Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/17/2002 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP September 17, 2002 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Jon Paladini, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk 1. DRAFT ART PROJECT - ADULT CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Warren Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Mr. Wayne Baxter, Arts Commission Liaison and Parks and Recreation Superintendent OTHER PRESENTERS: Dr. Kathleen H. Goeppinger, Chair of the Arts Commission The Arts Commission recommended commissioning artists Mr. Brower Hatcher and Ms. Shan-Shan Sheng to design and construct two works of art for the new Adult Center. The new Adult Center is located at 59th Avenue and Brown Street. By ordinance, the City requires that all City-sponsored construction projects set aside 1% of the estimated cost of the project to be placed in the Municipal Arts Fund. These funds are to be utilized for the purpose of acquiring artworks for the City of Glendale. By commissioning the artworks during the planning/construction phase of the project, the artwork can more easily be incorporated into the architectural design of the facility. Working in conjunction with the architect, the artist can design a custom piece that is fully integrated into the available space and complements the architecture. Both Mr. Hatcher and Ms. Sheng have collaborated with the Adult Center architects early on in the process. Mr. Hatcher, from Providence, Rhode Island, is an artist/sculptor of international acclaim. He will be commissioned for a suspended sculpture consisting of geometrical webs created from color-coated stainless-steel rods with nickel-plated brass fittings. The dimensions are 14 feet wide at the top, 10 feet wide at the bottom, 7 feet tall, and 3 feet deep. The sculpture will hang from the Adult Center lobby ceiling from six anchor points via steel cables. The structural load is well within engineering specifications. 1 Ms. Sheng, from San Francisco, California, is a highly recognized artist in both her native country of China and the United States. She will be creating a glass-paneled staircase railing. The railing consists of cold cast glass panels, which incorporate vibrant colors in the design. The railing, consisting of approximately 36 individual glass panels, will travel along the inside of the staircase and carry up and across the second floor balcony. The railing will be approximately 114 feet in length and 36 inches in height. In November of 2001, the Arts Commission reviewed potential sites and identified the Adult Center as an ideal location for public art. Approval was given to distribute a "Call to Artists". In January of 2002, a "Call to Artists" was advertised on artistregister.com and mailed to over 140 individual artists. Within the facility, the Arts Commission identified two project areas — a suspended ceiling piece in the main lobby and an artwork utilizing the fascia of the second floor balcony. In April of 2002, the Arts Commission evaluated and ranked the 23 artist applications. Mr. Hatcher was chosen to create a piece for the suspended ceiling project and Ms. Sheng was chosen to provide the artwork for the fascia of the second floor balcony. In July of 2002, the Arts Commission approved Mr. Hatcher's proposal by a vote of 3-2, and Ms. Sheng's concepts unanimously. This item was discussed and reviewed by the Arts Commission in public meetings held in January, April, and July of 2002. Mr. Hatcher's project, Suspended Woven Sculpture, has an artist fee of $70,000, with a contingency of $10,000 and a total cost of $80,000. Ms. Sheng's project, Glass Panel Railing, has an artist fee of $73,000, with a contingency of $10,000. In addition, this project requires installation of the glass panels by the general contractor. An estimate for the installation of glass has been established in the amount of $30,000. The total project cost is $113,000. The contingencies for each project cover costs related to lighting, signage, and dedication for the artwork and unforeseen expenses. Both pieces will require limited maintenance, consisting of periodic dusting. Maintenance will be coordinated through the Arts Maintenance fund. This project will be paid out of the Municipal Arts Fund, which has a current balance of $860,841. The recommendation was to review the recommendations of the Arts Commission and provide direction. In response to Councilmember Goulet's question, Dr. Goeppinger estimated the depth of the Weaving Waters piece to be three to four feet. Dr. Goeppinger stated that they could work with the artists with regard to the colors used. She confirmed that the artwork would be lit at night. 2 Councilmember Frate asked if Mr. Hatcher has other pieces of artwork in other buildings. He also asked Dr. Goeppinger if she was comfortable with the size of the piece and its compatibility with Ms. Sheng's piece. Dr. Goeppinger explained that the intent was to give the impression of a chandelier or other item of importance in the lobby. She said they had looked for artists who were used to creating artwork for both indoor and outdoor spaces. She pointed out that locating artwork inside the building helps protect it from weather and other elements. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that a sense of water comes from the piece's fluidity, and not its color. He asked if the overhead piece would move. Mr. Baxter said, while there will be slight movement, the piece would be anchored at six different points. Mayor Scruggs asked what gave the artist the impression that the building has a southwestern design. Dr. Goeppinger guessed that the artist assumed a southwestern design, given the building's location. Councilmember Clark stated that the balcony area does not relate to the second proposal. She pointed out that the colored glass panels could compete with Mr. Hatcher's piece. Mayor Scruggs agreed. Dr. Goeppinger stated that, while their concern was valid, both artists have agreed to collaborate. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that the two pieces will complement each other. He stated that the colored light filtering through the glass will enhance the color in the hanging piece. Councilmember Goulet asked if the glass panels would be framed. Mr. Baxter responded that they would not be framed. Councilmember Goulet asked if the glass panels would need to be lit from the back side to achieve the full effect of their colors. Mr. Baxter said lighting for the piece would be addressed after the second level has been completed. Councilmember Martinez asked about the $30,000 cost of installing the artwork and if it is necessary for the artist to oversee its installation. Mr. Baxter said it would be best to have a general contractor install the glass panels at an appropriate time during construction. Mr. Smith explained that the cost associated with overseeing the installation is minimal. He stated that the majority of the cost is for the installation itself. In response to Councilmember Frate's question, Mr. Baxter said, as a general rule, they spend the entire contingency established. Councilmember Martinez pointed out that the Arts Commission had voted three-to-two in favor of the hanging piece. Mr. Paladini explained that a majority vote of the quorum is all that is required. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the lobby's natural lighting could obscure the glass panels. Mr. Baxter said the light will actually work to the piece's advantage. Vice Mayor Eggleston questioned whether the panels could break if struck. Mr. Smith said they were identifying ways to secure the panels and anticipated using a kick-plate to protect the bottom of the glass. Mr. Baxter pointed out that the glass panels will be located outside the structure glass specified by the general contractor and will not be in contact with the general public. 3 Councilmember Clark said, while she liked Mr. Hatcher's piece, she believed it was better suited for an outside environment. She stated that she liked Ms. Sheng's piece, but was concerned about its blue, pink, and white color scheme. She explained that people who will be using the facility are very vibrant and active and would prefer to see a strong sense of color. She suggested that they light Ms. Sheng's piece with low lighting to highlight the piece from below. She pointed out that low lights would also act as a safety feature. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with Councilmember Clark's suggestion to use low lighting. He expressed his opinion that the Hatcher piece will not fit with the heavy glass in Ms. Sheng's piece. He said he would prefer to see another art piece selected. Councilmember Martinez asked if the City had spent any money with regard to Mr. Hatcher's piece. Mr. Baxter stated that the City had paid an incidental amount for the artist's travel expenses. Councilmember Martinez stated that he agreed with Councilmembers Clark and Eggleston regarding Mr. Hatcher's piece. Councilmember Goulet asked if the Arts Commission had originally discussed what type of artwork would be most appealing to the users. He expressed concern that Mr. Hatcher's piece will be visually lost. He said he believed that the glass piece has to be lit from both sides to be effective. Dr. Goeppinger assured Councilmember Goulet that they had discussed who would use the adult center, as well as how they would use it and when. She explained the first floor display cases are intended to display artwork and crafts created by the users. Councilmember Goulet expressed his opinion that the artwork displayed on the first floor would further detract from Mr. Hatcher's piece. Mayor Scruggs said she was concerned about displaying two important pieces by two prominent artists in such a small space. She agreed that the pieces would compete for attention. She stated that, while Mr. Hatcher's work was very interesting, she believed the City would be doing him a disservice by hanging it in the adult center. She voiced the Council's support for Ms. Sheng's piece. She suggested that they hold off finding a second piece until it is determined if one is actually warranted. Councilmember Clark said she agreed with the opinion of the Arts Commission that the lobby needs a strong piece suspended from the ceiling. Ms. Kavanaugh said they would relay Council's comments regarding color and lighting to the artists and bring the item back to the Council in the future. 2. DRAFT ANNEXATION POLICY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director; and Ms. Kate Langford, Senior Planner This was the second of a series of workshops planned to discuss the development of an annexation policy for the City of Glendale. Discussion today focused on a comparison of annexation policies used in the Valley and the different elements of Glendale's draft annexation policy. The first workshop session was conducted on July 16, 2002. During the initial workshop, background information was presented on annexation in general and Glendale's annexation activity since incorporation in 1910. 4 The magnitude of development interest in the "Western Area" of Glendale is exemplified by the following projects: 1. Opening of the Loop 101; 2. Announcement of the 228 acre mixed-use development located at the southeast corner of the Loop 101 and Glendale Avenue; 3. Construction of the multi-purpose arena; 4. 810-lot planned residential development called Rovey Farm Estates; and 5. Announcement of a 216 acre multi-purpose facility located at the northeast corner of Loop 101 and Bethany Home Road. There are approximately 1500+ acres located east of 115th Avenue that have not been annexed into the City. These 1500+ acres are located within Glendale's Municipal Planning Area (MPA), but are currently under Maricopa County's jurisdiction. Any development that occurs on these parcels is constructed to meet County requirements. Land use is determined by the County's Comprehensive Plan, and not the City's General Plan. Citizens benefit from the development of an annexation policy through efficient planning and economical delivery of City services. Annexation is a mechanism by which many positive things can be accomplished: 1. Effective growth management; 2. Efficient planning and provision of services; 3. High-quality development in accordance with adopted City standards; 4. Creation of a stronger community; 5. Social and economic benefits for the City; and 6. Management and implementation of the City's long range planning efforts, such as the Transportation Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and Glendale 2025. The draft annexation policy has been reviewed by the Property Acquisition Team. The team consists of representatives from various departments, including Planning, Engineering, City Attorney, Environmental Resources, Transportation, Deputy City Manager, and Economic Development. The basic framework for this discussion about an annexation policy was taken from Council comments offered during the last two years regarding specific annexations or annexation requests. 5 After the conclusion of the annexation policy workshops, staff will conduct a public meeting to gather citizen input on the Council's draft annexation policy. This public meeting will be conducted prior to Council adoption of an annexation policy. The Council's draft annexation policy will also be placed on the City's website for easy access by citizens and other interested parties. There are no direct costs associated with the development of the annexation policy. The recommendation was to provide direction to staff regarding the development of Glendale's Annexation Policy. Ms. Langford reviewed the reasons to annex, as well as the rationale behind establishing an annexation policy. She discussed how other cities have dealt with annexation. She said most communities are adopting a formal annexation policy and utilize pre-annexation agreements. She noted that the cities of Chandler and Mesa have intergovernmental agreements between the two jurisdictions and generally do not use pre-annexation agreements. She reported that the other cities do not charge a fee for processing annexation requests or to annex developed areas. She pointed out that the City of Glendale has an informal annexation policy and has not utilized pre- annexation agreements in the past. Ms. Langford stated that the draft annexation policy approaches annexation areas in two distinct ways: (1) proactively annexin,the remaining unincorporated areas, whether developed or undeveloped, east of 115 Avenue; and (2) annexation west of 115th Avenue will not be actively pursued,atthis time and will be considered on a case-by- case basis. She explained that 115 Avenue was identified as the boundary because to date, emergency response planning and utilities planning have been done up to 115h' Avenue. She said the City of Glendale has no service area west of 115th Avenue. She pointed out that Luke Air Force Base is virtually self-contained. She said the area from 115 Avenue to Perryville is served by six or seven private utility companies, with Rural Metro and the Sheriff's Office responding to emergency calls, and no sewer service. Ms. Langford stated that there are 1,000 acres of undeveloped land located east of 115th Avenue, concentrated along the Loop 101, and between 75th and 83rd Avenues. She said there are approximately 445 acres of developed land east of 115th Avenue. She said there are approximately 40 square miles west of 115th Avenue, with 4 square miles occupied by Luke Air Force Base, 15 square miles within the 65 LDM Noise Contours, 9 square miles of developed area outside the noise contour areas and 12 square miles of farmed or undeveloped land. Ms. Langford explained that a pre-annexation agreement would: (1) clarify the scope of the annexation for both the City and the annexing area, detailing the types of services and timing of services to be provided by the City; and (2) identify specific infrastructure needs and a method to upgrade infrastructure needs to City standards (i.e., the formation of Improvement Districts or through the Capital Improvement Plan). Councilmember Martinez asked Ms. Langford what constitutes a majority of property owners. Ms. Langford explained that the policy would require the support of 50% of the homeowners in a residential area before a request for annexation would go before the Council for consideration. She pointed out that the statutory requirements for obtaining annexation petition signatures are very specific. 6 Mayor Scruggs asked when residents in the area to be annexed would be shown a pre- annexation agreement. Ms. Langford stated that a pre-annexation agreement would be done at the beginning of the formal process. She noted that it was suggested they obtain signatures on the pre-annexation agreement at the same time signatures on the formal annexation petition are collected. Mayor Scruggs voiced her support of pre- annexation agreements. She stated that it clarifies the situation for everyone involved. She expressed her opinion that a pre-annexation agreement should be drafted after the annexation analysis and presented to the City Manager Management Team and the City Council. She agreed that the residents should sign both the pre-annexation agreement and formal annexation petition. She suggested that, prior to signing the pre- annexation agreement, the public be given an opportunity to comment on its contents. Ms. Langford pointed out that a number of neighborhood meetings are held when the City is considering annexing a developed area. Mayor Scruggs stressed the fact that the City Manager Management Team and the City Council should review and indicate their support of a pre-annexation agreement prior to it being reviewed by the residents. She asked if pre-annexation agreements would be used with regard to undeveloped areas. Ms. Langford stated that the issues involved in undeveloped areas differ from those in developed areas and would be addressed through other processes. She said a pre-annexation agreement would not necessarily be required for an undeveloped area. She noted, however, that one could be utilized if the Council so desired. Mayor Scruggs urged staff to exercise caution before dismissing the use of pre-annexation agreements with regard to undeveloped land. Mr. Ernster said it would be handled on a case-by-case basis. Mayor Scruggs said the policy should incorporate language concerning the use of a pre-annexation agreement with regard to annexing undeveloped property. Mr. Ernster agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He acknowledged that such agreements have been used in the past. He also agreed that the process should include an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the pre-annexation agreement. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was in favor of the policies and believed they had been well thought out. Vice Mayor Eggleston said he liked the idea of a pre-annexation agreement. He questioned if they would be able to obtain majority support. Mr. Froke agreed that it can be difficult to convince residents that annexation is best for their area. He clarified that the pre-annexation agreement would act more as a disclosure statement. He suggested that it be referred to as a pre-annexation disclosure statement rather than an agreement. Mayor Scruggs asked how other cities handled pre-annexation agreements. Ms. Langford explained that the other cities typically annex undeveloped properties and handle developed areas on a case-by-case basis. Mayor Scruggs asked if a disclosure statement would be binding on residents who chose not to sign it. Mr. Paladini said, whether residents sign the disclosure statement or not, they would have the option of going through the statutory process to establish an improvement district. Councilmember Clark said, regardless of what they called the agreement, she believed it was an attempt to single out certain neighborhoods that come with inherent problems, such as Country Meadows and Pendergast Estates. She pointed out that existing areas of the City are able to make improvements to their neighborhoods with the help of various City programs, including the Sewer Program and the Neighborhood Partnership Program. She said an agreement that requires annexed areas to establish improvement districts will not entice them to come into the City. She stated that she found the direction their conversation had taken to be disturbing. 7 Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion that Councilmember Clark's characterization was extraordinarily harsh. She acknowledged, however, that Councilmember Clark had raised some valid points. Mayor Scruggs agreed that annexed communities would have the same availability to the City's programs as any other area of the City. She stated that she had never intended to imply otherwise. Councilmember Martinez said he supported the idea of a pre-annexation agreement because it would put everything in writing and help minimize misunderstandings. He agreed that annexed areas would be eligible for the City's programs. He pointed out that they might even qualify to be included in the Capital Improvement Plan. Councilmember Lieberman stated that annexation would entitle areas to apply for assistance through the City's various programs. He said the essence of the agreement would be to inform an area what the City would and would not offer, thereby, preventing future problems for the City. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Broyles if capital improvements for a sizeable development could be included in the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Broyles said, prior to the 1999 bond election, the City's policy was to have newly annexed areas pay for their infrastructure through an improvement district. He said the City's policy has since changed, allowing annexed communities to finance improvements through the Capital Improvement Plan process. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that Councilmember Martinez would be given 10 square miles of neighborhoods to bring forward into the Capital Improvement Plan. She stated that this was never part of the City's policy. She stated that the pre-annexation agreement would memorialize what has always been City policy. She asked if the City will revert back to its previous policy once the $10 million provided by the 1999 bond election goes away. Mr. Broyles responded in the affirmative. Mayor Scruggs emphasized the fact that they were not singling out any neighborhoods for different treatment. Councilmember Martinez stated that, a couple of years ago, the Council had asked staff what it would take to bring sewer service to all neighborhoods. He said staff had indicated it would cost $10 million and recommended that it be done through an improvement district. He said the City needs to establish a program that would help older, less affluent neighborhoods that cannot afford the up-front costs. Councilmember Clark said she would not support any agreement that details who would pay for future improvements. She said neighborhoods that can afford to make improvements should be required to pay for them. She noted, however, that the City should help less affluent neighborhoods. She pointed out that the City already expends police and fire resources by responding to calls that the County cannot answer. She referred to a previous presentation wherein staff stated that the property taxes of a particular annexed area would offset the cost of needed improvements. She asked if they were taking into consideration the fact that these residents' property taxes would also offset future needs and costs. Mr. Ernster clarified that the disclosure statement would be an effort to make neighborhoods acknowledge current City policy. Mayor Scruggs agreed with Mr. Ernster. She stated that City policy applies to all neighborhoods throughout the City, and not just those annexing into the City. She pointed out that all neighborhoods would be eligible to take advantage of any future changes in the City's policies. 8 Councilmember Clark said the City made millions of dollars worth of investments when the Arrowhead Ranch area was forming. She ,paidthe City had annexed all-around neighborhoods between the Loop 101 and 75 Avenue, making annexation for the remaining neighborhoods more attractive. She stated that, for this reason, the City has an obligation to work with the neighborhoods if they are not in a position to make necessary improvements. Mayor Scruggs asked for a review of the improvements made in the Arrowhead Ranch area. Mr. Reedy said he did not recall any general wholesale improvements that the City made tg the neighborhoods after annexation, except along Sweetwater Avenue, between 63 and 67 Avenues. He pointed out that a number of neighborhoods in the north were developed in the County and designed to meet County design guidelines instead of the City's. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Reedy to comment on the wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Reedy explained that the wastewater treatment plant was constructed as part of the Arrowhead Ranch improvements. He said the City agreed it would not charge impact fees for sewer and water, with the developer paying for the plant's construction. He stated that the plant was found deficient in its ability to meet the growth demand, therefore, the City entered a purchase agreement to buy the plant, negating the impact fee rebate. Mayor Scruggs emphasized that a disclosure statement would make neighborhoods aware of current City policy and avoid situations that have happened in the past. Councilmember Lieberman asked how much the City had spent on the wastewater treatment plant in the past five years. Mr. Reedy estimated that the City spent in excess of $15 million. He noted that the money spent was mostly in impact fees. Councilmember Lieberman said the City previously invested $42 million into the Arrowhead area project to plot 4,490 acres and develop streets, sewers, water lines, and so forth. He said there were two golf courses and no parks. He stated that the investment was made a long time ago. He questioned its pertinence today. He said he liked the draft annexation policy and acknowledged that certain details still needed to be worked out. Mayor Scruggs said the City's investment in Arrowhead Ranch was made over 20 years ago and was part of a development agreement. She asked if the City still does similar development agreements. Mr. Reedy stated that Arrowhead Ranch was the only major master planned community with which the City ever entered into an agreement. Councilmember Clark. clarified that she did not believe it was bad to bail out an area. She stated that, historically, the City has enacted such policies when it has benefited the City. She agreed that the City should make full disclosure. She noted, however, that she would not want to see an agreement that states the residents would be responsible for future improvements. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the annexation policy would go beyond the three or four County islands that Councilmember Clark was concerned about. She said they would not be disclosing City policy if they did not identify who pays for future improvements. Councilmember Clark stated that the rest of the land in the area is undeveloped and would be annexed, typically through development agreements, pre-annexation agreements, or other mechanism. 9 Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that the City did not have a problem assessing impact fees on new home developments because it did not want to place the burden on people already living in the City. He voiced his opinion that they should proceed with the disclosure statement. Councilmember Frate agreed that they should proceed with the draft policy and disclosure statement. He said everyone has to be held to the same standards and have a full understanding of the City's policies. Councilmember Lieberman suggested that staff work on developing the pre-annexation agreement or disclosure statement, incorporating the issues brought up by the Council. Mr. Ernster said staff would take the Council's comments, fine tune the annexation policy, and return to the Council at a future workshop for further review. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. 10