HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/18/2001 * 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 18, 2001
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark,
Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez.
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney;
and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk.
1. PARKS AND RECREATION PROPOSED MASTER PLAN
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager;
and Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director
OTHER PRESENTERS: Mr. Mark Soden, Principal in Charge of Design Workshop; Mr.
Leon Younger of Leon Younger and Pros; and Mr. Chris Tatham of ETC Institute.
In 1999 the Council recognized the need to provide Glendale citizens with quality
facilities, programs, and open space. The Council awarded the firm, Design Workshop,
with a contract to prepare the Parks and Recreation Department's Master Plan. The
proposed master plan is intended to update the current master plan, which was
completed in 1985.
On January 4, 2000, Design Workshop provided the Council with the results of the
Inventory and Findings Phase of the Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan.
The information presented included the results of the citizen's survey, public forums,
and the analysis of the parks and recreation system.
Design Workshop completed the analysis of the public participation and data collection.
A representative of Design Workshop was present at today's workshop session to
present the entire proposed master plan, which includes:
• A brief overview of the master plan process;
• Recommendations on level of service for Parks and Recreation facilities and
programs;
• Recommendations for the 10-year capital improvement program; and
• Action strategies to achieve the goals of the plan.
1
Key issues identified through the citizens' participation process have been used to
develop a comprehensive 10-year parks and recreation master plan. The master plan
is intended to guide the department's policies, procedures, and general operation over
the next ten years. The goals of the plan are to:
• Provide equitable distribution of parks;
• Provide opportunity for residents to participate in design and planning of
parks;
• Develop a system of linked open space and parks to neighborhoods;
• Develop park land, open space, and facilities to conserve natural resources;
• Provide safe facilities and services;
• Facilitate cooperation with public and private agencies for shared use of
resources; and
• Provide high quality parks and facilities that are cost effective and add value
to the community.
The goals of the plan will be implemented through action strategies over the next ten
years. Those strategies include:
• Innovative land acquisition;
• Development of a plan to renovate five parks a year;
• Development of four multi-generational facilities;
• Creation of new lighted sports fields;
• Development of a cultural arts and museum division; and
• Promotion of the Glendale Recreation After School Program (GRASP) city
wide.
Representatives of Design Workshop, Leon Younger and Pros, and ETC Institute were
present to provide a brief overview of the master plan and address Council questions
and comments.
The Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to forward the proposed
master plan to the City Council for review and adoption at the February 12, 2001,
meeting.
The consultant discussed the proposed master plan at the June 8, 2000, June 22,
2000, December 11, 2000, January 8, 2001, and the February 12, 2001, Parks and
Recreation Commission meetings.
The consultant discussed the proposed master plan at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting held on June 8, 2000.
The City Council reviewed the results of the Inventory and Analysis Phase at its
January 4, 2000 Workshop session.
The consultant discussed the results of the visioning process at the September 29,
1999 and December 13, 1999 Parks and Recreation Commission meetings.
The consultant reviewed the key findings of the public involvement process at the
September 13, 1999, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting.
The master plan process and the citizen survey instrument were reviewed with the City
Council at its July 6, 1999 Workshop session.
The City Council awarded the contract with Design Workshop, Inc. at the April 13, 1999
City Council meeting to develop the ten-year Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
The master plan public participation process included one-on-one interviews with
elected officials and the Executive Management Team; 14 focus groups of more than
130 stakeholders; a random sample survey of 909 Glendale households; four public
forums which were attended by 67 citizens, along with an additional 38 surveys from a
neighborhood association.
Approximately 55 citizens attended an open house held on March 7, 2000, to present
the plan to the citizens of Glendale.
The total cost to implement the plan over a ten-year period is $143 million. Funding
sources of approximately $162 million have been identified through a mixture of general
obligation bonds, development impact fees, grants, and partnerships.
The recommendation was to review the Parks and Recreation Proposed Master Plan
and provide staff with direction.
Councilmember Goulet thanked Ms. Kavanaugh, Mr. Smith, City staff and citizens for
their effort on the master plan. He expressed concern about the number of programs
that do not pay for themselves. He asked if they would pay for themselves in the future.
He also asked if a plan had been developed to address citizen comments regarding the
need for a bigger police presence at parks. Mr. Smith said they have an action
strategy, where they will review the current fee philosophy and structure. He explained
that the current policy is to recover 25% of youth programs, 50% of senior programs
and 100% of adult programs. He said they had developed a strategy to deal with
security, including enhancing the Park Ranger program and increasing police security.
Mr. Smith noted that Action Items 14 and 15 address pricing strategies and security.
He said most people felt people residing outside the community should pay a higher
fee.
In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Smith explained that
neighborhood parks have been a cornerstone of the park process. He stated that 10%
of the neighborhoods, mostly those located to the west, do not have parks, either due to
their population or because land is not available. He said the goal is to provide a park
within each square mile.
Councilmember Martinez asked about the baseball field ratio being changed to 1 in
12,000. Mr. Younger explained that they had changed the guideline because soccer
outpaces all other activities. He stated that they would work with school districts and
3
other providers to find space for practice. Councilmember Martinez expressed his
opinion that there are not enough ball fields to accommodate demand, especially in the
Cholla District. Mr. Smith stated that there is an occasional push for little league
baseball fields; however, they are not conducive to multi-purpose use. He said,
consistent with other areas of the Valley, they see less demand for dedicated baseball
fields and an increased need for multi-purpose fields. Mr. Tatham acknowledged a
shortage of baseball fields in Planning Area 4, even by current standards. He said 16
to 20 baseball fields would be needed to meet future guidelines.
Councilmember Martinez asked if anyone had expressed an interest in stand-alone
adult centers. Mr. Younger stated that, while older citizens want separate facilities, the
trend is to build multi-generational facilities. He said, if designed correctly, a multi-
generational facility can give the impression of being a standalone facility.
Councilmember Martinez asked how they would expand the GRASP Program. Mr.
Smith explained that they would work closely with school districts. He noted that
schools are interested in a more non-traditional recreational program. He said they
have approximately 60 children in a pilot program with the Peoria School District.
Councilmember Martinez said he would like to see the process accelerated.
Councilmember Lieberman complimented staff on the master plan. He agreed that
there is a need for additional security in the parks. He noted that this was one of the
most common complaints he receives. He suggested buying the 20 acres of land south
of Bonsall Park and building another multi-generational facility at that location.
Councilmember Lieberman questioned whether the City could afford to accelerate the
restoration of the parks. He asked if money could be set aside during the 10-year
period to provide funding for future parks and facilities.
Councilmember Lieberman suggested that they continue asking developers to
cooperate with the City in developing parks. He stated that the City benefits financially
and the amenities help developers sell their project. Mr. Younger said land values will
continue to escalate; therefore, purchasing land ahead of time would benefit the plan
greatly.
Mayor Scruggs asked if having a library and/or museum within a three-mile radius and
an 18-hole golf course within a two-mile radius was realistic and supported by the
public. Mr. Younger said the guidelines are broader than a national standard and were
customized to the community. He said the radius would probably become smaller as
the community becomes more dense. Mayor Scruggs stated that she would have a
difficult time approving a document that would require her successors to provide an
18-hole golf course within each two-mile radius. She expressed her opinion that the
museum and library requirement was unrealistic. She noted that 45% of the people
who were surveyed indicated that they would not use the facilities. Mr. Younger pointed
out that the golf courses include both private and public courses. Mayor Scruggs
questioned whether land would be available. She noted that they had not been able to
find 300 acres for a master planned community. Mr. Smith said he would look at the
standards for the golf course and museum. Mayor Scruggs noted that the City had not
followed current City guidelines.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the Budget Department staff provided had information on
bonding capability and projections of general funds money. Mr. Smith explained that
they first evaluated the entire park system and then prioritized the projects, based on
available funds. Mayor Scruggs asked if any of the action items address the City of
4
Glendale's lack of established maintenance guidelines. Mr. Smith stated that there are
two strategies which directly address maintenance and a series of action steps will be
taken to train staff and identify/apply standards.
Mayor Scruggs asked staff if they had considered having the City charge back indirect
costs for park services and, if so, which departments would be charged. Mr. Smith said
they had not contemplated charge backs; however, they do ask departments to pay
costs associated with individual services.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the term "town plaza" in Number 7 under Description of the
Master Plan indicates a move towards cement rather than grass. Mr. Smith explained
that a consultant had made a presentation to the Parks and Recreation Commission
two weeks ago and was directed to keep as much grass as possible. He said he saw it
as a focal area of the Center City Plan.
Mayor Scruggs noted that 69% of the population use non-City owned recreational
facilities and programs. She asked if the City was trying to recruit a portion of that 69%
back to the City facilities or if the intent was only to better serve current users. Mr.
Smith said their marketing plan would be directed towards current users and their goal
was to be responsive to that market. He stated that they did not intend to go after users
of other facilities. Mr. Younger explained that, when determining if the City should offer
a service, staff first looks at the number of people who participate in a particular activity
and the number of other facilities in the area that already provide the service for this
activity. He said it is best if the City can compliment gaps in the market and not
duplicate services already being offered.
Mayor Scruggs said the City, in conjunction with schools, is the only provider of aquatic
facilities. Mr. Younger explained that the ratio was somewhat low because they took
the number of people who have pools in their back yards into consideration. Mayor
Scruggs pointed out that there are several other businesses that offer services similar
to those offered at the City's multi-generational facilities. She suggested that staff
carefully analyze the success of the first multi-generational facility. She said people will
compare the services offered by the City to those offered elsewhere. She questioned
why people of all ages would want to be in the same facility. She pointed out that there
are several programs designed specifically for various groups. She said the Council
would discuss not only the cost recovery structure, but annual and activity fees that
should be charged at the multi-generational facility. She expressed her opinion that
additional information and historical data would be needed before proceeding with
building three additional facilities. Mr. Smith stressed the fact that the plan was flexible
and would be evaluated every five years. He said they would bring additional
information, including a business plan for the first multi-generational center, before the
Council for their review. Mayor Scruggs asked about timing of discussions concerning
overall cost recovery and the user fee strategy for the multi-generational facility. Mr.
Smith said, within the next six to eight months, staff would bring information to the
Council and further discuss the City's philosophy as it pertains to user fees, cost
recovery, and subsidization levels. Mr. Beasley pointed out that they would look at the
City's fee structure as part of the budget process. Mayor Scruggs asked when the first
multi-generational facility would open. Mr. Smith stated that the doors were scheduled
to open in 2004.
In response to a question posed by Mayor Scruggs, Ms. Kavanaugh offered to bring the
plan back to the Council to clarify the points raised by Councilmembers. She said their
intent was to bring the plan before the Council for formal action in December of 2001.
5
Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed with the recommendation to redevelop existing parks. He
stressed the importance of parks to people who are looking to move into a
neighborhood. He asked if staffing and programming make up the largest portion of the
cost associated with a multi-generational facility. Mr. Smith stated that, although they
are quite costly to build, multi-generational facilities historically recover 50% to 75% of
their operational costs.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about the trails and pathways that would connect the
parks. Mr. Younger stated that open space corridors, such as washes, provide obvious
opportunities for pathways and trails. He said the rest of the system would consist of
enhanced sidewalks.
Councilmember Frate said he was excited to see what was being planned. He thanked
the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commissioners. He noted that the Parks &
Recreation Advisory Commissioners were very aware of what the citizens want. He
stressed the fact that the plan is a living document and will change as the needs and
desires of the City's residents change. He stated that the citizen input process revealed
that the Parks and Recreation system plays a major role in the image of a city and,
therefore, citizens wanted to take the system up a level. He emphasized the
importance of creating more teen programs, He asked about the locations of the new
adventure centers. Mr. Smith reviewed the locations of the adventure centers. He
stated that they would include BMX bike tracks, skateboard ramps and, possibly a
bicycle safety city. He noted that the adventure centers were identified by the Citizen's
Bond Committee and made a part of the bond initiative.
Councilmember Frate asked if a funding program would be put into place or if they
would continue to come before the City for funding. Mr. Smith said a strategy had been
created that calls for the development of a plan which looks at opportunities for grants,
alliances, and partnerships.
Councilmember Clark commended Design Workshop, Parks and Recreation staff, and
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. She said they had produced a very
comprehensive plan. She noted that 50% of respondents indicated that they wanted
park improvements and 26% recognized the value of land acquisition and land banking.
She asked if the acquisition of additional land for future park development would be a
recommended priority. Mr. Smith said the Parks and Recreation Commission has
placed a high priority on land acquisition. Councilmember Clark recommended taking
advantage of any available opportunity to build a recreational facility in the Bonsai! Park
area. She said, while she appreciated the Commission's effort to create equitable
distribution, they also have to look at needs. Mr. Smith said they would renovate older
parks every five years, after first meeting with the neighborhoods to determine their
individual needs. He stated that they would also update demographics to better
evaluate programs.
Councilmember Clark agreed with Mayor Scruggs' concerns regarding the radius
requirements for museums and golf courses. She asked if there had been a shift in
focus from smaller neighborhood parks to larger, revenue generating facilities. Mr.
Smith said he still saw neighborhood parks as the cornerstone of the park system. He
acknowledged a shift from single-use centers to multi-generational centers. He said the
plan indicates that additional neighborhood community centers would not be necessary
if the four multi-generational facilities were built. Councilmember Clark noted that the
latest issue of the Glendale Parks and Recreation bulletin did not mention the
scholarships available for children who cannot afford to participate in programs. She
pointed out that, in other areas in the country, land located next to greenbelts are found
6
to be of greater value. She suggested that they emphasize the benefits of neighbor-
hood recreational amenities. She said citizen participants identified several items she
felt still needed to be addressed: (1) the need for more shade in parks; (2) their desire
to have park designs based on the demographics of individual neighborhoods; (3) the
establishment of working agreements with land developers for setting aside usable
land; (4) the need for bike paths; and (5) the inclusion of art elements in the
development of open space facilities. She agreed that Council should hold another
workshop session on the plan before it goes for Council approval.
Councilmember Goulet said users of Bonsai! Park indicated that a teen center would
not be an appropriate use. He asked what would be done to an existing park and how
long would it take. Mr. Younger explained that they would evaluate the demographics
of the neighborhood and determine what amenities would be most appropriate.
Councilmember Martinez acknowledged the importance of cost recovery with regard to
the multi-generational facility. He noted, however, that basic activities should not
assess a fee.
Mayor Scruggs asked about the City's liability in terms of the adventure centers and
skateboard facilities. Mr. Smith said they hoped to pattern the skateboard facility after
facilities located in other cities. He said liability is limited by the fact that the facility is
not staffed. He explained that the facility only suggests guidelines for use and
individuals participate at their own risk. Mayor Scruggs noted that the City had been
sued by a person who misused the Sahuaro Ranch Park facility. Mr. Younger noted
that the State of Arizona has the Recreation Users Act, which affords cities the same
limited liability that the federal government has on all self-directed recreation. Mr.
Flaaen stated that they would look further at the liability issue during design review and
take any necessary steps to limit the City's liability.
Councilmember Lieberman reported that the Director of the City of Phoenix's
skateboard facility said the park is posted and, therefore, the City assumes no liability.
He said the facility recommends that users wear helmets and other protective gear, but
they do not require it.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the City could require the use of helmets. Mr. Flaaen
said the City could post requirements; however, it would necessitate having someone
onsite to enforce the requirements. He reiterated that they will look at potential liability
more closely at the time of design review.
Mayor Scruggs commented on the quality of recently constructed parks. She stated
that small changes can make a huge difference. She pointed out the fact that the City
of Mesa's multi-generational center recovers 75% of its costs and has an annual
membership fee of $400 to $450. She said she hoped that the City of Glendale would
keep all of the community centers open so people have a place to go without having to
pay an annual fee to join the multi-generational facility. She commented on the
success of the dog parks. She said the Parks and Recreation Department has outdone
itself in terms of innovation and beauty of the parks.
Councilmember Frate noted that the Parks and Recreation bond passed by 71%. This
shows that parks and recreation ranks as high as public safety.
The meeting recessed for a short break.
7
2. PROPOSED ANNEXATION - VICINITY OF 91ST AVENUE, NORTHERN TO
GLENDALE
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development
Director; and Ms. Kristine Luna, Property Manager.
Prior to finalizing the purchase of the Hickman property, the Glendale City Council
entered into an agreement with the Hickman family to annex two parcels, totaling
approximately 30 acres. The parcels are located at the southeast corner of 91st and
Orangewood Avenues and the south side of Northern Avenue, west of 91st Avenue.
The City has received an additional request from Trammel Crow for the annexation of
160 acres at the northwest corner of 91st and Glendale Avenues. This parcel, which is
located directly north of the new Coyotes Arena site, will be master planned by
Trammel Crow to complement the growing area.
In order to satisfy State annexation statutes for the annexation of the Hickman parcel
on Northern Avenue, it will be necessary to annex at least one additional parcel
currently held by Glendale Media. The law requires that an annexed parcel may not be
more than twice as long as it is wide. Therefore, the smaller Hickman parcel must be
connected to a larger annexation.
The total area of the proposed annexation is approximately 237 acres. The area is
comprised of the Hickman parcels - 30 acres, the Trammel Crow parcel - 160 acres,
and the Glendale Media parcel - 47 acres.
The Glendale City Council approved an agreement to purchase and annex the Hickman
properties at its regularly scheduled Council meeting held on July 24, 2001.
The City Manager directed staff to proceed with the necessary preparation to bring the
proposed annexation request for discussion by the City Council.
There was no public notification of the proposed annexation at the time of this
workshop. All property owners involved with the annexation were notified of the
workshop discussion of the annexation request.
The properties included in the proposed annexation are primarily vacant land under
agricultural uses. There are no immediate costs associated with the annexation. City
utilities are in the area and are generally extended at the expense of the developers of
large tracts. A public complex, to include a fire department, a police department, a
library, and a community park, will be located at 53rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road
in the near future.
It was staff's recommendation that the City proceed with the proposed annexation.
8
Councilmember Clark said she hoped the City would develop a coordinated policy and
decide that County islands are not appropriate. She suggested that they do one major
annexation of all unincorporated areas. She said she was disappointed by the fact that
the City continues to annex on a piecemeal basis and that it would pursue a reluctant
property owner. Mr. Beasley said staff was proposing, in the future, to bring an
annexation policy forward for Council consideration. He noted, however, that in the
current situation they tried to look at what would maximize the use and best sustain the
area.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Flaaen to explain the State law contained in the Council's
material and how it relates to reluctant property owners. Mr. Flaaen said the issue
raised by Mayor Scruggs specifically deals with the Hickman hog farm. He explained
that the State Statutes state that a property with a length of more than twice its width
cannot be annexed. He noted that the Hickman hog farm falls into this category. He
said they had to look at other properties in the area, both in terms of ownership and
valuation. He said they were able to determine that the valuation of the Hickman
property was substantially below other properties in the area and, therefore, it would be
viable to annex the property.
Councilmember Clark asked if there was another statute that states boundary lines
should be developed as straight as possible. She also asked how annexing the narrow
parcel would meet that statute. Mr. Flaaen said the property does not violate the
statute because most of its boundaries are straight lines.
Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clarks' comments regarding
annexation. He asked why they do not continue annexing all properties east of the
freeway.
In response to a question posed by Vice Mayor Eggleston, Mr. Flaaen said part of the
agreement that the City entered into with the Hickmans on July 24, 2001 required the
City of Glendale to annex the property. He stated that the Hickmans were unwilling to
sell the property to the City of Glendale unless it was done under threat of
condemnation. He explained that the Hickmans could not accept the money because
the City of Glendale does not have the authority to condemn the property, which is not
located within the City.
Councilmember Clark said she supported the purchase of the Hickman property. She
noted that it was only recently that the City discovered it would be in violation of the
State Statutes if it did not annex additional property. She stated that she would support
the action when it occurs. She added that, as far as she was concerned, there is at
least one party, specifically Mr. Jerry Kosowksy, President of Glendale Media/Icon
Studios Inc., who feels he and his corporation were treated shabbily by the City.
Councilmember Frate said he felt comfortable with the action. He noted that he did not
believe in wholesale annexation.
Councilmember Lieberman said it would not take any more time or legal effort to annex
another property in the 262 acre area. He said he was in favor of annexing the
Hickman property. He stated that annexing large areas allows the City to truly manage
the area into which it will grow.
In response to a question posed by Councilmember Martinez, Mr. Flaaen explained that
annexation requires 51% of the valuation and 51% of the property ownership.
Councilmember Martinez disagreed with Councilmember Clark with respect to the City's
9
treatment of Mr. Jerry Kosowky. He said there were issues that the City and Mr.
Kosowsky did not agree on, but, he did not believe Mr. Kosowsky was treated shabbily.
Councilmember Goulet asked if other property owners were interested in annexation.
Ms. Luna said she receives numerous phone calls from people inquiring about the
annexation process. Councilmember Goulet stated that he was comfortable with the
action. He also disagreed with Councilmember Clark's comment on the City's
treatment of Mr. Kosowksy.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said the City annexes a property when it determines that doing
so will benefit the City. He stated that the City does not want to open its doors to
unplanned development.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that there are large developments underway
that the City is unable to manage because the properties have not been annexed into
the City.
Mayor Scruggs stated that the original intent of the strip annexation was to protect Luke
Air Force Base. She said, at some point, they may receive requests from other
jurisdictions that immediately adjoin and connect to the parcels asking to be annexed.
She said she did not feel uncomfortable in allowing a community that is immediately
adjacent and contiguous to a development to annex the area into their community if the
area can be better served by such annexation. She defended the actions taken by City
staff and elected official. She stated that there has not been any shabby treatment,
only fairness in all matters.
Councilmember Clark asked if the City currently had a development agreement with
Trammel Crow. Mr. Colson stated that the City did not. Councilmember Clark asked if
they had seen a site plan or development plan for the Trammel Crow property. Mr.
Colson said, although they were involved in conversations, they did not have any formal
application at this time. Councilmember Clark noted that, at one point in time, Mr.
Kosowsky was asked to enter into a development agreement with the City before the
City would even consider annexation.
Mayor Scruggs stated that the only way the City can pay the money it contracted to pay
the Hickmans is to condemn their property. She noted that the City, however, cannot
condemn the property unless it is annexed into the City. She stated that, because of
the length and width of the Hickman property, the only way to annex the property is to
annex other properties in the area. Mr. Flaaen agreed with Mayor Scruggs.
Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus to proceed with the annexation.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
10