HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 7/23/2002 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
HELD TUESDAY, JULY 23, 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, H. Philip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez.
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 three resolutions and one
ordinance to be considered at the meeting were available for public examination and
the title posted at City Hall more than 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 2, 2002 AND JULY 9,.2002 CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to dispense with the
reading of the minutes of the July 2, 2002 Special City Council Meeting and the
July 9, 2002 Regular 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
RECOGNITION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR HECTOR CASTRO
Mr. Hector Castro (Sahuaro District appointee) served on the Board of
Adjustment from November of 2000 to June of 2002. During his two-year tenure, he
participated in the Board's role of providing due process, with decisions based on
evidence and the required findings. During the past two years, the Board of Adjustment
reviewed over 50 variance requests for residential, commercial, and industrial
properties. The Board's actions enable homeowners, churches, businesses, and
redevelopment projects to achieve their development objectives within the structure of
the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Castro's service to the Board represents a significant
commitment to the citizens of Glendale and his insight and enthusiasm contributed to
the success of the Board of Adjustment process. He is to be commended for his
dedicated service.
Mayor Scruggs presented a plaque of recognition to Mr. Hector Castro for his
dedication and service to the citizens of Glendale. Mr. Castro thanked the Mayor and
Council for their support.
1
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, read Agenda Item Numbers 1 through 8 by
number and title, and Ms. Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk, read Agenda Item Numbers 9
and 10 by number and title.
1. ELECTRONIC OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL FOR THE
GLENDALE WATER INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
This was a request for City Council authorization to pay $96,105 for the
completion of an information management system that distributes the water and
wastewater Operation and Maintenance Manuals through the Intranet.
Maricopa County requires an Operation and Maintenance Manual as part of the
certification process for the operation of the water and wastewater treatment plants.
The City has been working with Maricopa County to certify the Pyramid Peak Water
Treatment Plant (PPWTP) for an upgrade to 39 million gallons a day (mgd) from 26
mgd. The Utilities Department hired Malcolm Pirnie to work with Maricopa County to
determine what was needed and what format was acceptable for the Operation and
Maintenance Manual in order to obtain the upgrade certification. Malcolm Pirnie
developed the format and submitted it to Maricopa County for conditional approval to
proceed with the upgrade process.
The Operation and Maintenance Manual contains the Standard Operating
Procedures for all of the process systems, such as filters and chemical feed systems,
as well as all of the Standard Laboratory Procedures which must be followed to meet
regulatory requirements. The Operation and Maintenance Manuals contain the relevant
information for all of the equipment in the plant, such as pumps, valve actuators, and
electrical equipment.
Malcolm Pirnie was chosen as the vendor to complete the Operation and
Maintenance Manual for the PPWTP, because they designed and implemented the
electronic media system, which uses the Intranet to distribute information to users.
Malcolm Pirnie has already completed the Operation and Maintenance Manuals for the
Arrowhead Water Reclamation Facility and the Western Area Water Reclamation
Facility. Additionally, Malcolm Pirnie is currently working on the Cholla Water
Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance Manual for the Sludge Handling Facility.
Developing and maintaining hardbound Operation and Maintenance Manuals is
difficult and time consuming. Using the electronic media is faster and more accurate
because any and all changes can be made in one place and are then instantly available
to all users.
Funding is available in the Cholla Water Treatment Plant's Operating Budget,
Account Number 83-6423-7330.
2
The recommendation was to approve payment of $96,105 to Malcolm Pirnie for
the completion of an information management system, which distributes the Operation
and Maintenance Manual for the Glendale Water Information Management System
through the Intranet.
2. ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
PARTS
This was a request for City Council approval for the purchase of maintenance
and repair parts for the ultraviolet (UV) disinfecting systems from Trojan Technologies
Inc.
Traditionally, water reclamation facilities used chlorine to kill bacteria, however
new technology has evolved. Approximately two and a half years ago, the Arrowhead
Water Reclamation Facility (AWRF) converted from using chlorine to kill bacteria to
using ultraviolet disinfecting technology. The West Area Water Reclamation Facility
(WAWRF) also uses this technology that uses hundreds of UV lamps emitting
ultraviolet light into the water which irradiates and kills the bacteria. The UV lamps at
both facilities are on continuously and must be replaced periodically. These UV
disinfecting systems were installed under an Engineering contract with the
manufacturer, Trojan Technologies, Inc., which sells directly to its customers and not
through a distributor. There is no maintenance agreement and these parts will continue
to be needed annually as long as the City owns and operates this UV disinfecting
technology. Funding is available in the AWRF and WAWRF Operating Budgets,
Account Numbers 50-6430-7520 and 50-6432-7520.
The recommendation was to approve the purchase of maintenance and repair
parts for the Arrowhead Water Reclamation Facility and the West Area Water
Reclamation Facility UV disinfecting systems from Trojan Technologies Inc. in the
amount of $150,000 annually, as long as the City owns and operates the ultraviolet
disinfecting technology.
3. AWARD OF BID 02-11, TRANSIT BUSES
This was a request to purchase nine new transit buses. The City of Glendale
provides transit services to the general public. These services include "Dial-A-Ride,"
"GUS The Bus," and "Luke Link." "Dial-A-Ride" provides curb-to-curb transit service to
the general public and is primarily used by the disabled and seniors within Glendale
City limits. "GUS the Bus" is a downtown circulator service that provides half hour
service on a five-mile loop from 67th to 52nd Avenues and from Glendale to Northern
Avenues. "Luke Link" provides bus service on Glendale Avenue from Luke Air Force
Base to downtown Glendale.
The fleet is aging and new buses are needed to continue providing current
services, as well as expanding services in accordance with the November 2001 voter
approved Transportation Sales Tax Initiative. These buses were included in the Capital
3
Improvement Program presented to the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission
at its April meeting.
An Invitation For Bid (IFB) was issued for the purchase of nine transit buses.
Five 12-passenger buses will replace 1995 "Dial-A-Ride" buses. Two 14-passenger
buses will be used for "GUS the Bus" service; one will replace a 1992 bus and one will
be an addition to the fleet. Two 25-passenger buses will be additions to the "Luke Link"
fleet in order to enhance the frequency, days, and hours of service.
Notices of the solicitation were sent to 47 vendors. Thirty-one vendors
requested a copy of the IFB. Two companies attended the pre-bid conference. A total
of five offers were received from three different vendors. Staff from the Transportation,
Equipment Management, and Materials Management Departments evaluated the offers
for compliance with the solicitation specifications. The three lowest priced offers for the
12 and 14-passeger buses did not meet the solicitation specifications, which include
warranty, axle gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), interior height, door width and body
skin material requirements. The fourth lowest priced offer, which was submitted by
Arizona Bus Sales, was determined to be the lowest responsive, responsible bid.
Arizona Bus Sales was the lowest price offer for the 25-passenger buses. The City has
purchased buses from Arizona Bus Sales in the past.
The solicitation specifications required the buses to be capable of operating on
bio-diesel, which is recognized as an alternative fuel by the State of Arizona, thereby
complying with the mandatory alternative fuel requirements.
A combination of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants and City capital
funds will be used to purchase the nine buses. The total purchase price of the seven
12 and 14-passengers buses is $377,668, of which 80% ($302,134) is from Federal
Transit Administration Grants AZ-X054 and AZ-X058. These grants were obtained
through the Maricopa Association of Government (MAG) Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Federal funds designated for this region are distributed through this
program. The two "Luke Link" buses, totaling $184,998, will receive 83% ($153,548)
Federal funding from Grant AZ-03-0041. The remaining $106,984 is budgeted in the
Transportation Department Account Number 25-9444-8400. The City enlisted the
support of the Arizona US Congressional Representatives to obtain congressional
approval for discretionary funds to expand the "Luke Link" service.
The recommendation was to approve the purchase of nine transit buses from
Arizona Bus Sales for a total of $562,666.
4. FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FP-01-10: 5129 WEST CACTUS ROAD
This was a request by Stantec Consulting, Inc., for Scott Homes for final plat
approval of an infill subdivision called La Paloma. The site is located at the southwest
corner of 51st Avenue and Cactus Road.
4
This gated subdivision includes 134 single-family lots on 22.3 acres, at a density
of 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Lots range in size from 2,708 square feet to 6,293
square feet, with an average lot size of 3,542 square feet. The proposed minimum lot
width is 42 feet and the proposed minimum lot depth is 72 feet.
The final plat is consistent with the General Plan, the R1-4 PRD (Single
Residence, Planned Residential Development) zoning on the site and the preliminary
plat. All stipulations of the preliminary plat have been satisfied.
The recommendation was to approve Final Plat Application FP-01-10.
5. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT — WESTERN AREA PUBLIC
SAFETY FACILITY
This was a request for City Council award of a construction contract in the
amount of $5,120,000 to Norquay Construction, Inc., for the construction of the
Western Area Public Safety Facility, located at 6261 West 83rd Avenue.
The new public safety facility will be constructed on the northwest seven acres of
the 88-acre multi-purpose western regional park site and will provide fire and police
services for the western area of the City. The new facility will be over 32,000 square
feet and includes, in addition to the police and fire facilities, a training room and a
fitness center. The Fire Department side of the facility has four apparatus bays and
sleeping quarters for 12 staff members. The Police Department side will support a staff
of 85 sworn police personnel and associated support staff, teams, and units.
To ensure that the construction costs would not exceed the budget for this
project, five Add Alternates were included in the bid proposal. Add Alternate No. 1 is
for casework that will separate the living area from the dining area in the fire station.
Add Alternate No. 2 is for the installation of an aesthetically curved metal ceiling in the
fitness room. A similar curved metal ceiling will be installed in the fire station
living/dining area. Add Alternate No. 3 is for vehicle shade canopies for 57 parking
stalls, plus motorcycle parking. Add Alternate No. 4 is for vehicle shade canopies for an
additional 32 parking stalls. Add Alternate No. 5 is for an allowance of $70,000 for
closed-circuit television security and digital recording equipment. Closed-circuit
cameras will be strategically located on the building perimeter, facility lobby, and
interview rooms. The building perimeter cameras and facility lobby camera will record
property activity. The interview cameras will be used to record statements from police
contacts.
Eight bids were received and opened at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 11, 2002.
Norquay Construction, Inc., a qualified and licensed contractor, submitted the lowest
bid, which includes the base bid and Add Alternate No's. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the amount
of $5,120,000. Construction is scheduled for 300 consecutive calendar days.
Engineering staff reviewed the bids and recommended award to Norquay Construction,
Inc., a responsive and responsible bidder.
5
Funds are available for this project in the West Public Safety Building budget,
Account Number '14-9603-8330.
The recommendation was to award the construction contract for the Western Area
Public Safety Facility to Norquay Construction, Inc. in the amount of $5,120,000.
6. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - CITY OF
GLENDALE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EVALUATION
This was a request for City Council approval of a professional service agreement
(PSA) with the firm of CH2M-Hill, Inc. in the amount of $251,738 for continuation of the
water distribution system evaluation.
On March 28, 2000, the Council approved a professional service agreement for
Phase I of the water distribution system evaluation with CH2M-Hill, Inc. in the amount of
$185,840. The work covered under that agreement included development of a water
pipeline evaluation process which includes review of as-built records, maintenance
records and other information, as well as field-testing. Also, CH2M-Hill, Inc., using the
new process, performed an initial evaluation of the City's water distribution system,
which covered approximately one quarter of the total distribution system, including the
area bounded by Camelback Road to Northern Avenue from 43rd to 67th Avenues.
Implementation of the recommendations of the "Water Distribution System Evaluation"
report, dated March 2001, will begin this fiscal year as part of the water line
replacement account.
The work to be performed under this new agreement is a continuation of the
initial evaluation of the water distribution system. Phase II will cover approximately one
half of the total distribution system, roughly the area between Camelback Road and
Northern Avenue, west of 67th Avenue, along with the area north of Northern Avenue
and south of Bell Road. Phase III should follow the next fiscal year and will complete
the evaluation of the City's water distribution system. Funds for this project are
available in the Utilities Fund, Account Number 50-9234-7330.
The recommendation was to approve the professional service agreement with
CH2M-Hill, Inc. in the amount of $251,738.
7. APPROVAL OF A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK AGREEMENT FOR
THE MUNICIPAL FIELD OPERATIONS COMPLEX PHASE 1
This was a request for City Council approval of a Construction Manager At Risk
Agreement with the firm of D.L. Withers Construction, LC, in an amount not to exceed
$138,000, for providing design support services for the Municipal Field Operations
Complex, Phase 1.
6
On May 8, 2001, the Council approved a professional service agreement with
Arrington Watkins Architects. These services included site master planning, design,
and construction phase services for the Municipal Field Operation Complex, Phase 1.
On April 2, 2002, staff returned to a Council Workshop and received City Council
support for the revised 25-year master plan and facility additions and improvements
needed for the next 10 years. This first phase of the master plan includes the design of
a new equipment maintenance shop and warehouse, demolition of a portion of the
former Spring City Knitting building, tenant improvements for the vacated equipment
maintenance facility and warehouse and street improvements as required to support
the project.
On August 15, 2000, the Arizona State Legislature enacted a law that allows
municipalities to select the best-qualified construction firms to work with the municipality
and the designer to perform design support services, conduct the bidding for a project
and manage the construction. The contractor performing in this capacity is referred to
as the Construction Manager at Risk. This new procurement process allows a
contractor to be selected on the basis of qualifications and experience and not low bid.
D.L. Withers Construction, LC has been selected as the best qualified for
Construction Manager at Risk for this project to work with the designer and the City of
Glendale to provide basic design support services. These services include: (1)
participating in the design of the facilities to identify and help solve discrepancies and
inconsistencies; (2) tracking the project requirements to establish and maintain project
budget; (3) maintaining the project schedule; and (4) conducting the bidding for the
project and establishing the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for constructing the
project. Establishment of the Guaranteed Maximum Price will complete the design
support services for the Construction Manager at Risk and will be awarded by Council
as a separate construction contract to the Construction Manager at Risk.
On May 30, 2002, a Request for Qualification was advertised in The Glendale
Star; responses were received from 13 construction firms. Five firms were interviewed
on July 9, 2002. The interview committee included the Deputy Director for Field
Operations, the Assistant City Engineer, the Warehouse Supervisor, and a senior
executive of a licensed contractor and a licensed professional engineer. The licensed
contractor and engineer are required by the new law to serve as industry advocates of
the selection process. Following the interview process, the firm receiving the highest
rating from the committee was D.L. Withers, LC.
Funds are available for this project in Fields Operations Complex Account
Number 30-8563-8300.
The recommendation was to approve the Construction Manager at Risk
Agreement with D.L. Withers, LC, for an amount not to exceed $138,000.
7
8. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - LOOP 101 NOISE WALL 75TH AVENUE TO UNION
HILLS DRIVE
This was a request for City Council approval of Change Order No. 1, in the
amount of $282,741 .94, for construction of the Loop 101 Freeway Noise Wall from 75th
Avenue to Union Hills Drive. The project was bid on February 21, 2002 and was
scheduled for award on March 26, 2002. Concerns about the height of the wall being
adequate to reduce the noise to an acceptable level caused the award to be postponed
until sound measurements could be made to verify the recommendations contained in
the design report. The additional measurements indicated that the noise level
reductions would be achieved as designed; therefore, the project was awarded by the
Council at its April 23, 2002 meeting. The contract documents provide for the
contractor to guarantee their bid pricing for a period of 50 days. Postponing award of
the contract extended the period to 61 days, creating increased costs to the contractor
in the amount of $191,926.11.
The increased costs are the result of the loss of a manufacturer's discount on the
concrete block for the wall. Additionally, like other cities in the Valley, the City
requested that a pattern be designed for the noise wall to provide a look unique to the
City of Glendale. This requires the integration of a different style of block into the wall
construction to define the pattern. The added cost is derived from the additional time
required for the contractor to lay out and place the block, which takes more time and
effort as compared to a wall without a pattern. The portions of wall that are being
retrofitted and raised will have new surface treatment applied to match the existing wall
finish. Adding the pattern increases the cost of the contract by $90,815.83.
The original contract amount, plus this change order, amounts to a total cost of
$2,282,738.94, which is still $203,300.46 below the second low bidder. Funds for
Change Order No. 1 are available in Sound Walls Account Number 61-9627-8300 to
cover the estimated expenditures for Fiscal Year 2001-02 and Fiscal Year 2002-03.
The recommendation was to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of
$282,741.94 to CJS Enterprises, Inc.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
9. ADJUSTED AIRPORT LAND LEASE RATES
This was a request to adjust land lease rates at the Glendale Municipal Airport.
The Glendale Municipal Airport land lease rates have not been adjusted in over six
years and, at 10 cents per square foot, are presently the lowest in the Valley. Following
the City Manager's direction of incorporating best business practices when evaluating
procedures and fees, staff has gone through an extensive review process, using rate-
setting guidelines established by the Federal Aviation Administration. After looking at
rates charged by other Valley airports, recent selling prices of land adjacent to the
airport, calculating the amount of land available for development and the goal that the
8
airport be self-sufficient, a new set of lease rates for land at the airport have been
formulated. The new land lease rates potentially increase annual revenue a minimum
of $184,000, when compared to the present land lease rate. The new land lease rates
are also extremely competitive with other Valley airports. The new land lease rates
designate premium and non-premium locations at the airport. The new recommended
land lease rates for the Glendale Municipal Airport are as follows:
1. A rate of 20 cents per square foot for premium locations with all infrastructure
in place.
2. A rate of 17 cents per square foot for premium locations with no infrastructure
in place,
3. A rate of 15 cents per square foot for non-premium land with all infrastructure
in place,
4. A rate of 12 cents per square foot for non-premium land with no infrastructure
in place.
5. A rate of 7.5 cents per square foot for non-developable parking apron.
The new land lease rates would apply to all new development on the Airport.
The base land lease rates will be adjusted yearly, using the appropriate Consumer
Price Index. The Aviation Advisory Commission reviewed the recommended land lease
rates and voted unanimously on April 24, 2002 to support them.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution amending the land lease rates for the Glendale Municipal Airport.
Resolution No. 3600 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, SETTING FORTH THE LAND LEASE RATES FOR THE
GLENDALE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; AND SETTING FORTH AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
10. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR WIGWAM CREEK NORTH
SUBDIVISION
This was a request for approval of an intergovernmental agreement between
Maricopa County and the City of Glendale to allow Maricopa County control of a 10-foot
strip annexation parcel that runs through 17 lots of Wigwam Creek North Subdivision.
This subdivision is located at the northwest intersection of Camelback and El Mirage
Roads.
In 1978, the City of Glendale approved Ordinance 1020, which had the effect of
annexing a 10-foot wide strip of Maricopa County land in the City. In 2000, the
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning of the Wigwam Creek
9
North property. Then, in January of 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved the Final
Plat for Wigwam Creek North Phase I. Maricopa County, the City, and the developer,
during the rezoning and subdivision platting process, were not aware the subdivision
was split by the 10-foot-wide City Strip Annexation Parcel. No written or oral comments
on this issue were made during the review of the rezoning or plat approval.
A portion of the City's Strip Annexation Parcel runs through or touches on some
or all of 17 lots located in Wigwam Creek North Subdivision. The intergovernmental
agreement resolves any issues that may be created by the strip annexation running
through the middle of Wigwam Creek North Subdivision by Maricopa County and the
City, agreeing that:
• Maricopa County will have the authority and responsibility to review and issue
building permits on any lots located in the Wigwam Creek North Subdivision
that include a portion of the City's Strip Annexation Parcel.
• Maricopa County will have the authority and responsibility for inspection of
work and product on all lots located within Wigwam Creek North Subdivision
that include a portion of the City's Strip Annexation Parcel.
• Maricopa County will have the authority and responsibility to review all
preliminary and final plats for all lots located within Wigwam Creek North
Subdivision that include a portion of the City's Strip Annexation Parcel.
• Maricopa County agrees that all future final plats approvals within Wigwam
Creek North Subdivision will require the final plat to contain a disclosure
statement regarding the lots affected by the City's Strip Annexation Parcel,
stating such lots are subject to the terms of this Agreement.
• Maricopa County agrees to provide all necessary government services to,
and exercise all necessary police powers over, all lots in Wigwam Creek
North Subdivision that include a portion of the City's Strip Annexation Parcel.
The City has no obligation to provide such services or exercise police power
for that portion of the City's Strip Annexation Parcel.
Nothing in the agreement is intended to impair or otherwise affect any
annexation rights of the City. If unanticipated issues arise and lots are in separate
jurisdictions, the City and Maricopa County agree to cooperate to resolve such issue.
This agreement is in effect until such time as the lots impacted by the City's
Annexation Parcel are fully annexed by the City or other municipality. The agreement
may be terminated by mutual agreement of the City and Maricopa County.
10
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement
with Maricopa County for control of a 10-foot strip annexation parcel that runs through
17 lots of the Wigwam Creek North Subdivision.
Resolution No. 3601 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARICOPA COUNTY CONCERNING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WIGWAM CREEK NORTH PROJECT IN MARICOPA
COUNTY WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY'S EXISTING 10-FOOT WIDE STRIP
ANNEXATION PARCEL WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, voiced his
support of the construction project for the western area public safety facility. He stated
that the City of Glendale is growing tremendously and the Council is doing the right
thing by making sure that public safety services are available in that area. He said he
also supported Agenda Item No. 6. He stated that people tend to take water for
granted.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Frate, to approve the
recommended actions on Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 10, including the
approval and adoption of Resolution No. 3600 New Series and Resolution No.
3601 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING — LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS
11. REZONING APPLICATION Z-02-05: 5601 WEST ROYAL PALM ROAD
Mr. Brian Friedman, Senior Planner, presented this application by Earl, Curley
and Lagarde P.C., representing Masako Takiguchi, to rezone a 10-acre property from
A-1 (Agricultural) to R1-6 (Single Residence). The site is located west of the southwest
corner of 56th Avenue and Royal Palm Road and is currently being used as a farm. The
owner intends to develop a single-family subdivision.
The requested R1-6 zoning district is consistent with the General Plan
designation of 3.5-5 residential dwelling units per acre. The proposed zoning is
compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood and meets one of the
required findings for new R1-6 zoning districts.
At its hearing held on June 20, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Rezoning Application Z-02-05, subject to seven stipulations. No one other
than the applicant spoke at the hearing.
11
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve Rezoning
Application Z-02-05, subject to the stipulations recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. David Prescott, a representative of the Phoenix, Arizona law firm of Earl,
Curler & Lagarde, P.C., the applicant, said they agreed with the stipulations
recommended by staff and the Planning Commission.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 11.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, voiced his
concern with emergency vehicle ingress and egress.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 11.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Goulet, to approve Rezoning
Application Z-02-05, subject to the stipulations recommended by the Planning
Commission. The motion carried unanimously.
12. REZONING APPLICATION Z-01-23: 9301 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE
Ms. Molly Hood, Project Planning Manager - Economic Development
Department, presented this request by the Ellman Companies to rezone approximately
233 acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to PAD (Planned Area Development). The request
will allow the development of a high-quality mixed-use center anchored by the new
multi-purpose arena. The development will also contain a variety of commercial,
entertainment, employment, and residential land uses, all united by a common design
theme.
The proposed PAD zoning is consistent with the Western Area General Plan
Update. The proposed development meets the intent of the PAD zoning district and
promotes flexibility and variations in building design, circulation patterns, signage, and
land uses. The proposed development creates a true mixed-use development that
combines residential and non-residential land uses through common design elements
and is consistent with the objectives established by Council at the beginning of this
project. The development will bring to Glendale a regionally/nationally recognized
destination point that is innovative and unique.
On July 18, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
regarding Rezoning Application Z-01-23.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve Rezoning
Application Z-01-23, subject to the stipulations recommended by the Planning
Commission.
12
Ms. Hood stated that the applicant's proposed development is unlike any other
development in the Valley. She described it as a destination urban entertainment
center that will contain a mix of land uses; pedestrian and vehicular access throughout;
interesting urban streetscapes; plazas and gathering areas; large, colorful signage
structures; and a unifying landscape theme. She explained that there are five districts
in the applicants PAD: Village Retail, Sports/Entertainment, Destination Retail,
Residential, and Garden Office. She said the PAD zoning district gives the applicant
flexibility to create unique development standards for the project. She explained that
the uses created for each district allow for a variety of uses, some that typically require
Conditional Use Permit Approval as permitted uses, including big-box retailers and
convenience uses. She stated that the applicant has also developed unique height and
development standards for the project, proposing heights between 40 feet in the Village
Retail District and 150 feet in the Sports/Entertainment District. She said parking for
the development is similar to that required by the Zoning Ordinance. She noted,
however, that the applicant is taking a shared parking reduction in the later phase of the
Sports/ Entertainment District, based on the assumption that some office and retail
uses will share parking. She stated that the applicant is proposing an "Arizona Deco"
architectural theme for the project, including expressive, contemporary architecture;
distinct building masses; strong vertical and horizontal lines; variations in roof heights
and profiles; emphasis on floor lines and rhythm/pattern of openings, and contemporary
building materials. She said four-sided architecture will be required.
Ms. Hood said the applicant's proposed sign package is also unlike any found in
the City of Glendale, reflecting the uniqueness of the development and allowing for new
applications of signage. She explained that their sign package includes media towers,
spectaculars, tenant identification signage on the backs of buildings, light towers,
reader boards and murals. She said the applicant is also proposing flexibility in the
amount of signage allowed. She explained that the amount proposed in the Destination
Retail and Sports/Entertainment Districts exceeds what the Zoning Ordinance allows in
any other zoning district.
Ms. Hood reported that the applicant had prepared a detailed traffic impact
analysis, which was reviewed extensively by the City's traffic engineers, as well as an
independent traffic consultant with significant experience in arena and stadium
development. She said full street improvements are proposed for Glendale, 91St 93rd
and 95th Avenues, as well as Coyote Drive. She stated that half-street improvements
are proposed for Maryland Avenue. She said the applicant has proposed custom
medians to prohibit east and west bound traffic on Maryland Avenue, across 91St
Avenue, to mitigate traffic through the residential neighborhood east of 91st Avenue.
She stated that the applicant has also prepared a conceptual Event Management Plan
to address traffic generated by activities in the arena. She said a more detailed Event
Management Plan will be submitted to the City by June of 2003 and must be approved
by the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the arena. She stated
that the applicant has included a Phasing Plan anticipating final completion in 2009.
13
Ms. Hood reported that the applicant had notified 2,477 property owners of the
proposed development and held five citizen participation meetings to discuss the
project. She said staff notified the Pendergast, Peoria Unified and Tolleson Union High
School Districts of the rezoning request. She stated that the Tolleson Union High
School District initially responded that its district did not have adequate school facilities
to accommodate the new project. However, a letter was received from the School
District on July 22nd, stating that the proposed residential development does not
significantly effect the district in terms of high school aged children. She said the
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application on July 18th and
recommended approval of Rezoning Application Z-01-23, subject to 29 stipulations.
She noted that a list of revised stipulations was distributed to the Council.
Mr. John V. Berry, with the Phoenix, Arizona law firm of Beus Gilbert PLLC,
introduced members of the applicant's team.
Mr. Steve Ellman, President of The Ellman Companies, ap_plicant/owner, said
tonight represented the culmination of 15 months of work. He stated that they had built
a strong partnership with the City of Glendale, based on mutual respect and trust. He
stated that they had listened carefully, made numerous compromises, and visited
several premiere developments across the United States during the process. He
expressed his opinion that their project would be one of the most dynamic real estate
developments in the United States and would change the landscape of retail,
entertainment, office, hotel, and residential development throughout the Valley. He
stated that the project , a mixed-use development that combines sports, recreation and
culture, will be an economic engine for Glendale. He said they have been very
sensitive to community issues, making numerous design accommodations, including
reduced signage and residential components.
Mr. Berry stated that the City of Glendale has emerged as a leader in the Valley
due, in part, to its cutting edge citizen participation ordinance. He explained that the
citizen participation ordinance requires notification within 300 feet of a proposed
development. He noted that their effort reached as far as 1.5 miles from the site. He
stated that 2,477 direct mail pieces were sent to property owners within the 1.5 mile
radius and they placed 2,000 door hangers on doors, notifying residents of meetings
being held in their neighborhood. He reported holding seven meetings between May
12th and December 18th, 2001, as well as two additional meetings sponsored by the
district. He said they made substantial revisions to their PAD document in direct
response to comments they received from the public. He noted that, since the
partnership was announced in April, the Arizona Republic newspaper has published 80
articles concerning the development and 30 articles have been published in the
Glendale Star newspaper. He said arguments that there has not been substantial,
thorough citizen participation are simply not accurate. He stressed the fact that the
City's Citizen Participation Ordinance was not intended to produce complete
consensus, but to encourage applicants to be good neighbors and to allow for informed
decision making. Mr. Berry confirmed that the applicant concurred with the modified
stipulations the before Council and respectfully requested approval of their application.
14
With regard to Stipulation No. 9, requiring 50% of the Gross Floor Area to be
developed prior to the development of the stand-alone residential component of the
project, Councilmember Clark asked why it was felt that 30% of total build out was not
an appropriate figure.
Mr. Tim Wright, Senior Vice President of The Ellman Companies, emphasized
the importance of the residential component of the project. He stated that the proposed
50% requirement was the result of further discussions with staff.
Councilmernber Clark asked what 50% of the Gross Floor Area of Phase One
equates to in terms of square footage. Mr. Wright said it equated to approximately
930,000 square feet. Councilmember Clark asked how much of the 930,000 square
feet was consumed by the arena. Mr. Wright replied that 604,000 square feet was
consumed by the arena.
With regard to Stipulation No. 12, Councilmember Clark asked the applicant why
they felt it was important to gain 1,500 to 3,000 square feet of signage on the light
towers. Mr. Wright explained that the original application included 6,000 square feet as
the desired amount of signage, which the Planning Commission subsequently reduced
to 3,000 square feet. He stated, however, that discussions with staff resulted in the
amount of signage allowed by right being increased to 4,500 square feet, with the
additional 1,500 square feet available only if the applicant is able to prove to staff that it
will enhance the project.
Councilmernber Clark asked the applicant why they felt it was critical to have
electronic reader boards on Glendale Avenue. Mr. Wright explained that the reader
boards are one component of the sign package for the property. He said they carefully
considered the sign package from all aspects and perspectives and felt each piece was
critical to achieving the environment they hoped to create.
Councilmember Clark referred to a statement at the end of Stipulation No. 16,
which states: "These percentages may be increased by 30%, subject to approval of the
Planning Director",. She asked if, with regard to the office towers, the 30% would be
added to their requested 15%, for a total of 45%. Mr. Wright explained that staff could
approve an increase of 30% of the 15% requested, for a maximum coverage of 20%.
Councilmember Clark asked for a definition of the phrase "major amendment"
found in Stipulation No. 14. Mr. Wright explained that they felt any change could
conceivably mean they would have to go back through the PAD process. He said the
proposed language was an attempt to provide clarification. He noted, however, there
was no definitive definition for a major or minor amendment and that determination
would be left to the Planning Director. Mr. Berry said the Purpose section of the PAD
says the purpose of the PAD is to provide flexibility. He expressed his opinion that the
previous language in the stipulation was the antithesis of flexibility.
15
Councilmember Clark asked why Stipulation No. 27 does not mention the
percentage of open space required for the Garden Office and Sports/Entertainment
Districts. Mr. Berry stated that the numbers included in their PAD were the same as
those set forth in the underlying zoning ordinance.
With regard to Stipulation No. 10, Councilmember Martinez expressed concern
about the 10 permitted convenience uses allowed in the Destination Retail District. He
said he believed that the stipulation short-circuits the Conditional Use Process. He
noted that the Planning Commission, at one point, voted to allow five permitted
convenience uses, only to later reconsider the stipulation and increase the number of
permitted uses to 10. Mr. Berry pointed out that the Destination Retail District is located
furthest from the existing residential neighborhoods. He explained that the Commission
voted to reconsider the motion limiting the number of convenience uses to five and
ultimately voted to increase the number to 10. He reviewed the criteria that the
Planning Commission and the Council have to consider when approving a Conditional
Use Permit. He expressed his opinion that a district located within a 223-acre parcel,
closest to a freeway and furthest from existing neighborhoods, unequivocally meets all
of the policy reasons that the Conditional Use Permit process would be engaged. He
clarified that the Planning Commission's intent was to permit the 10 convenience uses
by right. Councilmember Martinez disagreed. He expressed his opinion that the
Conditional Use Permit process should be followed in the Destination Retail District. He
stated that the process is not difficult or onerous and can even be done by mail. He
voiced his support of approving five convenience uses, with additional uses being
subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. Mr. Berry assured Councilmember
Martinez that they had listened to the Council and its concerns about the convenience
uses, which is why they had agreed to go through the Conditional Use Permit process
with regard to the Village Retail District.
Councilmennber Martinez said he was also concerned about the proposed
increase to big-box signage. Mr. Wright said several big-box retailers throughout the
City have requested an increase to the maximum signage allowed to 450 square feet.
He noted that a text amendment may be written to that effect. Councilmember Martinez
voiced concern that approving the applicant's request would set a precedent for other
big-box retailers in the City.
With regard to Stipulation No. 12, Councilmember Martinez said he was
surprised that staff had agreed to increase the amount of signage allowed on the light
towers from the Planning Commission's recommendation of 3,000 square feet to 4,500
square feet, with the possibility of up to 6,000 square feet.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that the Destination Retail District is less
than one-third mile from the loft apartments. Mr. Berry pointed out that the lofts have
not been built. He said the residents will be aware of the number of convenience uses
planned for the district when they make the decision to move there. He stated that
some people desire the vibrancy of an urban environment and will view the
convenience uses as that, convenient.
16
Councilmember Clark asked if the applicant could make the loft apartments a
freestanding facility. Mr. Berry responded that they could. He explained, however, that
they could not do so without amending the PAD, going through the citizen participation
process and returning to the Planning Commission and the Council for approval.
Councilmember Clark asked if a location for a freestanding facility had been identified.
Mr. Berry said it had not because they believed there would be a market for the loft
apartments.
Councilmember Martinez asked about Stipulation No. 29, which limits the
applicant to seasonal outdoor sales in the Destination Retail District. Mr. Wright
explained that Stipulation No. 29 was a Planning Commission initiated-stipulation to
which they agreed. Mr. Berry noted that the Development Standards criteria give
specific requirements about outdoor displays.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 12.
Mr. Michael Socaciu, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District, and a
member of the City of Glendale Planning Commission, said he was excited to see the
City receive commercial development along the Loop 101. He stated, however, that he
had reservations about the extreme deviation from the Glendale sign code, the density
of the multi-family rental component, traffic, and uses which typically require Conditional
Use Permit approval being allowed as permitted uses. He said the amount of signage
being requested was extreme and the amount stipulated by the majority of the Planning
Commission, while slightly less, was still extreme. He said citizens in the area were
being told to accept roof mounted billboards, big-box signage on grocery stores, parking
garages covered with sign boards, media towers covered with advertising, and sound
systems and parking lot lighting towers covered with advertising. He expressed his
opinion that the project, on paper, looks like a spectacle. He disagreed with the
applicant's request to have convenience uses in any district as permitted uses. He
stated that convenience uses throughout the rest of the City are subject to the
Conditional Use Permit process, allowing for citizen input. He said allowing
convenience uses as a permitted use removes the citizens' right to a hearing on a
matter that could greatly impact their community. He pointed out that nearly 1,000
residential units will be located within the development. He stated that they would be
filled with Glendale residents who will have no say on certain issues within their
community. He said, according to Glendale's Citizen Participation Plan, citizens have
the right to participate in an application to try to mitigate any real or perceived impacts it
may have on their community and that the applicant is required to address their
concerns. He asked thee Council to remove the convenience uses as permitted uses
in all districts. Mr. Socaciu explained that he was concerned with the fact that the
Tolleson Union High School District has indicated they do not have adequate school
facilities to accommodate the projected growth associated with the residential
component of the project. He said failure to meet this requirement would have stopped
any other project. Additionally, he stated that the diversity of housing required by the
Western Area General Plan was not met. He said requiring owner-occupied housing, in
addition to rental units, would alleviate many of the fears neighboring communities
17
might have. With regard to the project's traffic plan, Mr. Socaciu said the 1991 traffic
study calls for three lanes in each direction on Glendale Avenue. He expressed his
opinion that the City should acquire the right-of-way for an additional lane in each
direction; otherwise, future expansion of the roadway would come out of the landscape
buffer between the development and the existing road.
Mr. Bob Bohart, a resident of the City of Glendale Ocotillo District and a member
of the City of Glendale Planning Commission, said the project is a catalyst for the West
Valley. He pointed out that the Western Area General Plan calls for a variety of
housing, not diversity of housing. With regard to signage, he said he was confident The
Ellman Group and the Planning Department will ensure that all requirements are met.
He stated that he was in full support of the project.
Mr. Bert Schwind, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District, said, while
the applicant is bringing some of the best elements of other projects, it is also bringing
some of their worst. He said wide open spaces and mountain views make the Valley
unique and it is the Council's responsibility to protect those assets. He asked why they
would want to destroy the uniqueness of the area with excessive, garish signage. He
said rooftop billboards and signage on 80 feet of the 100-foot towers will only serve to
obstruct the beautiful views. He questioned how the signage would improve the project
and implored the Council to keep all signage below the building rooflines. He said the
Council has the opportunity to enhance the lives of future residents and the power to
mandate that the applicant accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.
Mr. John Kolodziei, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District and a
member of the City of Glendale Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission, asked for
assurances that the guidelines in the Western Area General Plan are adhered to,
specifically with regard to restricting housing development until 30% of the employment-
generating land uses in the Sports/Entertainment District have been developed. He
also asked the City to require certification from the local elementary and high school
districts that adequate school facilities exist prior to the development of any housing.
He said the City should not assume that adequate facilities exist if a school district fails
to respond.
Mayor Scruggs asked Ms. Hood to repeat her comments concerning the second
letter received from the Tolleson Union High School District. Ms. Hood said she had
received a letter from the Tolleson Union High School District the day before, which
stated that the proposed development will not significantly impact their district in terms
of high school aged children.
Ms. Cheryl Wiersman, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District, asked to
have the Tolleson Union High School District letter read in its entirety. She said she
entirely supported Mr. Socaciu, Mr. Schwind and Mr. Kolodziej in their comments. She
pointed out that Page 66 of the PAD states up to 50% of the development can be
changed without coming before the Planning Department. She stated that she was
concerned that the Planning Commission was willing to give up its authority over half of
18
the project and negate the citizen participation process. Ms. Wiersman said she was
concerned about traffic and noise on 91st Avenue. She expressed her opinion that the
three lanes proposed on 91St and Glendale Avenues will not be sufficient as the area
continues to develop. She stated that the $30 million set aside by the City for
infrastructure will not be adequate. She questioned how much more the citizens will
have to pay in the future. With regard to off-site parking, Ms. Wiersman stated that the
PAD neglects to identify the location of the off-site lots or how people would be
transported between the lots and the development.
Mayor Scruggs noted that the reference to 50% was deleted and modified to
differentiate between "minor" and "major" PAD amendments.
Ms. Trish Edwards, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, voiced her
opposition to the project as presented. She pointed out the fact that the agenda's
reference to the project gave no indication to the public that it involved the arena
project. She agreed with comments made by Mr. Socaciu and Mr. Schwind. She said
approval of the proposed 20 convenience uses would cut off the citizen participation
process and allow the applicant to bypass the permit application process. She stated
that the ordinances are in place for a reason and should be respected by the applicant,
City planners and the Council. She read from the Glendale Citizen Participation
Ordinance and noted that she never received an invitation to the applicant's
neighborhood meetings. She said she was an interested party and, according to the
ordinance, she should have been notified and informed of substance changes and
provided an opportunity to discuss the applicant's purpose. She said Mr. Berry's
statement that the citizen participation process was not intended to produce complete
citizen consensus on all applications actually comes from the information pamphlet on
being a good neighbor, and not the ordinance. She noted that the Planning
Commission only held one of the three required workshops. She urged citizens to get,
and stay, involved.
Ms. Kathleen Lewis, a business owner in the City of Glendale Barrel District and
a member of the Glendale Citizens and Businesses for Responsible Development,
voiced her opinion that the project had been pushed through the process too quickly.
She said she, too, was an interested party, but did not receive notification of the
meetings. She stated that the Planning Commission, with the exception of Mr. Socaciu,
Committee Commissioner, was not prepared to consider the Westgate PAD. She
stated that the public hearing was "a zoo". She said the Planning Commission
members were confused.
Mayor Scruggs advised Ms. Lewis that she was being insulting. She stated that
she had watched the Planning Commission hearing and only one motion was changed
multiple times.
Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Flaaen to respond to Ms. Lewis' comments.
19
Mr. Flaaen instructed Ms. Lewis to direct her comments to the application, rather
than criticizing the Planning Commission.
Mayor Scruggs noted that Councilmembers Clark, Goulet and Lieberman had
attended the Planning Commission hearing, while she, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and
Councilmembers Frate and Martinez watched the entire hearing on television.
Ms. Lewis expressed her opinion that the citizen participation process was, and
continues to be, circumvented. She cautioned that approval of the PAD would set a
precedence for other developments, specifically the Cardinal's stadium, to ask for
unlimited uses and to exclude citizen input. She said copies of the proposed
stipulations should have been provided to the citizens for their review. She stated that
the 1991 Traffic Study assumed residential development in the area, rather than a
major entertainment/sports venue. She expressed her opinion that additional lanes are
needed. She stated that they were very happy to have the Coyotes come to Glendale,
but the City, The Ellman Group, and the citizens are partners in the project and should
work together. She suggested that the City takes its time and gives citizens the
opportunity to review the stipulations. She asked the Council to vote no on the request.
Mayor Scruggs asked a staff member to make copies of the proposed
stipulations for members of the public. She clarified that the amended stipulations
reflect a mutual effort by staff and the applicant to create a Planned Area Development
document that meets the unique needs of the development. She emphasized the fact
that the amended stipulations are not last minute stipulations created by the applicant.
Mr. Ron Prothero, a resident of the City of Glendale Ocotillo District, said the
citizens have to support the project for it to be successful. He said there are grave
questions about the Arizona Deco architecture and the use of billboards. He stated that
the applicant should build parking structures. He noted that temperatures on asphalt
parking lots are extreme. He urged the applicant to involve the citizens so as not to
alienate them.
Ms. Debra Kist, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District and a member of
the Glendale Citizens and Businesses for Responsible Development, agreed that the
project is unique. She stated that the citizens welcome the development and the
endless opportunities it presents. She said, however, the citizens have reservations
about the plans as presented. She suggested that citizen participation should be a
continuing process. She said approval of the applicant's PAD will ensure that future
developers make similar requests. With regard to traffic, Ms. Kist said the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) figures estimate 50,000 daily trips at 83rd Avenue
and Bell Road. She noted that 70,000 daily trips are expected at the proposed project.
She stated that three lanes would not be sufficient. She said it was the Council's
responsibility to protect citizen rights.
20
Ms. Denise Daniels, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District, stated she
opposed approval of the PAD due to the power it cedes to the applicant from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. She said, while the application mentions citizen
involvement, they had not as yet received information from the applicant. She noted
that that she lives directly across 91st Avenue. She stated that the developer had
demonstrated a disregard for public input, citing the media towers as an example. She
expressed concern about air pollution due to the increased traffic and light pollution as
a result of the billboards. She said it is refreshing to live in an area where you can hear
birds and watch sunsets. She urged the City to use downtown Glendale as an example
of how development should be done throughout the City.
Ms. Toni Marotte, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District, said she was
truly excited about the Coyotes move to the City of Glendale and the proposed
development. She stated that she represents the Casa Loma Homeowners Association
and they do not support the proposed multi-family housing, the amount of signage, or
the proposed media towers. She asked Council to consider the long-term effects of the
multi-family housing. She urged the City to build a community that enhances the quality
of life for its residents, and not the developers. She expressed her opinion that the City
has been the only one making compromises.
Public Hearing Speaker's cards were received from the following people, who
indicated that they opposed the item and did not wish to speak.
Ms. Rebecca Mayberry, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District
Mr. Mark Henslee, a resident of the City of Glendale Yucca District
Mr. Dennis Kist, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District
Ms. Nicole Kist a resident of the Cit of Glendale Barrel District
Ms. Jud Ramirez a resident of the Cit of Glendale Yucca District
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 12.
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to approve Rezoning
Application Z-01.23, subject to the 29 stipulations recommended through the
mutual effort of City staff and the applicant.
The meeting recessed for a short break.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Berry to address comments concerning the letter the
applicant received from the Tolleson Union High School District. She pointed out that
two of the three school districts that serve the area had indicated adequate facilities.
Mr. Berry said they understood the passion with which the residents spoke and
empathized with the intensity of their emotions. He stated that the City of Glendale
Planning Commission was outstanding and spent a great deal of time and energy
considering the PAD request. With regard to the Tolleson Union High School District,
Mr. Berry stated that City staff believes the letter, which the applicant received, meets
21
the technical requirements of the ordinance. He said, however, the applicant is
committed to continuing to work with the Tolleson Union High School District to address
any issues they have and to accommodate their concerns. He pointed out that the
increase in the assessed valuation of the property will have significant positive benefits
to each of the three school districts. In response to concerns expressed both by the
public and the Council regarding convenience uses, Mr. Berry announced that the
applicant was willing to agree to five convenience uses permitted by right, with
additional conveniience uses being subject to the Conditional Use Permit process in the
Destination Retail District.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Mr. Berry to address concerns regarding traffic. Mr.
Berry explained that the applicant had hired Kimley-Horn to conduct the traffic study
required by the PAD application. He commented on the City's Traffic Engineering
Department staff, He stated that Kimley-Horn felt they were rigorous in their
examination of traffic issues. He stated that the City's traffic engineers concurred with
the applicant's traffic consultants that the ways in which the applicant has addressed
the issues are effective. He reported that, in response to concerns raised at last week's
Council session, the applicant had offered Stipulation 23, which states the applicant will
give the City the easement for the right-of-way for a fourth lane in the unlikely event one
is needed.
Councilmernber Clark read the letter received from the Tolleson Union High
School District. She stated that the District had not amended its Certification for
Adequate School Facilities and, therefore, continues to certify that adequate school
facilities do not exist. Mr. Berry explained that the author of the second letter clarified
the District's position by adding that high-density housing does not significantly affect
high school districts in terms of high school aged students. He said it was the
applicant's belief that the letter clearly indicates the project will not have an impact or
that adequate facilities will be available by the time the facility comes online. He
reiterated the applicant's commitment to work with the Tolleson Union High School
District on this issue. Councilmember Clark stated that the City's ordinance requires a
Certificate of Adequate School Facilities, which had not been provided by the Tolleson
Union High School District. She noted that the high school that the District plans to
build at 91St Avenue and Camelback Road is dependent upon a bond issue election
scheduled for later this fall and, at the earliest, would come online in five years. Mr.
Berry countered by stating that the School District could have sent a note back stating
that its prior letter stands as written.
Councilmember Goulet pointed out that the project and the School District's
plans for another high school were very speculative at this point. He asked Mr. Berry if
it was possible that the issue would be moot once more information was available. Mr.
Berry responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that the project was sensational and
unprecedented in size and he appreciated all of the work and effort that had gone into
the project over the past several months. He said, however, he was concerned about
22
the rooftop billboards along the freeway. He noted that the Highway Department will
not permit them due to their close proximity to the freeway. He stated that he was also
concerned about the carte-blanche development of convenience uses. He noted that
they have insisted that the largest corporations in the country comply with the
Conditional Use Permit process.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Clark, to amend the motion
to approve Rezoning Application Z-01-23, to include Stipulation 30 requiring all
single retail stores in excess of 75,000 square feet in all districts to go through
the Conditional Use Permit process.
Mr. Berry clarified that the stipulation would apply to single retail users only. He
stated that they would not oppose the stipulation.
Upon a call for the question, the amendment to the motion carried
unanimously.
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to amend the motion to
approve Rezoning Application Z-01-23, to add Stipulation 31 requiring the
applicant to continue working with the Tolleson Union High School District to
understand and accomplish their needs; and modifying Stipulation 10, limiting
the Destination Retail District to five convenience uses by right, with all uses
beyond five requiring Conditional Use Permits. The motion carried unanimously.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Martinez, to amend the motion to
approve Rezoning Application Z-01-23 by modifying Stipulation 9 to state 30% of
the total gross area of total project build-out must be developed prior to the
development of the stand-alone residential component. Upon a roll call vote, the
motion failed by a vote of 3 to 4, with the following Councilmembers voting "aye":
Clark, Lieberman and Martinez. Councilmembers voting "nay": Goulet,
Eggleston, Frate and Scruggs.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Martinez, to amend the motion to
approve Rezoning Application Z-01-23 by modifying Stipulation 16, reverting to
the Planning Commission's approved Stipulation 16 and deleting the statement
"These percentages may be increased by 30%, subject to approval of the
Planning Director."
Councilmember Martinez said he had a problem with Stipulation 16. He stated
that he believed the signage allowed in the current stipulation was excessive.
Councilmember Goulet said it is difficult to judge the size of the signs without
knowing relative to the application where it will sit. He suggested that people look at
existing projects throughout the Valley to gain a better perspective. He expressed his
opinion that the signage will be critical to the project's success and scaling it down
would be a disservice to the businesses.
23
Councilmember Clark stated that the Entertainment Core allows building heights
of up to 150 feet. She explained that one-quarter of the building could be covered at
the applicant's proposed coverage of 23%.
Upon a call for the question , the motion failed by a vote of 3 to 4, with the
following Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Lieberman and Martinez.
Councilmembers voting "nay": Goulet, Eggleston, Frate and Scruggs.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Lieberman, to amend the motion
to approve Rezoning Application Z-01-23 by modifying Stipulation 23 to read "The
applicant will provide right-of-way dedication between 95th and 91st Avenues
along the southern edge of Glendale Avenue, for future lane expansion if future
traffic studies so warrant."
Councilmember Lieberman stated that it was his original intention to ensure that
a fourth lane would be readily available to the City.
Mr. Berry said Councilmember Lieberman's intention would be fulfilled. He
stated that the City has no legal authority to ask for right-of-way because traffic studies
on record indicate there is no need for the additional right-of-way. He said, however, in
the spirit of compromise, the applicant had agreed to give the City an easement and
asked in return that building setbacks be measured from the right-of-way line rather
than the easement line. He pointed out that only two buildings would be impacted in
the Destination Retail District.
Mr. Berry confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the City would not have to purchase
the land from the applicant if the easement passed.
Councilmember Lieberman withdrew his second and the motion failed.
It was moved by Clark to amend the motion to approve Rezoning
Application Z-01-23 by adding a stipulation requiring that the garden offices be
built before, or in conjunction with, development of the freestanding residential
component. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Martinez, to amend the motion to
approve Rezoning Application Z-01-23 by adding a stipulation requiring that a
Certificate of Adequate School Facilities be received from the Tolleson Union
High School District before construction of the residential component begins.
Mr. Flaaen explained that Councilmember Clark's motion inappropriately places
decision-making control over the project with the School District. He stated that the
motion would not withstand legal scrutiny.
Councilmember Clark withdrew her motion.
24
Mayor Scruggs pointed out that Mr. Flaaen had advised the Council and the
Planning Commission, on three different occasions, that the motion would be improper.
She noted that this was the first time the City has had a project in the Tolleson Union
High School District boundary and attempts to talk with the School District had been
fruitless because their offices are essentially closed for the summer. She stated that
the stipulation offered by the applicant, and added by Councilmember Goulet,
addresses the issue.
Councilmember Martinez expressed his opinion that the City should have the
authority to deny a project if adequate school facilities do not exist. He said he believed
the motion was proper because the Council would ultimately make the decision as to
whether or not the project can proceed. Mr. Flaaen agreed that the Council makes the
decision as to whether or not the zoning request should be approved. He explained,
however, that the proposed motion approves the zoning request, but delegates the
power to decide when the applicant can act on the zoning request to the School District.
Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with Councilmember Martinez that the Council
would not be giving its authority to the School District.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Clark, to amend the motion to
approve Rezoning Application Z-01-23 by modifying Stipulation 16, removing the
statement "These percentages may be increased by 30%, subject to approval of
the Planning Director."
Councilmernber Martinez said the Stipulation came as a surprise to him and
deletion of the statement would make the proposed percentages more palatable.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said the signage would be placed in the high-energy
center of the Sports/Entertainment District. He expressed his opinion that the applicant
should be allowed the flexibility to add more signage if deemed appropriate once the
buildings are constructed.
Councilmernber Lieberman said he supported Councilmember Martinez' motion.
He stated that he did not believe the Planning Director should be burdened with that
responsibility.
Upon a roll call vote, the motion failed by a vote of 3 to 4, with the following
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Lieberman and Martinez. Councilmembers
voting "nay": Goulet, Eggleston, Frate and Scruggs.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Clark, to amend the motion to
approve Rezoning Application Z-01-23 adding a stipulation requiring one
landscape island every 10 parking spaces as per the City's Landscaping
Ordinance.
25
Mr. Berry rioted that the cities of Chandler, Gilbert, and Peoria all have standards
that require one landscaping island for every 12 parking spaces, while the cities of
Tempe and Scottsdale require one island every 15 spaces. He said the project will be a
pedestrian environment and they had proposed taking the landscaping islands and
placing them in plazas on the interior of the development.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the landscape islands count towards the open space
requirements. Mr. Berry responded that they do. He stated that their plan places the
landscaping in areas where it will benefit people, and not cars. He confirmed for Mayor
Scruggs that landscaping would be pulled from other areas of the project if the number
of landscaping islands was increased.
Councilmember Clark stated that the parking lot will be a "heat island" and the
additional landscaping islands may help reduce temperatures. She said the City
developed its standard for a reason, therefore, she would support the motion.
Councilmember Martinez said they were talking about the City of Glendale's
standard, and not the standards found in other cities.
Councilmember Goulet asked if any trees in the parking lot would be uprooted as
the project develops. Mr. Berry responded in the affirmative. He explained that parking
structures would replace the surface parking as the project develops.
Mayor Scruggs questioned if Arrowhead Towne Center has landscaping islands
every 10 spaces. She said she would not support the motion because landscaping
would be taken from the interior of the project where people will spend most of their
time and the landscaping islands will eventually need to be removed as the project
develops.
Councilmernber Martinez questioned whether all of the landscaping islands
would need to be removed.
Upon a roli call vote, the motion failed by a vote of 2 to 5, with the following
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark and Martinez. Councilmembers voting
"nay": Goulet, Eggleston, Frate, Lieberman and Scruggs.
Mayor Scruggs called for discussion on the motion to approve Z-01-23, subject
to the 29 stipulations recommended through the mutual effort of City staff and the
applicant, as well as two additional stipulations approved by the Council.
Councilmember Clark thanked her constituents who participated in the Citizen
Participation process and Ms. Molly Hood for her hard work. She said the development
has been characterized as "world class" and she expects no less. She stated that it
would have been easy to go along, but her conscience tells her to do what she believes
is right. She explained that she and her constituency believe issues remain that have
not been adequately addressed. She stated that their lack of faith in the system
26
explains why so few residents have turned out to speak at the Planning Commission
and Council meetings. She stated that 100 people attended the citizen participation
meetings and she heard them say that they did not want apartments and that they were
concerned about traffic. She emphasized the fact that the applicant did nothing wrong
in requesting exceptions to the City's zoning standards within the PAD. She said,
however, the wholesale acceptance of every exception requested by the applicant
leads her to some troubling conclusions. She stated she cannot support the applicant's
request for approval for the following reasons:
(1) Many of the standards within the PAD do not conform to City zoning
standards. For example, Village Retail is no more than a Neighborhood
Shopping Center and, under the city's zoning standards, three
convenience uses are allowed. The applicant also requested five
convenience uses in the Destination Retail District which is comparable to
a Community Shopping Center wherein five convenience uses would
normally be granted. The applicant has also requested and will receive
the ability to locate billboards along the Loop 101. The city has an entire
chapter in its zoning code devoted to signage regulations which
specifically prohibit billboards in every district except Heavy Commercial
and Industrial zoning districts. Rooftop billboards are also specifically
prohibited. Thankfully, the applicant will have to abide by the Federal and
State Highway Beautification Act and Federal Aviation Administration
rulings as well as the city's Dark Skies Ordinance and sound regulations.
(2) Stipulations that would have mitigated the intensity of the residential are
either weak or absent. Citizens indicated at Citizen Participation meetings
that they did not want apartments, but would be willing to accept loft style
apartments within the Sports/Entertainment District. The applicant will
have the ability to move the loft style apartments to an unspecified
freestanding location. Residents were grateful when the Garden Office
District was created as a buffer, however, there is no guarantee the
Garden Offices will be built. It is entirely possible the multi-family will
stand for years, or perhaps forever, without any Garden Office buffer.
While a fourth lane will certainly be needed on Glendale Avenue between
the Loop 101 and 91st Avenue, the applicant offered an easement, not the
right-of-way, for a fourth lane.
(3) Conditional Use Permits will be granted within the PAD by right, except for
the five convenience uses in the Village Retail District and any over and
above five in the Destination Retail District. By permitting all of the
convenience uses, the city has diluted the Citizen Participation process
and the Planning and Zoning Commission's rights as a citizen's
representative and advisory body.
27
Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that some of the City's processes
have become flawed. She said once an economic opportunity has been secured, or
envisioned, the project should be moved to the jurisdiction of the Planning Department
since that is theiir field of expertise. She stated the process was rushed to meet
tonight's deadline for approval, allowing neither the Planning Commission nor Council
sufficient time to review the complex proposal. She said it appears the Planning
Commission, now relegated to being only a citizen advisory body, has lost its ability to
influence the outcome of a proposed project from a citizen's perspective. She
respectfully disagreed with Mr. Flaaen's opinion that the request would not be
precedence setting, stating the city will be hard-pressed to deny excessive deviations
from the city's zoning standards on future PAD applications. She said future applicants
could suggest Council was willing to grant zoning liberties in a perceived rush to get the
project underway as quickly as possible and due to its own inherent conflict of interest.
She suggested future applicants could also question the fairness and consistency with
which the city applies its zoning standards and planning processes. She expressed her
opinion a conflict in community values has occurred as a result of the applicant's
request, explaining the city has made a $180 million commitment to build the arena in
the midst of the proposed development and its ability to repay the bonds issued for the
arena is reliant on the sales tax revenue generated by the surrounding development.
She reiterated that, based on the reduced citizen participation for convenience uses,
billboard signage, traffic mitigation on Glendale Avenue, the lack of stronger stipulations
related to the movement of the loft, and timing of construction of the Garden Office
buffer zone, she will vote to deny the applicant's request.
Mayor Scruggs clarified that shopping centers are not limited to three
convenience uses, noting the shopping center at 59th Avenue and Thunderbird has at
least five convenience uses including one for an automated gas station.
Councilmember Clark approved and she was in opposition to that District's
Councilmember. She emphasized the applicant will be required to treat the movement
of the loft apartments to a freestanding facility as a plan change and required to go
back to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. She noted she was
the one at last week's meeting who stated they should not allow any convenience uses
by right in Village Retail. With regard to Councilmember Clark's comment that the
Planning Commission has been relegated to an advisory body, Mayor Scruggs pointed
out that all Commissions and Boards are advisory bodies.
Mayor Scruggs dismissed concerns about setting a precedence, stating it is
unlikely the City will see another PAD application for a 223-acre development. She
referred to the Talavi Planned Area Development approved in the 1980's, stating
everyone was upset and believed it would ruin the city. She said the project did not
"open the flood gates", noting another project that good did not come along for a very
long time. She said it is wrong to suggest the city is being unethical by looking to the
sales tax generated by the development to repay bonds for the infrastructure of the
arena and surrounding area, stating that was always the intent. She pointed out all of
the articles in the Arizona Republic and Glendale Star, as well as numerous television
28
and radio news pieces, never made any secret of the fact that the bonds would be paid
back through development on the parcel.
Councilmember Martinez thanked Mr. Ellman and his staff for their tremendous
project and Ms. Hood for all of her efforts. He said, although he supported the project,
he agreed with Councilmember Clark that the citizen participation process has been
diluted. He said he hoped the Council has minimized any mistakes that may have been
made so as not to adversely affect current and future residents. He expressed his
opinion that the project will ultimately prove to be good for the City of Glendale.
Councilmember Frate thanked everyone who participated in the process. He
explained that a Planned Area Development is similar to a Master Planned Residential
Community, but a Master Planned Shopping Community. He stated that the residents
in western Glendale are being underserved, be it grocery stores, restaurants, or retail
stores. He said the proposed project would help address the shortages with its
outstanding design and many mixed uses. He said he had visited other developments,
including Kierland and Desert Ridge, and had seen the different elements that are part
of the proposed project. He encouraged others to visit the developments as well to see
the elements for themselves. He said people want to live in an area where shopping,
dining, and entertainment venues are readily available. He stated that some people will
always have something negative to say about change, but America was and continues
to be built by people who have vision.
Councilmernber Goulet thanked Mr. Ellman and Mr. Moyes for their willingness
to approach the City of Glendale and discuss their project. He stated that countless
discussions had been held concerning the project and, while he empathized with some
of the citizens' comments, he believed the project would be a destination location for
the West Valley and the State. He said he had heard numerous times over the years
that the West Valley couldn't compete with the East Valley in terms of first-rate projects.
He stated that the proposed project is far beyond any project envisioned for anywhere
in the Valley. Councilmember Goulet said people move to an area for good schools,
good homes, convenient retail shopping, and entertainment features. He noted that
three of those four criteria would be met on an unprecedented scale by the proposed
project. He said a project of this kind requires a sense of trust among all of the parties
involved, which he believed had been established. He voiced his support of the project.
Councilmernber Lieberman thanked Ms. Hood, Mr. Froke, Planning Department
and Economic Development Department staff, The Ellman Group, and Mr. Berry. He
said, while he was not satisfied with a number of the elements of the project, two or
three issues were resolved tonight. He expressed his appreciation for the applicant's
willingness to listen to the issues and for their spirit of compromise.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said he knows the project will be a success of which
everyone can be proud. He acknowledged that there were disagreements over certain
elements. He stated, however, that there is support for the project as a whole.
29
Mayor Scruggs said, of all the comments made tonight, she was most troubled
by the person who stated that the City is making all of the compromises. She said
compromises have been made by both sides throughout the process, which have led
the City and applicant to where they are today. She noted that the Garden Office
complex was a compromise engineered by Councilmember Clark. She said the
applicant has also made compromises in terms of signage. She referred to a letter
from the Thunderbird Samaritan Medical Center, asking the City to amend its sign
ordinance. She stated that it was not adequate to provide for the health and safety of
people trying to get to the hospital. She expressed her opinion that the City is out of
step with other cities with regard to signage and is at risk of losing business. She said
she was also concerned about citizens who stated they were not informed of the
meetings. She stated that meetings are announced during Council Comments at the
end of every Council meeting. Everyone who signs in at a meeting is placed on a list
for notification of future meetings and she maintains her own database to which people
can request that their name be added. She said she could not believe that 226,990 of
the 227,000 people who live in the City stayed home because they did not believe in the
process. She agreed that the project would be very different from downtown Glendale.
She stated that it will represent a different demographic and address some of the
deficiencies in the City. She pointed out that teenagers continually go to other cities
because Glendale does not offer the amenities they desire. She said she was
comfortable supporting the project and did not feel there would be any harmful effect to
the City.
Upon a call for the question, the initial motion (Page 21) made by Goulet,
and seconded by Frate, to approve Rezoning Application Z-01-23, subject to the
29 stipulations recommended through the mutual effort of City staff and the
applicant, passed on a vote of 6 to 1, with Councilmember Clark voting "nay",
PUBLIC HEARING — LIQUOR LICENSES
13. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-827 EXPRESS FOOD MART
This was a request for a new series 10 (off-sale retail, beer & wine) license for
Express Food Mart, which is located at 6445 North 51st Avenue, No. 101. The previous
owner operated this business as Express Food Mart and held a series 10 (off-sale
retail, beer & wine) license at this location. A new license is required because a series
10 license is not transferable.
The 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 Maricopa County Health Department have reviewed the
application and determined that it meets all technical requirements.
30
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.
14. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-828 THE END SPORTS BAR & GRILL
This was a request for a person transfer of a series 6 (on- & off-sale retail, all
liquor) license for The End Sports Bar & Grill, which is located at 10222 North 43rd
Avenue, No. 15. The previous owner operated this business as The End Sports Bar &
Grill 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 ihe 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 Maricopa County Health Department have reviewed the
application and determined that it meets all technical requirements.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the
application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval.
15. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-829 NORTHERN LOUNGE
This was a request for a person transfer of a series 6 (on- & off-sale retail, all
liquor) license for the Northern Lounge, which is located at 5008 West Northern
Avenue. The previous owner operated this business as the Northern Lounge and held
a series 6 (on- & off-sale retail, all liquor) license at this location.
The applicant is currently operating this establishment pursuant to an interim
permit issued by the State 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. The nearest church, Rain in
the Desert Fellowship, is located 81 feet from the establishment. However, the 300-foot
rule prohibiting a retail liquor license within 300 feet of a church does not apply since
the establishment was at the location prior to the church.
No protests were filed during the 20-day posting period. The Planning
Department, the Police Department, and the Maricopa County Health Department have
reviewed the application and determined that it meets all technical requirements.
31
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the
application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval.
16. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-830 THE BARN
This was a request for a person and location transfer of a series 6 (on- & off-sale
retail, all liquor) license for The Barn, which is located at 6508 West Bell Road. The
previous owner operated this business as The Barn and held a series 12 (restaurant)
license at this location. This location closed in February of 2000. The approval of this
license will increase the number of liquor licenses in the area by one.
The establishment is over 300 feet from any school or church. No protests were
filed during the 20-day posting period. The Planning Department, the Police
Department, and the Maricopa County Health Department have reviewed the
application and determined that it meets all technical requirements.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and forward the
application to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the
recommendation for approval.
17. LIQUOR LICENSE NO. 3-831 KAHLUA'S BAR & GRILL
This was a request for a person transfer of a series 6 (on- & off-sale retail, all
liquor) license for Kahlua's Bar & Grill, which is located at 5106 North 51st Avenue. The
previous owner operated this business as Kahlua's Bar & Grill 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 Maricopa 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.
32
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item Number 13, 14,
15, 16 and 17. As there were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public
hearing.
It was moved by Lieberman, and seconded by Frate, to forward Liquor
License Applications No. 3-827 for Express Food Mart, No. 3-828 for The End
Sports Bar & Grill, No. 3-829 for Northern Lounge, No. 3-830 for The Barn, and No.
3-831 for Kahlua's Bar & Grill, to the State of Arizona Department of Liquor
Licenses and Control, with the recommendation for approval. The motion carried
unanimously.
ORDINANCES
18. CRIMINAL RECORD INFORMATION GLENDALE CITY CODE UPDATE
Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, presented this request to update the Glendale
City Code to comply with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) new criteria for
accessing federal criminal records. The FBI completed a review of all previously
approved statutory authorities for access to federal criminal record information. Each
authority was reviewed against the current parameters of Public Law (PL) 92-544 as
determined by the U.S. Department of Justice. The last review was completed
approximately five years ago.
The FBI's review determined that the Glendale City Code required some minor
language updating to meet its criteria for accessing federal criminal records through the
submission of fingerprint cards. The change consists of directly referencing Public Law
(PL) 92-544 and A.R.S. 41-1750 in each code section.
Staff worked with the State of Arizona Department of Public Safety and the FBI,
who reviewed and approved the content of the ordinance.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance modifying the Glendale City Code to bring it into conformity with the FBI's
new criteria for accessing criminal record information.
Ordinance No. 2273 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING GLENDALE CITY CODE CHAPTERS 3, 5, 21, 21.2,
22 AND 30 BY INSERTING STATUTORY LANGUAGE ALLOWING THE CITY OF
GLENDALE TO ACCESS FEDERAL CRIMINAL RECORD INFORMATION VIA THE
APPLICANT FINGERPRINT CARD PROCESS.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Martinez, to approve Ordinance
No. 2273 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
members voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Lieberman, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and
Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
33
PUBLIC HEARING — RESOLUTION
19. REMOVE FROM TABLE - CITY CENTER MASTER PLAN
Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director, presented this request to
remove this item from the table and adopt the City Center Master Plan (CCMP). The
CCMP was tabled on May 14, 2002 in order for the City Council to review the Planning
Commission's recommendations at the July 16, 2002 City Council Workshop. The
Council initiated the CCMP project as a policy goal in 2000. The Council directed that
the City update its downtown master plan which was adopted in 1994 as a component
of the City's General Plan. Per State statutory requirements, the General Plan must be
updated every five years.
The CCMF' is a specific area plan that is long-range in nature, which will be
incorporated into the General Plan Update. The study area includes a three-mile by
one-mile area of 1:he City, from 43rd Avenue to 67th Avenue, Orangewood to Maryland
Avenues. It includes the traditional downtown core and also several neighborhoods,
industrial areas, and more auto-oriented retail areas, and also includes portions of
Ocotillo and Cactus Council districts.
In order to complete this project, the City assembled a team of consultants led by
RNL Design (planning and architecture), Todd Associates (planning and landscape
architecture), Elliott Pollack Associates (real estate market analysis), Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Alschuler (financial analysis), and Entranco (civil engineering). This is one
of the most comprehensive planning teams assembled by the City and reflects an
innovative and comprehensive approach to planning unlike any of the prior downtown
plans undertaken.
The combined input of months of work by City staff, contracted consultants, and
the Citizens Advisory Committee, has resulted in the development of the CCMP. The
CCMP outlines a revitalization strategy for the study area. The revitalization strategy
includes land use and design recommendations, a Redevelopment Area Plan, a
marketing analysis and a financial analysis. The CCMP, when adopted, will function as
a policy document and provide guidelines for the revitalization of the study area.
The recommendation was to remove this item from the table, conduct a public
hearing, waive reading beyond the title, and approve a resolution adopting the City
Center Master Plan.
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to remove Agenda Item
No. 19 pertaining to the City Center Master Plan from the table. The motion
carried unanimously.
Councilmember Lieberman said he was disappointed that the original plans
dropped 43rd to 51st Avenues along Glendale Avenue. He said he would like to see
something developed in that area because so much needs to be done.
34
Resolution No. 3602 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE AREA
BOUNDED BY ORANGEWOOD AVENUE ON THE NORTH, MARYLAND AVENUE
ON THE SOUTH, 43RD AVENUE ON THE EAST, AND 67TH AVENUE ON THE WEST,
TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY CENTER MASTER PLAN.
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Frate, to pass, adopt, and
approve Resolution No. 3602 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
20. 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
Arts Commission
Goeppinger, Kathleen (Chair) Appointment 08/23/2002 08/22/2003
Burr, Sandra (Vice-Chair) Appointment 08/23/2002 08/22/2003
Wixon, Sharon (Cactus) Appointment 08/23/2002 08/23/2004
Flowers, Gary (Sahuaro) Re-appointment 08/23/2002 08/23/2004
Board of Adjustment
Giarrusso, George M (Sahuaro) Appointment 07/23/2002 06/29/2004
Citizens Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods
Pugh, Jeffery (At-Large) Appointment 07/23/2002 06/29/2004
(Barrel)
Jones, John (At-Large) Appointment 07/23/2002 06/29/2004
(Cholla)
Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission
Silva, Frank G. (Ocotillo) Appointment 07/23/2002 07/24/2005
35
Community Development Advisory Committee
Koehler, Robert (Cactus) Appointment 07/23/2002 06/29/2004
Nunez, Magda (Sahuaro) Appointment 07/23/2002 07/23/2004
Fields, Diane (Yucca) Appointment 07/23/2002 06/29/2004
Historic Preservation Commission
Turner, Patrick (At-Large) Appointment 07/23/2002 04/12/2003
(Barrel)
Industrial Development Authority
Legendre, Edward (At-Large) Re-appointment 08/23/2002 08/22/2008
(Ocotillo)
Personnel Board
Neitch, Joel (At-Large) Appointment 07/23/2002 04/23/2004
(Sahuaro)
The recommendation was to make appointments to the various Boards and
Commissions.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Lieberman, to appoint the
applicants listed above, for the terms listed above, to the Arts Commission, the
Board of Adjustment, the Citizens Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods, the
Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission, the Community Development
Advisory Committee, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Industrial
Development Authority, and the Personnel Board. The motion carried
unanimously.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to hold a City Council
Workshop at 1:30 p.m. in Room B-3 of the City Council Chambers on Tuesday,
September 3, 2002, to be followed by an Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. 38-
431.03; and it was further moved that all regularly scheduled Workshops and City
Council meetings be vacated during the month of August 2002. The motion
carried unanimously.
36
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Tim Wagner, a resident of the City of Peoria, stated that, as a potential host
for the National Football League franchise, Glendale may be home to the team that will
represent civic pride and champion the spirit of Arizonans in national sports
competitions for the next 30 years. He said stadium issues are being discussed that
will significantly impact the City of Glendale and the State of Arizona. He noted,
however, that the issue of whether the product within the stadium will generate the
interest needed to support a stadium was being overlooked and underestimated. Mr.
Wagner said his concern was the primary tenant's entertainment value or ability to
generate sufficient interest and attendance, thereby the revenue needed to support the
stadium, is in question. He stated that there is substantial room for improvement given
the franchise's historical attendance record. He pointed out that the City is on the verge
of building a 70,000 seat, publicly funded stadium for a franchise with the lowest
attendance records in the league. He stated that the disparage is a catalyst for
financial disaster for the City of Glendale and the State of Arizona. He submitted a
resolution for the Council's consideration and he explained that it was modeled
somewhat after the document submitted by local government in the State of
Tennessee. He stated that the Resolution by Local Government was a method
accepted by the National Football League (NFL) and set a precedence for approaching
the League with this consideration of a new name and image. He asked the City of
Glendale to request the Cardinals franchise to adopt a regional naming image that
readily identifies and associates the franchise and the State of Arizona to the rest of the
nation. He expressed his opinion that this was an opportunity for Glendale to unite all
of the Valley cities divided in the wake of the site selection debacle. He said response
from the franchise would demonstrate the team official's assertive commitment to the
State of Arizona.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, cautioned
the City to proceed very carefully when considering the Cardinal's stadium, given the
serious economic conditions and citizen distrust of large corporations throughout the
state and across the country. He pointed out the fact that the citizens of Glendale
would have to spend more money if the stadium was to come to Glendale. He stated
that, for this reason, the citizens of Glendale should be given the opportunity to vote on
the issue.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Councilmember Clark announced that the Maricopa County Flood Control
District had scheduled a meeting on July 25t"' at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the construction
schedule for the Bethany Home Outfall Channel project. She urged all residents living
between 83rd and 91st Avenues to attend.
37
Councilmember Goulet thanked the Neighborhood Revitalization Office for their
dedication of another single-family home in the Ocotillo District. He announced that a
neighborhood meeting with the Orchard Glenn Neighborhood Association would be
held the evening of July 24th. He congratulated Mr. Mark Burdick, Acting Fire Chief, on
the birth of his baby. He said he was happy that the City had adopted a plan for the
Coyotes development.
Councilmember Lieberman said he often feels that the public should be informed
of the impact of items approved on the Consent Agenda. He reported that the City
bought $562,666 worth of buses and awarded a $5,120,000 construction contract for
construction of the Western Area Public Service Building. He said they also approved a
Construction Manager At Risk Agreement for the Municipal Field Operations Complex.
He wished everyone a safe and happy summer.
Councilmember Martinez announced three meetings occurring in his district: July
24th at 6:30 p.m. at Sunrise Mountain High School regarding the proposed Eckerd's
Drug Store project; a City Safe Open House on July 27th at 8:00 a.m. at the Deer Valley
Fire Station; and a Cholla neighborhood meeting on July 29th at 6:30 p.m. at the
Foothills Library.
Councilmember Frate said tonight's meeting was very exciting and a number of
the actions taken will change the western area of Glendale. He noted that the Motor
Vehicle Department, located south of Bell Road, was open. He urged people to watch
children around water.
Mayor Scruggs stated that she and her co-host, Dr. Kathleen H. Goeppinger, will
be hosting a community conversation event on Saturday, August 17 at Midwestern
University from 8:00 to 11:00 a.m. She said all of the candidates for Legislative
Districts that represent Glendale had been invited. She encouraged all voters to be
there to show them that views in the West Valley are important and that our needs must
be communicated to the Legislature. She asked those interested in attending to access
the City's web page to register. She noted that the first 500 people to register will be
entered into a raffle.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
Pamela • iveira - City Clerk
38