Minutes of the regular meeting held June 20, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

Members Present       

Mayor Drake and Council Members                                         Vice Mayor Lynch

                                                                                                Albert Carroll, Jr.

                                                                                                Gail Leitner

                                                                                                Marie Lopez Rogers

                                                                                                Chuck Wolf

ABSENT                                                                                Jason Earp

Mayor Drake noted that Council Member Earp

was neither excused or unexcused at this point

and stated that he had to have a reason for him

not being here.  He stated that council will

deal with that indication when they received the

reason. ( On July 18, 2005 Council excused Council

Member Earp from this meeting.)

ALSO PRESENT

Charlie McClendon, City Manager

Andrew McGuire, City Attorney

Paul Adams, Fire Chief

Dan Davis, Director of Community and Recreation Services

Rogene Hill, Assistant City Manager

Carnell Thurman, City Engineer

Dean Svoboda, Planning and Building Services Director

Kevin Artz, Finance and Budget Director

Stephanie Prybyl, Intergovernmental Affairs Manager

Linda Farris, City Clerk

STATEMENT BY THE CITY CLERK

Linda Farris, City Clerk, read a statement regarding public appearances.

2)         CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

No report was given.

3)         RECOGNITION ITEMS (MAYOR PRESENTATIONS)

No items were presented.

5)         UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCE

Lynn Bui, 17235 North 75^th Avenue, introduced herself as the new reporter for the Southwest Valley Republic.

Richard Moskowitz, 12358 West Mo nroe Street, thanked the Mayor and Council for their effort with regard to the group home issue.  He thanked Council Member Wolf for having the courage to stand up to Mr. Carber and Ms. Chetkowski.   He said he has watched Avondale double in size over the past four years and believes it is time the city begins to think like a big city and have a Mayor who is available to his constituents on a full-time basis.  He stated many of the things which concern him today were actually put into action seven or eight years ago.  He asked the Council to consider removing the two term limit, expressing his opinion it is inappropriate given the city’s growth and the time that will be consumed breaking in new members.  He also asked the Council to refer to citizens in the audience as “citizens” rather than the “audience” stating he believes that would be more respectful.

Mayor Drake asked Mr. McClendon to speak with Mr. Moskowitz and explain the City Charter’s proceedings and procedures and consider the request to change the cards.

5)         CONSENT AGENDA

Council Member Wolf removed Items 5(f) and 5(g) from the Consent Agenda.

a.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES

·        Regular meeting of June 6, 2005

b.         FINAL PLAT – CANTADA RANCH – FP-04-5

A request from Shelby Duplessis, CMX for final plat approval for Cantada Ranch (formerly El Mirage Estates), 73.32 acres, southeast corner of Lower Buckeye Road and El Mirage road.

c.         AREA AGENCY ON AGING - CONTRACT

            Approval of a contract with Area Agency on Aging, Region I, Inc. to continue the Congregate Meals, Home Delivered Meals, and Multipurpose Center Operations Program for FY 2005-2006 in the amount of 140,382.

d.         CHANGE ORDER – CARSON CONSTRUCTION CO. – SOUTH AVONDALE SIDEWALKS PHASE I

            Change Order I to the construction contract with Carson Construction, Inc. for the South Avondale Sidewalk Project Phase I in the amount of $31,739.20.

e.         INSURANCE RENEWAL FY 05/06

            Renewal of the City’s Property, Liability and Auto Physical Damage policies with the current carriers and approval of a Crime Insurance policy with Zurich at a total premium of $741,283.

Vice Mayor Lynch moved to approve the consent agenda as amended.  Council Member Wolf seconded the motion.  ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

f.          RESOLUTION – ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY RECOVERING ANNEXATION COSTS

            A resolution establishing a policy of recovering annexation costs by requiring a $4,000 deposit and providing for exemptions for City initiated annexations.

Council Member Wolf said he asked staff to modify Section II of the Resolution, in particular with respect to discussions Council had about recovering actual costs prior to consideration of the annexation ordinance in situations where those costs exceed the deposit.

Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, read Resolution 2495-05 by title only.  Council Member Wolf moved to approve the resolution.  Vice Mayor Lynch seconded the motion.  ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

g.         MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING – GALLERY 37 – WEST VALLEY ARTS COUNCIL

            A Memorandum of Understanding to allow staff to install the 2005 Gallery 37 Project to enhance the front of the West Valley Arts Council’s building.

Council Member Wolf suggested Item I of the Memorandum of Understanding be modified to indicate the West Valley Arts Council will present the formal concept to City Council on July 5 for final approval.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked that headings be inserted before Items 3 and 4 to clarify they are not part of the city’s responsibilities.  Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, stated they received a revised document from Bernadette Mills, Director of Programs and Education for the West Valley Arts Council, incorporating language in Section 1 that uses a more generalized description of the art, coupled with Council Member Wolf’s suggested changes to Section I and Vice Mayor Lynch’s suggested changes to Items 3 and 4.

Mayor Drake suggested staff bring the revised document back to Council on July 5.  Mr. McGuire said, while they could bring the item back, the item was originally placed on this agenda because of the June 30 unveiling.

Council Member Wolf said he is not opposed to bringing the item back on July 5 as long as the project is not delayed.  Vice Mayor Lynch agreed.  Ms. Mills said they would very much like the Council to approve the Memorandum of Understanding so they can move forward with some confidence.

Mayor Drake pointed out Council is being asked to approve a document, the wording of which they have not seen.  Mr. McGuire offered to review the changes that will be made.  Mayor Drake stated he is not comfortable approving the document without first being able to review the changes.

Vice Mayor Lynch stated she is fine approving the item because the West Valley Arts Council needs a level of confidence before moving forward.

Mr. McGuire read the present language of Item I into the record, stating the last two sentences will be modified to read: “This year’s Gallery 37 public art project is called “Astral Projections”.  The project will incorporate the use of the six pillars in front of the West Valley Arts Council building, formerly the Avondale City Hall building, at 525 North Central.  The sculpture will be attached and installed above ground level so as to discourage vandalism.  The sculpture will be composed of an abstract, three-dimensional depiction of spheres and energy that inhabit our universe.  The project will  be made of reflective metals, translucent Plexiglas, and solar and neon lights.  Some of the sculpture may project and wrap around the pillars, truly integrating the architecture and the artwork.” 

Vice Mayor Lynch asked if the language essentially represents an update to the project description now that students have started to work on the project.  Ms. Mills responded yes, stating the original description was based on the Master Artist’s original concept and the revision represents a more developed description.

Mayor Drake asked that staff prepare an update for Council when new information is received. 

Council Member Wolf moved to approve the Memorandum of Understanding, subject to the changes read into the record for Items 1(a) and adding Item 1(i) which reads, “West Valley Arts Council will present to the City Council on July 5 the proposed concept for final approval.” and subject to the formatting changes for Items 3 and 4 as requested by Vice Mayor Lynch.  Council Member Lopez-Rogers seconded the motion.  ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

6)         RESOLUTION – INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT – CITY OF GOODYEAR – MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING – CITY OF GLENDALE

A resolution approving an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Goodyear and a memorandum of understanding with the City of Glendale for joint development and use of fire training facilities.

Mayor Drake recused himself due to a conflict of interest and left the room. 

Chief Adams explained west valley fire departments have been discussing the need for a west valley training facility for nearly 6 years.  He said, at the present time, the only training facilities available in the west valley are the Phoenix Fire Academy or the Luke AFB facility.  He explained that the city’s ability to send recruits to Phoenix is predicated on space being available.  He stated the estimated cost for Avondale to construct a comprehensive public safety facility on its own is about $24 million.  He said the Police Chief and he came before Council at its April 11 work session to provide an update on various training alternatives and, at that time, received direction from the Council to maintain an open dialog with the City of Glendale on the Regional Public Safety Training Academy; to move forward immediately with Goodyear on developing a facility at the Field Operations site; and to continue to work with Goodyear to purchase land, identify capital costs and begin the initial design of a joint training facility on Litchfield Road.  He said the Avondale/Goodyear joint facility will be located on approximately seven acres immediately adjacent to the Field Operations site on Lower Buckeye Road and Avondale has presently committed approximately $600,000 for the purchase of that land in conjunction with the Field Operations project and approximately $200,000 is available in the Fire Department’s CIP for additional development.  He reported Goodyear has committed to funding the construction of a three-story tower and burn building on the site.  He stated operation of the facility will be coordinated jointly in accordance with the proposed IGA, which was approved by the Goodyear City Council on June 13.  He explained the facility will serve as a basic facility on an interim basis until other alternatives are developed. 

Chief Adams stated the Glendale facility will not be available for use until December 2006 at the earliest and initial development will focus on law enforcement training needs.  He said the original cost for Avondale’s participation in the Glendale facility was approximately $6.3 million, of which $3.1 million would have been required up front for phase one.  He stated recent discussions, however, have resulted in significant changes in scope, with the current scope calling for a regional fire training facility and Glendale-only police facility.  He explained construction will be done in three phases, targeting the needs identified by the various partners, and capital funding will be spread over the seven year phasing period.  He identified the current fire partners as including Peoria, Sun City West and Glendale Community College, noting discussions are ongoing with Surprise and Goodyear.  He stated Avondale’s participation, assuming no participation by Surprise or Goodyear, would be just slightly over $3 million, noting the amount would decrease to $2.6 million if Surprise decides to participate.  He said a formal IGA will be developed and returned to Council over the next 30 to 60 days 

Chief Adams stated there is a definite need for adequate public safety training facilities and multiple facilities will be required to meet this need given projected growth in the west valley.  He said the Lower Buckeye facility fills an immediate need for fire training at a basic skills level, however, the Glendale facility will meet the need for more sophisticated training to address specialty skills.  He explained the Litchfield Road facility will address ongoing law enforcement training needs and help address future fire department training capacity.  He stated all three facilities will be needed to provide a phased and diversified approach that will address both immediate and future public safety training needs for the City of Avondale.  He pointed out partnering with surrounding communities significantly reduces the overall cost to the City of Avondale.

Chief Adams recommended the City Council adopt a resolution approving an IGA with the City of Goodyear for development and use of a joint training facility on Lower Buckeye Road and approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Glendale for participation in the Regional Public Safety Training Academy.

Council Member Wolf asked when will the Goodyear/Avondale facility come online.  He also asked if Avondale will have a 3.9 percent share in the use of the Glendale Facility.  Chief Adams said the anticipated operational date for the Lower Buckeye facility is September to October.  With regard to the Glendale facility, he explained the city’s 3.9 percent is based on its projected utilization through 2010.  He noted partnering cities have been guaranteed access to the facility and space in recruit training academies.  Council Member Wolf asked if the amount contributed is based on the anticipated level of use.  Chief Adams said the figure was based on the city’s projected utilization through 2010.

Council Member Lopez-Rogers asked if there have been any discussions with Buckeye regarding either facility.  Chief Adams said there were discussions, but his understanding is that they have elected to explore the possibility of constructing their own facility.

Councilman Carroll asked if the facility could be easily razed.  Chief Adams said, at the point they relocate to the Litchfield Road site, the training tower and burn building would be deconstructed and reconstructed.  He stated the other facilities, training props and such could be easily moved.  He said the possibility of moving office space and classrooms also exists, however, the decision to do so would depend on need at the time.

Councilman Carroll asked if the facility would be built in Avondale or Goodyear.  Chief Adams said the Lower Buckeye facility will be in Avondale, however, the Litchfield Road site is in the City of Goodyear.  He explained staff would return to Council with an IGA when Avondale is ready to expand to the Litchfield Road facility. 

Councilman Carroll asked Chief Adams if he is satisfied that the proposed action will meet the city’s requirements.  Chief Adams said he is very confident the proposed facilities will meet the city’s current and future public safety training needs.

Council Member Leitner said the city has needed training facilities for some time and it is great that they will be so easily accessible.  She pointed out the facilities could assist the department in its recruitment efforts.

Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, read Resolution 2496-05, by title only.  Council Member Wolf moved to approve the resolution.  The motion was seconded by Council Member Leitner. 

ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

7)         DESIGN-BUILD AGREEMENT – SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC. – CIVIC CENTER AND OLD TOWN BRANCH LIBRARY PROJECTS

Design-Build Agreement with Sundt Construction, Inc. in the amount of $237,955 for the construction of the Civic Center and Old Town Branch Library projects.

Dan Davis, Director of Community and Recreation Services, explained the City of Avondale has planned for the construction of a 23,000 square foot Library on the Civic Center Complex, noting construction documents and specifications were substantially completed when the City Hall, Police Headquarters and Court Building were constructed.  He noted Avondale entered into an IGA with Maricopa County for operation of the facility for the first five years.  He said, additionally, the City of Avondale had planned to renovate the existing Western Avenue Library, however, it was suggested by the Design-Build team, and later agreed with by staff, that it would be in the best interest of the city to construct a new 12,000 square foot facility as opposed to remodeling the old facility.  He stated staff is currently exploring alternative site locations and Council has approved through the CIP process the funds necessary for construction of a new branch.  He explained the project will be phased, with the pre-construction services limited to programming and conceptual design.  He said an amendment to the pre-construction phase will be brought back, which will lead them into final schematic master planning, design development documents and a GMP for construction of the facility.

Mr. Davis reported $198,215 has been programmed for pre-construction of the Civic Center branch, with $3,251,785 identified for construction and $1.5 million for furnishings and equipment, for a total project budget of $4,950,000.  He stated preconstruction of the Old Town Branch is budgeted at $235,000; although only $25,000 will be used until such time as a location has been selected.  He said construction will total $1,560,000 and furnishings and equipment will total $455,000, for a total budget of $2,250,000.

Mr. Davis stated they will begin preconstruction of the Civic Center branch upon Council’s approval, noting preconstruction is expected to take three to four months.  He said the facility should be completed by June 2006 and operations should begin July 1, 2006.  He stated programming and conceptual master planning for the Old Town Branch will begin immediately and the timing for Phase II will be determined based on the results of that work.

Mr. Davis recommended Council approve the Design-Build Agreement with Sundt Corporation, Inc. in the amount of $237,955.

Councilman Carroll asked what size population is the Civic Center branch expected to serve.  Mr. Davis said they consider the Civic Center branch to be a regional facility, serving an area of three to five miles in radius.  Councilman Carroll asked if the facility will be adequate to serve as many as one million people.  Mr. Davis said they do not envision the facility serving that many people, stating the branch will be able to be efficiently operated and managed and provide service to an area that is approximately five miles in radius.  He stated that plan is to have multiple facilities within the city.

Councilman Carroll stated the current facility is woefully inadequate to meet demand.  He said he supports both a regional library and a branch in Old Town Avondale.  He stated that meeting space is insufficient within city facilities.   He expressed his opinion there could very well be one million people living within a five mile radius of the Civic Center branch.  He pointed out the facility not only has to serve the people who already reside in Avondale, but those who will move to Avondale in the future. 

Vice Mayor Lynch asked if they have taken into consideration the increased price of steel, cement and glass.  Mr. Davis said they will discuss those issues with Sundt once the process begins.  He pointed out construction costs are currently projected at $130.00 per square foot.

Mayor Drake asked if the original library was going to be 30,000 square feet.  Mr. Davis responded no, stating the library has always been projected at approximately 23,000 square feet.

Council Member Leitner asked how a 23,000 square foot library compares to other libraries in the west valley.  Mr. Davis said the regional facility in Surprise is similar in size.

Mayor Drake pointed out the Surprise facility was inundated when they opened.  Mr. Davis stated the library is busy, but over 70 percent of the patrons who currently use the facility use the self-check-in, self-check-out and other technologies within the facility, which has helped reduce staffing costs.  He said the facility is adequate in size and provides sufficient room for growth.

Council Member Wolf stated a five mile radius, assuming it is built out in the same manner as the rest of Avondale, will have 180,000 to 200,000 people.  He strongly encouraged staff to ensure they account for that level of circulation.  He said it is also important to look to the new Old Town branch as a resource to help remove some of the pressure from the regional facility.  He suggested staff work with the design builder to take advantage of opportunities they have to better outfit the Old Town facility.  

Mr. Davis noted the City of Phoenix is looking to expand library operations at their 91^st Avenue and Lower Buckeye campus, which will also serve Avondale residents.

Vice Mayor Lynch moved to approve the Design Build Agreement with Sundt Construction, Inc..  Councilman Carroll seconded the motion.  ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

8)         RESOLUTION – ESTABLISHMENT – AVONDALE MUNICIPAL ARTS COMMITTEE

A resolution establishing the Avondale Municipal Arts Committee which will develop and administer the city’s Public Arts Program.

Rogene Hill, Assistant City Manager, explained, Council directed staff to review how other cities fund public art; recommend a funding mechanism, other than a dedicated sales tax; and bring back a recommendation to initiate a Public Arts program.  She explained the most frequent method for funding public arts is through a percentage of the CIP, noting many large cities use up to one percent of their total CIP budget.  She stated those programs are often mature and many have a commitment to the performing arts.  She said staff found a reasonable first step was to allocate approximately $100,000 per year to the program, restricting those funds to visual arts at this time.  She stated staff is recommending the methodology as well, which is to reduce the General Fund Transfer to the CIP by five percent in 2006/07, thereby generating $100,000.

Ms. Hill explained the proposed funding structure was selected because using General Fund money avoids reliance on development impact fees and utility fees that make up a large portion of the CIP budget.  She stated the mechanism also provides more flexibility in terms of the placement of art and a greater level of accountability in terms of the city’s accounting and audit processes.  She stated they are recommending funding begin in 2006/07 to give the committee one year to get established, organize and develop the program, and develop the work plan and inventories.  She explained the committee will be composed of seven members; one artist, one business owner and five residents with an interst in the arts.  She stated the Committee will also have one ex-officio member from the West Valley Arts Council who will provide expertise, experience and direction to the committee.  She said the committee will function according to city standards with respect to Boards and Commissions and its role will be to make recommendations to Council before funds are committed.  She explained the duties of the committee include developing a mission, vision and goals; inventorying existing public art and potential sites; researching sources; developing guidelines; and advocating for the arts.

Ms. Hill stated, once approved by Council, the committee will be formed and the program will be funded during the budget season.  She said the committee will then begin its development of the program; hold a mini-symposium; establish the vision, goals and work plan; and bring recommendations back to Council for approval.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked about the format of the mini-symposium.  Ms. Hill explained the intent of the symposium would be to gain a common understanding of what public art is, what it means, and how to go about making the program significant for the community. 

Vice Mayor Lynch asked if the Committee would talk with various residents.  Ms. Hill agreed they need to bring the community in and give them an opportunity for input.

Council Member Wolf asked about the rationale behind requiring that one of the members be a business owner.  Ms. Hill explained the intent behind setting aside two seats, one for an artist and one for a business owner, was to ensure they involve those elements of the community.  She pointed out public art projects are often displayed in business areas.  She noted, however, Council could chose to leave all seats open to residents.  Council Member Wolf expressed concern that one person will represent the entire business community without having been elected by the business community to do so.  He said he would rather the Committee gather input from the business community as a whole.  He also questioned the need to reserve a seat for an artist, stating the ex-officio member from the West Valley Arts Council will be able to provide input on behalf of the arts community.

Council Member Wolf said the markups appear to include radical changes to the city’s standard language.  Mr. McGuire, City Attorney, said the changes were made at the request of Vice Mayor Lynch to bring the language more in line with other Council rules and procedures for other Boards and Commissions.  Vice Mayor Lynch agreed.  Ms. Hill noted the original draft of duties and responsibilities was taken from a draft in the Parks Department.  She stated the revised language was provided by the City Attorney’s office based on the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures.

Mayor Drake suggested the Council be given time to review the Memorandum of Understanding.  Ms. Hill offered to bring the item back at a future Council meeting.

Mayor Drake expressed his opinion the requirement that the member be an Avondale resident who is a visual or performing artist is somewhat obscure.  He suggested they also modify the language in Item 3d to say available, rather than appropriate, staff will be assigned to the committee.

Vice Mayor Lynch commented on the importance of giving the business community a say, noting many are deeply involved in the arts.

Vice Mayor Lynch moved to continue Item 9 to July 18, 2005.  Councilman Carroll seconded the motion. 

Council Member Lopez-Rogers asked if the language concerning the Council subcommittee who will appoint members to the Committee is appropriate.  Vice Mayor Lynch noted the language comes from the Council’s procedures.  Ms. Hill stated they will work with City Attorney staff to revise the language to meet with Council’s approval.

Council Member Wolf asked that at least some thought be given to creating a subcommittee of the Public Arts Committee that would engage more of the business community.  Ms. Hill explained it was felt that having a business person as a voting member on the committee would give that person an inroad to discuss art related issues with their colleagues throughout the business community.

ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

9)         ORDINANCE – ILLICIT DISCHARGE – AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE

An ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the City Code to include Article III Storm Water Quality Protection.

Carnell Thurman, City Engineer, explained an unfunded federal mandate from the Clean Water Act required cities to participate in a program to eliminate discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff.  He stated Avondale submitted their permit to the state in March 2003, noting the permit required that they implement and enforce a storm water management program to reduce the discharge pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, protect water quality, and satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act.  He said six minimum control measures were identified during a Council update on the city’s storm water management plan in September 2004, including public outreach and education, public involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post construction runoff control, and municipal good housekeeping.  He said staff used an array of different methods to provide information to the public and involve them in the process.  He stated, once the ordinance has been adopted, staff will do a press release and address the HOA summit scheduled for July 7.

Mr. Thurman explained illicit discharge is defined as any discharge to a municipal storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water.  He said the purpose of the ordinance is to promote the public heath, safety and general welfare by limiting the discharge of pollutants in the City’s storm drain system and to empower the city to seek out and eliminate illicit discharges by identifying enforcement tools and penalties.  He stated focal points of the ordinance include definitions of a public storm system, prohibited discharges and allowable discharges.

Mr. Thurman reviewed compliance procedures, explaining the city will post the ordinance on the City’s web page with a contact number for violation reporting, staff will log the call into the City’s Citizen Serve system, and route complaints to the appropriate departments for investigation.  He said violation procedures will begin with education and verbal warnings, followed written warnings for minor violations and Code Enforcement processing major violations.  He stated existing staff will manage the program and complaint volumes will be monitored.  He said they will research what other cities have done and what other sources of funding may be available to support the unfunded mandate. 

Mr. Thurman recommended Council adopt the ordinance.

Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, read Ordinance 1114-05, by title only. 

Vice Mayor Lynch expressed her opinion the city should be more proactive rather than reactive, suggesting they send a mailer to every pool owner to let them know they cannot empty their pool water into the street.  She said people obtain permits to re-plaster their pools and let the plaster results run into the storm drains, suggesting the city use that as an opportunity to educate both the contractor and homeowner about the city’s ordinance.  Mr. Thurman agreed the city staff needs to take a proactive stance, noting they have already had discussions to that effect.

Councilman Carroll suggested they provide pool contractors with instructions on how to dispose of plaster.  He asked how the city addresses construction sites that fail to retain their storm water onsite.  He stated ordinances related to construction sites will come to Council over the next year, noting most developers already follow best management practices.  He said, until those ordinances are in place, the city will continue to educate developers and ask that they establish best management practices.

Councilman Carroll mentioned a particular situation wherein storm water from one development flows directly into another development.  He expressed his opinion the situation should be addressed in the initial stages of ground work for the development rather than waiting until the development has been constructed.  Mr. Thurman stated the city’s storm water retention requirements require developers to maintain a certain amount of retention.  He said the subject ordinance is intended to address illicit discharge only.

Council Member Lopez-Rogers noted the National League of Cities has monitored and is strongly opposed to the unfunded mandate.  She suggested Ms. Prybyl monitor the issue as well as possible sources of grant funding.  Mr. McClendon, City Manager, assured Council Member Lopez-Rogers Ms. Prybyl’s responsibilities with the federal legislative agenda will include looking for new legislation that would impose unfunded mandates as well as grant funding.

Mayor Drake asked city staff for a definition of an unfunded mandate.  Mr. McClendon explained an unfunded mandate is when the federal government requires cities to enforce a regulation or provide a service without providing the funding necessary to carry out that action.

Vice Mayor Lynch moved to adopt Ordinance 1114-05.  Council Member Wolf seconded the motion.  ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

Meeting recessed for a short break.

10)       PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE – DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AVONDALE GATEWAY PAD (Z-05-5)

Public hearing on an ordinance approving Case Z-05-5, a request for development plan approval in the PAD (Planned Area Development) District, subject to the 11 stipulations recommended by staff.

Dean Svoboda, Planning and Building Services Director, explained the PAD zoning on the subject property was approved in 1988 and was planned at that time to accommodate hotel, restaurant, office, retail and convention centers.  He said the property never developed and the plan lapsed and, as a result, Council is charged with approving a new development plan to establish the permitted uses and required development standards for the property.  He stated the General Plan splits the property in half, with half intended for freeway commercial and the other half intended for employment uses.  He stated the proposal would allow commercial, retail, hotel, office and business park uses and divides the property into three separate areas, a commercial core immediately adjacent to Avondale Boulevard; mixed use office in the center, and a business park on the eastern half.  He stated, generally speaking, the proposed zoning is intended to reflect the desired characteristics called for along Avondale Boulevard and the nature of the proposed uses are typical for general retail, commerce park and office developments.  He noted, however, automotive related uses and drive-thru restaurants, with the possible exception of a coffee shop with a drive-thru window, will not be permitted.  He stated hotels and conference facilities will be permitted in the Mixed Use Office Park and manufacturing or assembly of finished products will be permitted in the Business Park.  He said traditional neighborhood uses, such as gas stations, freestanding pharmacies, and conveniences stores are not permitted; however, there are some provisions for retail, subject to size limitations.  He stated commercial uses are not permitted in the Business Park.  He reviewed access to and circulation on the site, stating a full turning movement will be available at Roosevelt Street and a traffic signal will be installed at that location during the first phase of development.  He said a loop road and additional access out to Avondale Boulevard will also be provided during the first phase of construction.  He stated additional street improvements to Roosevelt will be made to 111^th Avenue and a portion of 111^th Avenue will be completed.  Mr. Svoboda stated the development standards are consistent with the Specific Area Plan and General Plan as it relates to the frontage of Avondale Boulevard.  He stated the PAD will require master site plan approval for a minimum of five acres and the design guidelines associated with the PAD vary as they relate to the commercial portion, mixed use office and business park.  He said the developer intends to have cohesive architecture and quality materials and the business park is intended to be high-end.

Mr. Svoboda reported the Planning Commission recommended approval on May 19, subject to 11 stipulations.  He said, since that time, staff has worked with the applicant on a number of issues and, as a result, some of the stipulations recommended by the Planning Commission are no longer needed.  He stated Stipulations 10 and 11 can be deleted and Stipulations 1, 2 and 6 can be modified.  He said staff also identified a number of additional stipulations necessary to clarify the request.  He stated, therefore, staff recommends approval subject to 17 stipulations.

Mr. Svoboda stated the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan and will result in compatible land use relationships and ensure a level of development that meets City objectives for Avondale Boulevard.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing and asked for comments.  As no comments were received, he closed the public hearing.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked if the 65 foot high sign is high enough, noting previous signs of that height have had to be raised.  Mr. Svoboda said they believe 65 feet is adequate given the height of the buildings to be developed, the vertical alignment of the freeway, and the property’s location.  Vice Mayor Lynch suggested a higher sign would give visitors to the hotel more notice that they need to exit the freeway.  Mr. Svoboda said the hotel itself will be quite prominent and, in his opinion, the site will have adequate signage even without a pylon sign.  He stated, however, the sign will help identify the property as a whole and provide additional signage for other tenants.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked if the drive-thru coffee shop will attract a lot of transient traffic.  Mr. Svoboda said one of their concerns was that they not underutilize the site and encourage a freestanding convenience use.  He stated a coffee shop, in relationship to hotels and offices, should receive a lot of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.  He noted the conditions require that the coffee shop be an end-cap.  He stated, while he cannot guarantee people will not drive across the freeway for coffee, the use is not expected to change the character of the area.  He said safeguards can be put in place to ensure congestion issues do not arise.

Vice Mayor Lynch referenced Page 5 of the Permitted and Other Uses, pointing out it states a financial institution will be permitted only if it does not have a drive-thru facility.  She said she cannot imagine in today’s world a financial institution is going to build and not have a drive-thru.  Mr. Svoboda explained the types of uses for the commercial core were a source of great debate and they were intent on not duplicating the situation at Gateway Pavilions where the prime corner is occupied by a bank.  He explained in terms of exposure, community visibility and sales tax generation, banks are not considered an optimum use.  He said the subject corner is considered to be equally prime and, while they did not want to eliminate the potential of a credit union or small loan office of some type, they do not believe it is a good location for a major financial institution.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked that Pay Day Loan type uses be added to the list of prohibited uses.  Mr. Svoboda said, given the nature of the uses, staff most likely would have interpreted the list to include Pay Day Loan uses.  He stated, however, he will add the use to the list.  Mr. McGuire cautioned against using a specific trade name. 

Councilman Carroll stated, while the freeway in that area is raised somewhat, he agrees increasing the height of the sign will give travelers some warning that their exit is approaching.  Mr. Svoboda said the height of the sign is left to the discretion of the Council, however, the applicant has requested that the height be set at 65 feet.  He stated staff believes the request is reasonable and he would caution the Council against indiscriminately adding a great deal of height to pylon signs along the freeway, both because of the precedence that could be set and the impact it could have on the community.  He expressed his opinion there would not be much benefit to be had by increasing the height to 80 or 90 feet.  He pointed out signage regarding services and facilities should be provided by ADOT.  He explained the hotels they anticipate attracting to the site will be destination facilities and, while he agrees the pylon sign will help identify the development as a whole, he questions the need for extra height.  Councilman Carroll asked if Avondale will pay for the signage provided by ADOT.  Mr. Svoboda said he would anticipate the developer and ultimate owner of the hotel, rather than the city, would have those conversations with ADOT.

Mayor Drake asked if the Council has established a sign height policy.  Mr. Svoboda said, generally speaking, 65 feet is consistent with the city’s policy.  He stated, given the scale of the development and its location, staff believes 65 feet is appropriate.  He confirmed the applicant is aware of and comfortable with the proposed maximum height.  Mayor Drake said, given that the city has set a sign height policy and the applicant appears to be in agreement with the proposed maximum height, he does not believe the Council should dictate anything different with regard to the pylon sign.

Council Member Leitner said when the case came before the Planning and Zoning Commission there was some concern about the piece that lies up against the freeway.  She asked if anything more has transpired since then.  Mr. Svoboda said the only thing that has transpired since the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing is that the applicant’s narrative has been amended to specifically address the fact that appropriate access provisions will be made when they come in for the master site plan.

Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, read Ordinance 1115-05, by title only.  Vice Mayor Lynch moved to adopt the ordinance.  Council Member Leitner seconded the motion. 

ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

11)       PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE – WEST VALLEY PAWN SHOP – REZONING FROM R-5 TO C-3 (Z04-11)

Public hearing for an ordinance rezoning from R-5 (Mobile Home Park) to C-3 (Major Commercial) .67 acres located at 611 North Dysart Road.

Dean Svoboda, Planning and Building Services Director, explained the subject property has been zoned R-5 almost since it was annexed in 1960.  He explained, prior to 1990, the R-5 District allowed a wide variety of uses and the request is intended to legalize the uses that currently occur on the property.  He stated the area surrounding the subject location is developed with a mobile home park, the Agua Fria Body Shop and a Family Dollar Store.  He said the property itself consists of two separate parcels, with an existing pawn shop located on the northern part of the property along with an auto repair and outdoor storage facility to the back.  He stated the southern parcel is used, in part, as a parking lot.  He stated the applicant has owned the pawn shop property since 1980 and staff believes the use has been in that location long enough to be considered a legal non-conforming use.  He noted the selling of automobiles and minor auto repair has been associated with the pawn shop.   He said the second parcel was approved in 1987 and the applicant purchased the property in 1995 and has been using it as a parking lot.  He stated staff does not believe legal non-conforming rights are associated with that parking lot and the General Plan Amendment indicates the parcel should be used for a commercial use.  He explained the applicant intends to continue operating the pawn shop and intensify the auto sales and repair use, noting he will relocate a portion of a use he has at another property to the subject site.

Mr. Svoboda reported the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request on May 19 and staff believes their recommendation to be appropriate.  He said the primary factor for consideration is the difference between C-2 and C-3 zoning, explaining the General Plan can be implemented by using C-1, C-2 or C-3 districts.  He noted few places in the city would be considered appropriate for C-3 zoning, however, staff believes the subject location to be one.  He explained the surrounding area has a mix of uses and C-3 zoning would make the existing pawn shop a permitted use and allow auto sales and repair as a permitted use without further review.  He pointed out C-3 is the only district in which a pawn shop is permitted. 

Mr. Svoboda stated the existing R-5 zoning is not consistent with the General Plan and the proposed C-3 district is the most appropriate zoning to implement the General Plan.  He recommended approval of the item.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing on this item.  As no comments were received and  he closed the public hearing.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked if it would make sense to stipulate that the car sales have to stay behind the fence and that the parking lot remain in the front.  She explained cars at the current site of the car sales spill onto other sites.  Mr. Svoboda said, since the parking lot does not have legal non-conforming rights, the applicant will need to obtain design review and construction plan approval from the city.  He stated they can control the layout to some degree through the site planning process, however, a stipulation requiring that all outdoor storage be located behind a screen wall could be added if Council so desires.  He pointed out C-3 permits auto sales outright and the city would have the ability to ensure proper parking, landscaping and access, however, the city would be limited in terms of dictating where sales might occur on the property.  He suggested C-2 zoning might be more appropriate if Council desires that level of control.

Council Member Wolf asked what does C-3 zoning provide the city that C-2 could not provide through Conditional Use Permits.  He also asked if the city has any right to impose a zoning requirement on an existing operation.  Mr. Svoboda said, in staff’s opinion, the pawn shop is a legal non-conforming use and would remain as such if the property were rezoned to C-2.  Council Member Wolf asked, in that case, why is the city pushing for a C-3 district in an area that is predominantly C-2 in nature.  Mr. Svoboda explained the applicant has requested C-3 zoning and, given the wide mix of uses and that the city’s General Plan shows the area to the rear to be intense in nature, staff agreed the site would warrant C-3 zoning.  He stated, however, if Council believes the additional level of scrutiny that a Conditional Use Permit provides is needed, C-2 zoning would be more prudent.

Council Member Wolf expressed his opinion the zoning decision should be based on the level of control the city wants to have over development in that area.  He stated, while C-3 would make the current use legal, the use will maintain its legal non-conforming use status if C-2 zoning is applied.  Mr. Svoboda clarified the General Plan is not specific as to the most appropriate type of commercial district, however, C-3 would be consistent with the types of uses currently taking place in the area.  He reiterated, under either zoning, no non-conforming rights are associated with the auto sales and the applicant would not be able to establish an independent auto sales and repair facility without a Conditional Use Permit if C-2 zoning were approved.

Councilman Carroll asked if the city has any control over the level of repair that can be offered on the site if C-3 zoning is approved.  He said, while he is concerned about development along Dysart, he is also concerned about development along Brinker.  Mr. Svoboda explained major auto repair would include engine rebuilding and overhaul, transmission shops, radiator shops, and paint and body work and, under the C-3 district, such uses would require a Conditional Use Permit. 

Council Member Leitner said she sees more C-2 uses in the area than any other type of use.  She expressed her opinion C-2 is more appropriate for the site, given that the applicant will still be able to continue his business.

Councilman Carroll asked if a property owner is required to construct a building to conduct vehicle repairs under C-2 zoning.  He also asked if the structure east of the pawn shop is a trailer or a building.  Mr. Svoboda deferred the question concerning the structure to the applicant.  He said whether a use is conducted inside or outside of a building is subject to review if a Conditional Use Permit is required.  He said, under C-3 zoning, major repair work would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit, therefore the manner in which the use is conducted, the nature of the facilities, access, parking, screening, landscaping and so forth would be subject to Council review.

Mayor Drake asked if the applicant would have to cease their auto repair and storage activities until a Conditional Use Permit could be obtained if Council approves C-2 zoning rather than C-3 zoning.  Mr. Svoboda said certain aspects of the auto sales and repair are directly associated with the pawn shop and, therefore, would be allowed to continue.  He said the applicant’s intent was to relocate auto sales from another site and create an independent auto sales and repair facility, and in order for that to happen under C-2 zoning, a Conditional Use Permit would be required.

Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, read Ordinance 1116-05, by title only. 

Council Member Wolf asked if there will be any impact to the stipulations recommended by staff if Council approves the ordinance for C-2 zoning rather than C-3 zoning.  Mr. Svoboda said there typically are no stipulations associated with a rezoning of this nature. 

Council Member Wolf asked Mr. McGuire if it would be appropriate to make a motion changing the designation to C-2 rather than C-3 or if the item should be brought back.  Mr. McGuire said the Council can stipulate that the ordinance is amended, however, the item could be brought back to Council if Council believes the change is substantive enough to warrant the need for an additional public hearing.  He expressed his opinion a simple motion will suffice.

Council Member Wolf moved to adopt Ordinance 1116-05 subject to a stipulation that the zoning category will be C-2 (Community Commercial) rather than C-3 (Major Commercial).  Council Member Leitner seconded the motion. 

Councilman Carroll asked if it is more difficult to downgrade from C-3 zoning than to increase C-2 zoning.  Mr. Svoboda responded yes, noting the city’s statutes and traditional zoning allows Council to approve a lesser zoning district, but not to approve a higher zoning district.  He stated, should the applicant find that C-2 zoning is not appropriate, he would have the opportunity to make another request for C-3 zoning in the future.  He said the applicant will not be prohibited from establishing an independent auto sales and repair facility, however, they will be required to request a Conditional Use Permit.

ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

14)       PUBLIC HEARING – SPECIAL MEETING – RESOLUTION – FINAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006

Public hearing on the adoption of the final budget and the property tax levy.  Council will convene a special meeting for consideration of a resolution regarding the adoption of the final budget in the amount of $175,945,310.

Kevin Artz, Budget and Finance Director, presented a resolution setting forth the FY 2005/2006 final budget in the amount of $175,945,310.  He explained state budget law requires that the city hold a public hearing and convene into a special meeting to consider the resolution.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing on this item.  As no comments were received, he closed the public hearing.

Mayor Drake opened the special meeting.

Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, read Resolution 2498-05, by title only. 

Mayor Drake asked about a tax increase for this budget year.  Mr. Artz stated the property tax rate will not change for the year, but because the assessed valuation increased, the city’s actual levy will increase.  Mayor Drake asked Mr. Artz to comment on a recent article concerning the city’s tax increase.  Mr. Artz explained the law that requires a truth in taxation notice is based on whether or not the levy increases.  He reiterated the city’s property tax rate has not increased.

Council Member Wolf moved to adopt the resolution.  Vice Mayor Lynch seconded the motion. 

ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Drake closed the special meeting.

13)       PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE – ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT – CHILD CARE CENTERS AND HOME CHILD CARE (TA-04-4)

Public hearing for an ordinance amending Section 102 Definitions, Section 202 Single Family Residential Districts, Section 203 Multi-Family Residential Districts, Section 303 Land Use Matrix, Section 307 Cashion Business District, Section 403 Commerce Park (CP) District, and Section 804 Required Parking Schedule relating to child care in residential, commercial, and industrial districts.

Dean Svoboda, Planning and Building Services Director, reviewed state requirements for child care in residential, commercial and industrial districts, stating certification is required to care for more than four children for compensation within a residential building.  He stated a maximum of 10 children who are not related to the caregiver can be cared for at any given time.  He noted no local approval is required before state certification is given.  He explained the city’s current zoning ordinance defines a day care facility as one offering day time care for more than five children.  He said daycare is permitted in single-family districts only in conjunction with a church, in multi-family districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit, in all commercial districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and in all industrial districts.  He stated the care of five or fewer children is permitted anywhere within the city’s residential districts as an accessory use.  Mr. Svoboda stated the city’s Fire Code and Building Code define daycare as the care of six or more children where there may be the need for automatic fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems.

Mr. Svoboda explained the applicant’s request would allow the care of five to ten children in all residential districts, subject to Conditional Use Permit approval; clarify the requirements for home child care of four or fewer children; amend the definitions in the city’s ordinances; and update and clarify the terminology used to talk about child care in the city’s commercial and industrial districts.  He stated the proposed amendment would allow in-home child care of four or fewer children as an outright use in single-family and multi-family districts and the care of five to ten children in those districts subject to a Conditional Use Permit as long as there are no changes to the residential character of the dwelling’s exterior and no signage related to child care, the caregiver complies with all state and county regulations as well as the fire code, building code and zoning ordinance; there are no changes to the garage, carport or driveway; and any outdoor recreation area is completely enclosed by a six foot masonry wall with self-closing and self-locking gates.  He stated the other portions of the amendment deal primarily with terminology changes.

Mr. Svoboda stated staff believes the amendment is appropriate in that it will clarify requirements for home child care and child care centers and provide consistent use of terms throughout the Zoning Ordinance.  He said Conditional Use Permit approval will provide appropriate assurance that any proposed home child care is located and designed to ensure safety and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and that all code and ordinance requirements are met.  He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of the text amendment on May 19 and staff concurs with that recommendation.

Mayor Drake opened the public hearing on this item and asked for comments.  As no comments were received, he closed the public hearing.

Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, read the ordinance by title only. 

Council Member Carroll expressed his opinion industrial districts are not appropriate for child care centers, given the nature of the work performed and the hazards associated with that type of district.  He suggested they not allow such use in industrial areas.  Mr. Svoboda explained the allowance of child care centers in employment districts is currently in the ordinance and is not part of the requested amendment.  He stated, therefore, such change would require the Council to initiate a separate amendment for that purpose.  He pointed out it is not unusual to have child care facilities in business parks, commerce parks and light industrial districts simply as a service for employees that may work in the area.

Council Member Lopez-Rogers said, given the rising costs of child care, the city needs to have multiple options available for its citizens.  She asked if the city could require home child care providers to construct a fence around swimming pools.  Mr. McGuire, City Attorney, noted the city has a pool enclosure requirement that applies to a number of different uses in the community, but he does not know if it specifically speaks to child care facilities.  Mr. Svoboda said he does not believe the city’s ordinance specifically references in-home child care, but the state certification would include such requirement. He stated, however, Council could add a stipulation to the ordinance to include such requirement.  Council Member Lopez-Rogers asked that such stipulation be added.

Council Member Wolf asked how the fire code applies under the proposed text amendment.  Mr. Svoboda said the structure would be subject to additional requirements once the in-home child care operation begins.  Council Member Wolf asked if the amendment’s language concerning the installation of fire sprinklers is superfluous.  Mr. Svoboda stated the fire code and building code basically stand on their own, but including the requirement as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit calls to everyone’s attention that the standards must be met. Chief Adams explained, while the residential classification of the structure would not change, the number of children being cared for will trigger the sprinkler requirement.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked about CC&Rs that prohibit home businesses.  Mr. Svoboda explained CC&Rs are a private covenant between the property owner and the Homeowners Association and any action that the city might take has no bearing on the validity of the CC&Rs.  He pointed out there is no preemption on CC&Rs in the case of child care as there was in the case of a group home for a protected class, stating, therefore, the use would be subject to review under the CC&Rs.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked if the required stipulations for Conditional Use Permit approval would be any different in this case than in any other case.  Mr. Svoboda responded no, stating the required findings would have to be met.  Vice Mayor Lynch suggested the amendment should have been presented in two parts, one to correct the ordinance and another related to the applicant’s specific request. 

Vice Mayor Lynch suggested people moving into a single family neighborhood have a certain expectation for quality of life.  She expressed concern that this type of use could change the quality of life of residents in the neighborhood.

Mayor Drake asked if the amendment will still consider the care of five or more children an in-home child care facility.  Mr. Svoboda said the amendment will bring the city’s ordinance in line with the state requirements. 

Mayor Drake asked if a neighborhood’s CC&Rs would preempt the city’s ordinance.  Mr. Svoboda said, while he cannot speak to the validity of any specific CC&Rs or to CC&Rs as a class, it is his understanding there would be two separate decisions and enforcement mechanisms if the CC&Rs were valid and applicable.

Council Member Wolf moved to adopt the ordinance.

Upon Council Member Lopez-Roger’s request to include a stipulation requiring pools to be fenced, Council Member Wolf rescinded his motion to adopt.

Mr. Svoboda explained two sections of the ordinance will need to be amended.  He said an additional condition, which reads something to the effect that all swimming pools shall be enclosed in a manner which meets the city requirements for swimming pool enclosures with self closing and self locking gates, will need to be added to Section 202C-9. 

Mr. McGuire suggested staff craft a provision that refers to the city’s’ swimming pool ordinance provisions.

Mr. Svoboda stated Section 203D of the ordinance will also have to be amended.

Council Member Wolf asked if there are homes in Avondale that do not currently meet the city’s pool ordinance.  Mr. Svoboda said it is possible.

Council Member Wolf asked Council Member Rogers if her intent was that a fence be constructed or if another barrier might be acceptable.  Council Member Lopez-Rogers said the pool area should be enclosed. 

Mr. Svoboda agreed with Mr. McGuire’s suggestion for staff to craft a reference to the city’s swimming pool enclosure requirements.  Mr. McGuire pointed out both sections include stipulations that require compliance with the City of Avondale building code, fire code and zoning ordinance.

Mr. Svoboda suggested the item be continued to allow staff an opportunity to craft appropriate language.  Mr. McGuire agreed, expressing his opinion it may even benefit the city to have the Planning Commission review the additional language as well.

Mayor Drake referred to a letter from a citizen which refers to in home child care facilities as group homes.  Mr. Svoboda said the state’s regulations as they relate to child care use unfortunate terminology, such as “child care group homes”.  He explained there is no relationship to the group home recently reviewed by Council and they are not covered by the Federal Fair Housing Act or the Civil Rights Act.  He stated the definition in the ordinance amendment, as proposed, requires that it be less than 24 hours.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked if the item could be brought back in two separate parts.  Mr. Svoboda explained portions of the ordinance that could be directed without a major policy decision would be to clarify the number of children permitted outright for home child care, the definitions of child care and home child care.  He said, beyond that, however, everything else would be subject to the same discussion Council has had this evening.

Council Member Carroll said he does not object to requiring pools to be fenced, but he believes Section 403 should be changed as well to eliminate the provision that permits child care facilities in industrial areas.

Council Member Wolf moved to continue Item 13 to a date uncertain and remand it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to include a pool enclosure requirement.  Council Member Lopez-Rogers seconded the motion. 

Motion carried unanimously.

12)       PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE AVONDALE AUTO MART – REZONING FROM R-5 TO C-2 (Z-04-10)

Public hearing for an ordinance rezoning from R-5 (Mobile Home Park) to C-2 (Community Commercial) 1.3 acres located at 1109 North Dysart Road.

Dean Svoboda, Planning and Building Services Director, explained the history of the subject property is similar to the one in the previous case and the City’s General Plan designation for the area is the same as relates to the recent amendment.  He stated the subject property has two buildings and a parking lot that is being used for auto sales and a restaurant.  He said the property has a history of commercial use and staff is confident the restaurant is legal non-conforming.  He stated, however, the auto related uses do not appear to enjoy the same status and will be subject to enforcement action.  He explained the request is to rezone the property from R-5 to C-2, with the applicant’s intention being to use the property for commercial uses.  He said the applicant’s intention is also to relocate the auto related uses to the property on which the pawn shop is located, which, based on Council’s action with regard to the last case, will require a Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Svoboda reported the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request on May 19 and staff believes their recommendation is appropriate.  He stated, upon approval, the restaurant would become a conforming use and the auto related uses will be subject to Conditional Use Permit approval either at the subject location or at the pawn shop property.

Vice Mayor Lynch asked what the intended use of the property is anticipated to be.  Mr. Svoboda said the applicant has indicated the restaurant will remain, with the rest of the center available for any commercial use.  He stated he is not aware of plans for any immediate changes.  Vice Mayor Lynch expressed concern that uses on that property tend to spill over onto the property to the north.

Vice Mayor Lynch said in reading through the materials it appears the meetings were posted to be held at the pawn shop or the subject site, when, in fact, they were held at the restaurant.  She asked if that poses any legal ramifications.  Mr. Svoboda said he is not aware of any gaps in the public notice.  He stated property owners were notified of the meetings and no complaints were received with regard to not being able to find the meeting.

Mayor Drake opened the item for public hearing and asked for comments.  As no comments were received, he closed the public hearing.

Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, read Ordinance 1117-05 by title only.  Councilman Carroll moved to adopt the ordinance.  Council Member Wolf seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

15)       COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

Appointment of an elected representative to the City of Avondale’s Risk Management Trust Fund Board and Municipal Development Corporation Commission, in addition to Maricopa County’s Community Services Commission and the Development Advisory Committee.

Stephanie Prybyl, Intergovernmental Affairs Manager, explained, during Council Member Shuey’s tenure on the Council, he served as the city’s representative on the City of Avondale Risk Management Trust Fund Board, Avondale Municipal Development Corporation Commission, the Maricopa County Community Services Commission and the Maricopa County Community Development Advisory Committee.  She said, in light of his resignation, Council needs to appoint new representatives to these Boards, Commissions and Committees to ensure Avondale’s continued participation and representation.  She noted Vice Mayor Lynch has expressed interest in serving on the Risk Management Trust Fund Board and Municipal Development Corporation Commission.  She stated Vice Mayor Lynch already serves as alternate on the Maricopa County Community Development Advisory Committee and will naturally progress to become the primary member serving on behalf of the city.  She said Councilman Carroll has indicated an interest in taking over as the alternate for this committee.  She stated Vice Mayor Lynch has also expressed an interest in being appointed to the Community Services Commission and Council has the option of also appointing an alternate.

Vice Mayor Lynch moved to appoint Council Member Leitner to serve on the Maricopa County Community Services Commission and to name Council Member Carroll as the alternate on the Maricopa County Community Development Committee. Council Member Wolf seconded the motion.  ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

Council Member Carroll moved to appoint Vice Mayor Lynch to serve on the Avondale Risk Management Trust Fund Board, Avondale Municipal Development Corporation Commission and Maricopa County Community Development Advisory Committee.  Council Member Wolf seconded the motion.  ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:

Motion carried unanimously.

16)       DISCUSSION ITEMS

No items were brought forward.

17)       ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council, Council Member Wolf moved to adjourn.  Councilman Carroll seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m.

                                                                                                                        Mayor Drake

            Linda M. Farris, CMC

            City Clerk

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Avondale held on the 20^th day of June, 2005.  I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that the quorum was present.

                                    City Clerk