Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 12/7/2004 *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 December 7, 2004 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; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. PHASE I ANNEXATION ANALYSIS: 115TH AVENUE TO LITCHFIELD ROAD CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; Ms. Kate Langford, Senior Planner This is a request for the City Council to review the Phase I Annexation Analysis for the area located between 1151 Avenue to Litchfield Road. This is the first of a two-part anngxation analysis being completed for the entire strip annexation area extending from 115m Avenue to Perryville Road. Once both phases of the analysis have been completed, the Council will be asked for policy direction regarding potential annexation of all or parts of the strip annexation area. Glendale 2025, the city's General Plan, includes specific goals addressing the need for growth management. Annexation is a tool that can be used by the city to direct and manage growth. In 1977 and 1978, the city created boundaries outlining an area referred to as the strip annexation area. The entire strip annexation area is approximately 40 square miles in size and is generally bounded by Peoria and Northern Avenues on the north, 115`" Avenue on the east, Bethany Home and Camelback Roads on the south, and Perryville Road on the west. The Council adopted Glendale's first annexation policy on December 16, 2003. Discussion of the policy began in July of 2002 and development of the policy was completed over the course of five Council workshops. 1 Annexation analysis is required by the annexation policy. An annexation analysis is used to determine potential fiscal impacts and impacts to the levels of service provided to the city. Both immediate and long-term impacts are identified by this analysis. Phase I Annexation Area boundaries are Northern and Peoria Avenues to the north, 115thAvenue to the east, Bethany Home and Camelback Roads to the south and Litchfield Road to the west. The Phase I analysis area is approximately 8.8 square miles in size and is currently developing in accordance with Maricopa County zoning designations and development standards. Residential development dominates the southern portion of the Phase I area south of Glendale Avenue. North of Glendale Avenue is a small number of existing industrial uses, The northern part of the analysis area has a significant development potential for employment uses, perhaps in excess of 20 million square feet at build-out. Development of this employment area could result in 15-20,000 employees. The potential for retail development is at a much smaller scale than the employment uses. Retail development could result in approximately two million square feet at build- out. A little more than 1/3 of the analysis area contains existing residential development. This is significant in that existing residential developments require a greater level of services than undeveloped or non-residential uses when annexed into a jurisdiction. The services that must be provided immediately upon annexation include police, fire and sanitation. The potential annexation of this 5,632-acre area would provide the following benefits to the community: o Add population for state-shared revenue calculations; o Strengthen Glendale's ability to protect Luke Air Force Base from encroachment; and o Allow Glendale's land use designations and development standards to apply to this area. This presentation was provided as the first of a two-part annexation analysis encompassing the entire strip annexation area. No Council direction was requested at this time. Ms. Langford said in terms of potential for the area, the projected population at build- out is 20,106 and the projected number of residential lots at build-out is 6,662. She stated there is a potential for 2 million square feet of retail/commercial and 21 million square feet of employment. She pointed out the additional population would benefit the city's state-shared revenue calculations and annexation would strengthen Glendale's ability to protect Luke Air Force Base from encroachment. She said, additionally, Glendale's land use designations and development standards would apply to new development and additional employment and residential growth areas would be provided. She stated the challenges associated with the annexation are that Police/Fire and Sanitation services would have to be provided immediately upon annexation, existing development does not meet current city standards, active subsidence exists in the area, flood and drainage issues would need to be addressed, and the city would 2 have to consider redistricting to ensure appropriate representation. Ms. Langford reviewed mitigation measures to address the challenges and reap the benefits associated with the opportunities. She said capital improvements could be phased; for instance, Police could function from the Gateway substation. She stated, however, the Fire Department would have an immediate need for a station in the residential area. She said special funding options might be available to fund capital improvements for existing demand, while Development Impact Fees will contribute to future development and improvements. She said program fees and rate structures would have to be re-evaluated for service to that area. With regard to Water and Sewer service, Ms. Langford said multiple private utility companies currently serve the area. She explained staff recommends that Glendale become the water and sewer provider in order to ensure Glendale's high quality service is provided and its health and safety standards are applied to newly acquired systems. She said, in the alternative, the private companies would continue to be providers. Ms. Langford explained the Council's second in this series of workshops would address the Phase II-Litchfield Road to Perryville Road area. She said the second workshop will be scheduled for early 2005 and will be followed by a third workshop wherein staff will request policy direction for the future of the strip-annexed area. Councilmember Lieberman asked if they would consider annexing or skip over Pendergast Estates and Country Meadows Subdivision. He pointed out the policy still calls for annexation by special interest only rather than annexation of larger areas under a general annexation. Ms. Langford explained Country Meadows, Pendergast states existing county islands along 91st Avenue and Northern, and an area from 75t to 87 along Northern are the remaining unincorporated areas east of 115th Avenue. She said ultimate disposition of those areas would be at the Council's discretion. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about the area of subsidence. Ms. Langford explained the epicenter of the subsidence area is at Reems Road, between Northern and Olive Avenues. She said the area impacted by the subsidence includes Luke Air Force Base and is predominantly in the undeveloped areas along Litchfield Road. Mr. Reedy explained over the past 60 years the water table has been lowered, removing moisture from the soil and causing it to collapse. He noted some areas have actually sunk over 11 feet over the 60-year period. He stated the flow direction on the surface of the ground in that area changed and Maricopa County Flood Control District and Luke Air Force Base worked cooperatively to build a new drainage channel through the area. He pointed out a good portion of the subsidence area is located within the noise contour where there is little potential for residential development. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how the subsidence area would impact Glendale. Mr. Reedy stated it would create a substantial change in flow for a sewer line; however, there are a variety of ways to handle such a situation. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the anticipated development would occur predominantly north of Glendale Avenue. Ms. Langford explained most of the employment area would be north of Glendale Avenue, while residential development would be south of Glendale Avenue. Councilmember Goulet asked at what point do they anticipate reaching build-out. Ms. Langford responded 2010, explaining it is at about 50 percent build-out now. Councilmember Goulet referenced Page 5 of the prospectus, asking if staff has calculated the cost associated with the additional fire, police or other department personnel that will have to be hired and what benefits the city will receive that will help 3 offset those costs. Ms. Langford referred to the Estimated Costs and Estimated Revenue information contained in Pages 8 and 9 of the summary, noting a background document that contains a very detailed analysis is also available. She said the Police Department estimates needing additional personnel at build-out, but believes it could work out of the Gateway facility for a number of years. She stated, however, the Fire Department believes a new station in the heavily residential area would be needed fairly soon. Councilmember Goulet asked what liability the city may have if development occurs quickly and the ground continues to sink even further. Mr. Reedy said a house is a relatively small structure and the amount of subsidence that would occur across the width of house would be virtually unnoticeable. He pointed out the residential area south of Glendale has actually had little subsidence. He stated the area north of Luke Air Force Base has a higher potential for problems related to development, but some protection is provided simply because of its location within Luke's noise contour. Councilmember Goulet asked if staff has looked at temporary locations for the Fire Department. Ms. Langford responded yes; explaining however, they would result in slower response times than the Department strives to achieve. Councilmember Martinez asked if the subsidence area referenced by staff is the only area in the city with that type of problem. Mr. Reedy stated it would be the only area in Glendale impacted by subsidence, but there are a number of places throughout the valley that have had similar problems over the past 50 to 60 years. He said any problems reported within Glendale have been the result of compaction problems, not subsidence. Councilmember Martinez asked if there is any steps to be taken that would reasonably ensure subsidence problems would not be encountered. Mr. Reedy expressed his opinion even large industrial buildings could be constructed in the area, explaining the problems typically occur when dealing with long runs of linear piping. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out a portion of the subsidence area is located within Luke's accident potential zone. Councilmember Frate said staff previously stated the city has a 100 year assured water supply for anything east of 115 Avenue, but there is no guarantee the city would be able to secure and transport water to the analysis area. He said he is not interested in allowing private water companies provide service to Glendale residents. Mr. Reedy agreed the water supply is a challenge, stating there are a number of possible solutions. He suggested they discuss the issue further during the Council's third workshop. Councilmember Martinez asked if the costs would be high enough to impact the city's water rates. Mr. Reedy said it depends on the decision the Council makes with regard to allowing current utilities to continue to operate. Councilmember Martinez asked if rates have to be uniform throughout the city. Mr. Reedy responded no, stating the city has historically chosen, however, to use a uniform rate policy. Mayor Scruggs agreed the water issues are such that they warrant a separate workshop session, noting water issues are at the forefront throughout the state. She said the Council members are not as conversant in water issues as they should be to make such a significant decision. She said, unless the area indicates no interest in annexation, the city will be forced to go much more deeply into the water issue. Mr. Reedy agreed there is no point in going into great detail if the Council decides it does not want to further pursue annexation. He explained today's session was intended to 4 give Council a basic understanding of the area and the topics that will need to be addressed. He clarified there will likely be the need for even more workshops if the Council decides it wants to pursue annexation. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion the Council needs to make a decision to either not pursue the annexation or to actively discuss how best to annex, stating the challenges will not change for the better. She said she would like to see the costs associated with the potential development opportunities separated out during the third workshop. She also asked staff to include a copy of the Annexation Policy and a synopsis of the legislation's definition of compatible development in the areas located within the noise contour and accident potential zones. She stated the state shared revenue issue is tied to a census; therefore there would be no increase in state shared revenue until a new census was conducted. She stated, furthermore, she would like to see what the difference will be if the city chooses to annex developed versus undeveloped areas. Mr. Reedy assured the Council they are not expecting an immediate decision to annex the entire area, stating the reality is that the city does not have the authority to annex property that the owner does not want annexed. He explained 50 percent plus one of the people and 50 percent plus $0.01 of the assessed valuation of the property in a given area has to support the annexation. He stated opportunities for relatively quick annexations occur in situations where large areas of land are owned by a single property owner. Mayor Scruggs asked if the need for police, fire and sanitation services would be dramatically different if the city were to annex Areas 1, 2, 3, 12, 27, and 34 than it would be if it chose to annex the other sections. Mr. Reedy stated staff has broken the information down by section. He clarified the Council is free to choose to annex only certain areas as long as the area is connected in some manner to the city. He reiterated the property owners, in fact, make the final decision as to whether an area will be annexed. Mr. Reedy pointed out every area is developing and the opportunities constantly change. He cautioned the Council not to overanalyze a detail that may be four or five months old. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out Glendale has strip annexed approximately 15 miles on the other side of the Loop 303, which is scheduled to become a four lane highway. He noted Buckeye recently annexed 91.55 square miles and Peoria annexed 35.35 square miles. He said, while Glendale continues to consider the issue of annexation, its neighboring cities are moving forward. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion the second workshop should occur as soon as possible. Mr. Reedy clarified the meeting is scheduled for the first meeting in February. Mr. Beasley offered to look at placing the issue on the agenda for the Council's December 21 workshop. Mayor Scruggs said the Council needs to keep on the issue and move towards a decision, even if it means scheduling a special session. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to return in two weeks to discuss the area between Litchfield Road and Perryville Road. She said more detailed information should be brought to Council at the first workshop in January. She asked staff to point out any similar segmenting situations in Phase II and to include information about the water providers and their water quality standards. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. 5