HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/5/1988MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1988, AT 2:35 P.M. Mayor Renner called to order the Workshop Session of GlendaleCityCouncilinConferenceRoomB-3 of the Council Chambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Huffman, Heatwole, Tolby, Hugh, and Falbo arriving at 2:55 pm. Members Absent: None. Proposed Charter AmendmentsAtthelastworkshopsession, Council reviewed in detail theproposedCharterchanges. It was requested that Proposition102bechangedtomakeitdiscretionarywiththeCounciltowhen, and how frequently, to appoint the salary commissionandfurtherprovidesthattheCouncilmayaccept, reject or
modify their recommendations.
Council requested that Proposition 115 also be brought back
to discuss possible changes to the percentages of signatures
needed for an initiative petition.
Peter Van Haren, City Attorney, presented the changes to
Proposition 102 and 115.
Vice Mayor Heatwole asked on Proposition 102 what happens if
there is no general election; he feel the wording should be
changed to "next" election. Councilman Tolby agreed.
Proposition 115 - Councilman Tolby asked if a percentage
number could be agreed upon and taken to council. Heatwole -
12%, Hugh - 12%, Huffman - 10%, Tolby - 10%. This will be
discussed at the formal meeting.
This item will be placed on a regular agenda for council
action.
Restaurant at Sahuaro Ranch Park
On October 19, 1987, the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission discussed the restaurant study as prepared by Hans
Schacke.
Members of the Historical Society were present and spoke in
opposition to the restaurant. The society expressed concern
that the Main House is the "key historical feature," and
changes to the building interior to accommodate a restaurant
would be a renovation rather than a restoration. Other
concerns discussed include: the issues of inadequate parking
for present park usage, which would be magnified by the
additional parking required for restaurant guests; and the
investment of city funds to renovate the main house to
accommodate a restaurant which would be above the normalrestorationcosts. In summary, comments expressed by theCommissionandtheHistoricalSocietyisthattheywould liketoseeotherusesinthePark. Tim Ernster, Community Services Deputy City Manager, gave abriefpresentation. Councilmember Huffman said he agreed the restaurant shouldnotbebuilt. Councilmember Tolby stated with budgetrestraintshefeltitshouldbeputonlowprioritystatus. Mayor Renner felt it should not be built. Canopies for the 58th Avenue Store FrontsOnJune3, 1987, the 58th Avenue Facade Program was presentedtotheCityCouncilataworkshopmeeting. At this meeting, the Council agreed that the 58th Avenue property owners would
renovate their building facades and the City would assist in
the design and construction of a shade structure.
Upon completion of the 58th Avenue Streetscape Project, the
property owners asked that the shade structure not be
installed with the facade improvements. They wanted to wait
to see how the facade improvements would look with the new
streetscape improvements. After completing the Boot Barn
facade improvements, the property owners have requested that
canopies, instead of a freestanding shade structure, be
installed. The Downtown Development Corporation has agreed
with the property owners and requested that the city consider
paying for the canopies with responsibility for maintenance
remaining with the property owners.
Proceeding with individual canopies affixed to private
buildings, paid for by the City, and maintained by the
property owners is a departure from the original concept.
Funds are available in the facade program budget for the
canopies. The estimated cost if $45,000 for all eight
buildings.
Larry Glazman, President of the Downtown Development
Corporation, gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Renner asked what was the cost for the facade. Mr.
Gardner said $70,000 and the canopies would be $45,000.
Councilmember Tolby stated we had control of the facade what
happens with the canopies. Mr. Glazman stated he felt the
city could keep control. Mr. Gardner said they would
structure an agreement with the recipient of the grant from
the city that the successor would adhere to guidelines.
Mayor Renner asked if the original agreement need to beamended. Mr. Gardner stated formal authorization isnecessary. This item will be placed on a regular agenda for councilaction. Neighborhood Focus ProjectsSinceJuly, city staff has been working on three projects toimplementCouncilgoalsfortheuseofneighborhoodfocusgroups, and for targeting neighborhood improvementresources. The projects include a service directory and aneighborhoodfocusstrategy. These products were developedbyagroupofcityemployeeswhosedepartmentshaveserviceproductsthatarespecificallyorientedtowardneighborhoods. The third project is the NeighborhoodEnhancementDivision's first neighborhood focus effort.
Paul Ludwick, Neighborhood Enhancement Director, gave a brief
presentation.
Vice Mayor Heatwole suggested on the directory to be sure the
services are available and not have to be delayed for a
couple of months. Also he suggested the employees be aware
of the new programs. Mr. Vanacour stated the employees would
be trained.
Vice Mayor Heatwole also suggested that the citizens be made
aware of the program thru the paper and maybe cable shows.
Mayor Renner suggested adding the Mayor and Council phone
number to the directory.
Mayor Renner suggested the Board of Adjustment could be
utilized in problem areas. Mr. Ludwick asked if they would
be used as arbitrators. Mayor said yes. Councilmember Falbo
agreed.
Councilmember Tolby stated he felt this was a good program.
This item will be brought back in several month with a follow
up report.
Intergovernmental Report
Lori Liebermann updated the Council on air quality issues.
Request for Ordinance Amendment for Recreational Vehicle
Storage Facilities
Approximately 6 to 8 months ago, Mr. & Mrs. Babineau asked
the City Council to consider a zoning text amendment. SInce
that time the Planning and Zoning Commission has heard therequest. The requested ordinance amendment would allow commercialrecreationalvehicle (RV) storage facilities to be located insingle-family residential districts subject to securing a usepermit. Commercial RV storage facilities are currentlyrestrictedtocommerciallyzoningproperty. The ordinancedoesallowRVstoragefacilities, operated by a homeownersassociation, as an ancillary use within single-familydistricts. This considers the RV storage facilities similartoatenniscourtorswimmingpoolwithincommonareasofasubdivisionoperatedbyahomeownersassociation. The proposed ordinance amendment does address a continuingneedforRVstoragebutiscontrarytonumerousotherresidentialdevelopmentobjectives. The operation of acommercialbusinessinasingle-family district is contrary
to the goal of protecting the single-family neighborhood.
One potential alternative to the current procedure would be
the provision of RV storage facilities within the R-4
Multiple Family district subject to securing a use permit.
The requested ordinance amendment was unanimously denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at their October 22, 1987
meeting.
Councilmember Huffman said he agreed with the recommendation
but felt there is a need to have a solution to the problem.
Mayor Renner asked on multi -family what the requirement was.
Mr. Swanson said it does require some provisions for RV
parking within the district.
Mayor Renner asked if there were any plans filed which
provided for this requirement yet. Mr. Swanson said no.
Councilmember Tolby asked if a lot in R1 would apply for C2
zoning would council be able to approve. Mr. Swanson agreed
but all uses of C2 would then be allowed.
Councilmember Tolby suggested maybe a new zoning for this
should be considered instead of changing the process.
This item will be placed on a regular agenda for council
action.
Revised MaZor Street Cross -Sections
The Draft General Plan Circulation Element contains a new
functional street classification system designating streets
as "major arterial," "arterial," "collector," and "local."
Some of our current street standard cross-sections are not in
accordance with the new functional street classifications
identified in the draft plan. In December 1987, a project
team was formed with representation from the Planning andZoning, Development Services, and Engineering Departments. The objective of the study group was to establish new streetcross-section standards to match the functionalclassificationsintheDraftGeneralPlan. A series of new major street cross-sections have beenprepared. The cross-sections are for normal street linkagestoaccommodateprojectedtrafficvolumesandturningmovements. A comparison of Glendale's existing and proposedstreetcross-sections are presented. A comparison ofright-of-way requirements for Glendale and other major citiesinMaricopaCountyisalsopresented. It is not staff's intention to propose a major right-of-wayacquisitionprogram, but rather to obtain increasedrights-of-way as new development and redevelopment projectsarereviewedandprocessed. The increased right-of-way
requirements for the proposed cross-sections will provide
greater traffic capacity, pedestrian utilization and
increased street landscaping.
The proposed sections have been presented to and discussed
with representatives of development groups and received
generally favorable comments.
Vice Mayor Heatwole asked what we will be doing that we are
not doing now. Mr. Reedy said expand to 3 lanes.
Councilmember Bellah asked if 130' is a minimum width. Mr.
Reedy said this is a standard for major arterial,
intersection will be decided depending on needs.
This item will be brought back with additional information.
Adjournment
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:00
p.m.
Assistant Deputy Clerk