of Phoenix, said she owns property
located in the area of 51St Avenue and Union Hills Drive. She said people in the area of
51st Avenue and Union Hills Drive were first notified of the City's intentions around
February 17th. She stated that several people had expressed concern that residents in
the area were not given the right to give their recommendations. She noted that they
were reprimanded by the Chairman of the Committee for not being more involved,
when, in fact, they had not been notified that anything was happening in their area. She
said Mr. Ron Short, Long Range Planning Manager, and Mr. Jon Froke, Planning
Director, held a meeting at the Foothills Library at which they discussed the 13 acres
located at the corner of 51St Avenue and Union Hills Drive. She said everyone believed,
when they left the meeting, that it would be staff's recommendation to keep the area's
current designation of 2.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. She expressed her
disappointment that staff did not follow through with that recommendation. She asked
the Council to consider keeping the 2.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre designation.
27
Mr. Mel Smith, a resident of the City of Glendale, submitted a public hearing
speaker's card questioning whether this would effect current zoning. Mr. Smith did not
speak.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Martinez stated that he was present at the meeting held at the
Foothills Library and indicated his support of the recommendation for a designation of 1
to 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
Resolution No. 3578 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING GLENDALE 2025: THE NEXT STEP, A GENERAL
PLAN FOR MUNICIPAL PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY
PURSUANT TO ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, A.R.S. §9-461 ET. SEQ.,
ESTABLISHING PLANNING GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES; AND
CONSIDERING EACH OF THE PLAN ELEMENTS REQUIRED BY STATUTE AS
WELL AS OTHERS DETERMINED ESSENTIAL BY THE CITY.
Resolution No. 3579 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE GLENDALE 2025 IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM CONTAINING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES TO EFFECTUATE THE
GLENDALE GENERAL PLAN, GLENDALE 2025 AND TO IDENTIFY THE MEANS
AND METHODS TO ACHIEVE THE PLANNING GOALS SET OUT THEREIN.
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to pass, adopt and
approve Resolution No. 3578 New Series and Resolution No. 3579 New Series.
The motion carried unanimously.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
22. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Appointments are to be made to the following boards or commissions that have a
vacancy or expired term.
Effective Term
Date Expires
Board of Adiustment
Castro, Hector (Sahuaro) Re-appointment 06/30/2002 06/29/2004
Community Development Advisory Committee
Ferrell, Susan (Mayoral) Re-appointment 07/01/2002 06/30/2004
(Cactus)
28
Housing Advisory Commission
Arnold, Mary (Chair) Re-appointment 07/01/2002 06/30/2003
(Barrel)
Swedlund, Marlene (At-Large) Re-appointment 07/01/2002 06/30/2004
(Barrel)
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System/Fire Board
Eickman, Larry (At-Large) Re-appointment 07/01/2002 06/30/2006
(Cactus/Mayoral)
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System/Police Board
Eickman, Larry (At-Large) Re-appointment 07/01/2002 06/30/2006
(Cactus/Mayoral)
Fireman's Pension & Relief Fund
Eickman, Larry Appointment 05/28/2002 05/27/2004
The recommendation was to make appointments to the various Boards and
Commissions.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Eggleston, to appoint the
applicants listed above, for the terms listed above, to the Board of Adjustment,
the Community Development Advisory Committee, the Housing Advisory
Commission, the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System/Fire Board, the
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System/Police Board, and the Fireman's
Pension & Relief Fund. The motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER LIEBERMAN
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to excuse
Councilmember Lieberman from tonight's meeting. The motion carried
unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Martinez to hold a Special
City Council meeting at 1:30 p.m. in Room B-3 of the City Council Chambers on
Tuesday, June 4, 2002; to hold a City Council Workshop immediately following
the Special City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, to be followed by an
executive session pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.03; and to hold a Special City
Council meeting at 1:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on Tuesday, June 11,
29
2002 in addition to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting at 7 p.m., during
which the recently re-elected Mayor and Councilmembers will be inducted. The
motion carried unanimously.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, spoke
about what he considers to be a public safety issue at 59th Avenue between Northern
and Olive Avenues. He noted that a number of people run red lights in that area. He
suggested that the City implement red light cameras and florescent pedestrian signs.
He thanked Vice Mayor Eggleston for continuing in his efforts to find a park on 59th
Avenue between Olive and Northern Avenues. He also expressed his appreciation for
the recently installed sidewalks along 59th Avenue. He voiced his opinion that the
Northern Crossing development should include a Wal-Mart or Target.
Mr. Ron Prothero, a resident of the City of Glendale Ocotillo District, asked
the City to make a commitment to prevent juvenile drownings. He noted that the City
has already had 47 drowning incidents this year. He suggested that the City heat its
pools to allow for year-round swimming lessons and that it require all pool owners to be
CPR certified.
Ms. Debra Kist, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, quoted from
a report presented to the Council by a Senior Planner for the City, stating that big box
and superstores draw customers from a much larger trade area, thereby increasing the
impacts to surrounding areas. She said decreased property values, increased crime,
increased traffic, and congestion will result. She pointed out that both Wal-Mart and
Lowes want to be 24-hour operations. She asked that the Council not disregard its
stipulations and that participating companies cooperate and not dismiss the Council's
concerns. She urged companies that wish to do business in the City of Glendale to
treat the City's citizens with respect.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Councilmember Clark thanked Mrs. Garcia for inviting her to visit her third grade
class. She reported that Councilmember Lieberman was doing well and wished to
thank everyone who sent flowers, cards, and letters.
Vice Mayor Eggleston thanked City staff and the focus group for their efforts with
regard to the Glendale 2025 Plan.
Councilmember Martinez reported that he had met with his staff today on the
multi-generational center and the aquatics center. He said it was scheduled to come to
a Council Workshop early next month.
30
Councilmember Frate stated that the Memorial Day service in Resthaven Park
Cemetery was very solemn and well attended. He asked the citizens of Arizona to
honor and respect those who served. He congratulated the Marshall Ranch Elementary
School on their designation as an A+ School by the Arizona Education Foundation. He
pointed out that two of the six A+ schools in Arizona are located in the City of Glendale.
Mayor Scruggs commended Mountain Ridge High School on being an A+ High
School as well.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
•
Pamela •liveira - City Clerk
31