HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 7/12/1988MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1988, AT 3:05 P.M. Mayor Renner called to order the Workshop Session of GlendaleCityCouncilinConferenceRoomB-3 of the Council Chambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Falbo, Huffman, McAllister, and Tolby. Member Absent: Hugh. CONSENT AGENDAPersonnelRules: Amendments and RevisionsAttheApril26, 1988 workshop, council directed staff tosolicitemployeeinputandcommentonthefinaldrafts. Copies of the policies were made available by the HumanResourcesDepartmentandemployeeswereencouragedtopick up
a copy and provide feedback to the staff or policy committee
members. Sixty copies were distributed to interested
employees and a handful of comments were returned.
The City of Glendale's Personnel Rules is the document which
implements the merit system established by the City Charter
Article IV, Section 6) and City Code (Article III, Division
2) .
The current written Personnel Rules, which were adopted by
the City Council in 1979, have progressively become out -dated
and are not reflective of current Personnel law, principles
and practices. In addition, they do not reflect current
management's values regarding personnel management. However,
our Personnel practices have been in conformance with
relevant personnel law, through administrative changes in our
policies and procedures.
An employee committee, representative of most departments and
all major job categories, was assigned to review and
recommend a current set of rules. Their recommended draft
has undergone extensive management and legal counsel
scrutiny. As required by City Code, the City Manager, the
Human Resources Director and the Personnel Board reviewed and
reworked the draft. On December 15, 1987 the Personnel Board
formally approved the new Personnel Rules, heretofore to be
called the "Human Resources Policies and Procedures." The
Personnel Board has formally recommended that these amend-
ments and revisions be adopted by ordinance of the City
Council.
There being no comments, this item will be placed on a
regular agenda for council action.
WORKSHOP SESSIONDistrictSystem ReportTheJulyreportofthe Technical Staff Committee onDistrictingincludesanupdateonhowyourdirective toinsureanopportunitytothelargestpossiblenumberofcitizensforinvolvementinthedistrictingprocessis beingcarriedout. Contract negotiations with the Rose InstitutehasbeencompletedandDr. Alan Heslop will be in attendancetodiscusstheInstitute's role and schedule. A short videoofexcerptsfromthesixpublicmeetingsheldinJunewillbeshown. Dr. Alan Heslop, Director of Rose Institute, discussed theinstitute's role and schedule for the districting. A shortvideoofexcerptsfromthepublicmeetingswasshown.
Mayor Renner asked what the next step would be. Dr. Heslop
stated he would digest the materials they have gathered and
later this month return for a technical forum and invite
those who have expressed an interest to this point. A
preliminary report will then be prepared within 45 days.
Mayor Renner stated he felt it would be appropriate to make
the preliminary report available for comment by the public
who are interested.
Vice Mayor Tolby asked how population would be estimated for
the next five years. Mr. Heslop said there was an element of
guess work in population projections but statistics from the
1980 and 1985 census, building permit data, and information
from strategic planning is how they will get the number.
Vice Mayor Tolby asked how much latitude is allowable. Dr.
Heslop stated the institute deviates less than 10% in
districting.
This item will be brought back to workshop when further data
is available.
Revised Subdivision Ordinance
Late in 1987, the Council directed staff to prepare new
ordinances and procedures that would simplify and streamline
procedures for the review and approval of new development
projects to include subdivisions. The current Subdivision
Ordinance requires a major rewrite to attain stated Council
objectives.
In addition to updating organizational terminology and
specifying procedures which are in line with current project
management practices, the proposed new ordinance increases
neighborhood participation by providing for fully-noticedpublichearingsonsubdivisionsandprovidingmeansforappealsofPlanningandZoningCommissionaction. Provisionsarealsoincludedwhichmakeoutsideagenciessuchasutilitycompaniesandschooldistrictsawareofnewsubdivisionsearlyinthereviewprocess. As a means of streamlining procedures, the approval ofpreliminaryplatswillbedelegatedtothePlanningandZoningCommission. Final plat approval remains theresponsibilityoftheCouncilasrequiredbystate statute. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearingontheproposedordinanceonJune23, 1988, and unanimouslyrecommendsapprovaloftheordinancebyCouncil. Bill Amlong, Project Manager, reviewed the changes of theordinance.
Vice Mayor Tolby asked if the appeal fees had been set. Mr.
Amlong said they had not been set yet.
Vice Mayor Tolby said he did mind the applicant having to pay
for the appeal but would not want a property owner to have to
pay a high fee. Mr. Amlong said the fee will cover staff
costs and be returned if the appeal is upheld.
Mayor Renner asked if a public hearing prior to action of the
council would be sufficient. Mr. Swanson said there was no
reason to separate the two items.
Councilmember Bellah stated he felt the 300' notification was
not enough. Mr. Swanson said 300' notification distance is a
valley wide standard established by state statutes.
This item will be placed on a regular agenda for council
action.
Review of Proposed Development Plans for Mobil Oil Station
4303 W. Northern Avenue)
Mobil Oil Corporation has submitted development plans for the
reconstruction of their existing gasoline service station and
the addition of a car wash at the southwest corner of 43rd
Avenue and Northern Avenue. After three reviews by the
project team and numerous meetings with Mobil Oil, the
project team has not been able to resolve major differences
with the applicant regarding compliance with the commercial
design expectations and the design objectives for this
development project. The project team has had to disapprove
the development plans, Mobil Oil has formally appealed that
action, and the City Council at a future public hearing will
be asked to review the proposal and take action on the appeal
presented by Mobil Oil.
The project team would like to review the proposeddevelopmentplanswiththeCityCouncilatworkshop sessionpriortoschedulingtheappealrequestforaregularCityCouncilmeeting. At workshop, the project team will presentthedevelopmentproposalaswellasslidesandpicturesofotherMobilOilservicestationsconstructedinGlendaleandothervalleylocationsforCouncilinformationandconsideration. Bob Coons, Development Services Center Director, briefed thecouncilontheproposeddevelopmentplans. Councilmember Bellah stated he did not understand what therealissuewasifthecostdifferencewasminimalfromwhatwewantandwhatwasproposed. Mr. Coons said the primaryissuewastheyfeelthestandarddesigncouldblendwithanysite.
Rick Levitan, Mobil representative, said they want this to be
attractive and feel they have done that with their proposed
plan. Ed Booterack, consultant, said the cost is not the
major concern, the concern is the design and the image that
Mobil is presenting, the design is their logo.
This item will be placed on a regular agenda for council
action.
Rezoning Application Z-87-17: NEC of 67th Avenue and Arizona
Canal
On January 12, 1988, the City Council rezoned property at the
northeast corner of 67th Avenue and the Arizona Canal from
A-1 to R1-10. The applicant, Watt Community Builders, has
requested reconsideration of that decision. The applicant
requests the addition of the PRD overlay district to the
property, resulting in a rezoning from R1-10 to R1-10 PRD.
The City Council, on May 10, 1988, voted to rehear Rezoning
Application Z-87-17 for the purpose of considering the
addition of the PRD overlay district.
The approval of the PRD overlay district is tentative and
would not be effective until a preliminary plat is approved
for the site. A proposed subdivision for the 8.4 -acre parcel
under the R1-10 PRD district, includes 20 lots with an
average lot size of 11,467 square feet. A subdivision under
the existing R1-10 zoning would provide approximately 16-18
lots with an average lot size between 13,000 and 15,000
square feet. The proposed PRD district would allow for an
additional three or four lots to be included in the
subdivision. The density of the project would increase from
1.9 to 2.4 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant met with citizens in the neighborhood south oftheArizonaCanalonJuly6, 1988. The consensus of thegroupinattendancewasthattheysupporttheadditionof thePRDdistrict. The PRD would add two to four lots to thesubdivisionandsupportadesignwhichrelatestotheThunderbirdPaseo. The major remaining concern of theresidentsisthattheyhaveanopportunitytocomment duringtheproductreviewelementofthesubdivisiondesignexpectationsprocess. Councilmember McAllister stated he felt control wasattainablewithdeedrestrictions. Mr. Jacobs said thereviewofthedeedrestrictionsgoesoninthesubdivisionprocessandthisisjustarezoningprocess. This item will be placed on a regular agenda for councilaction.
Adjournment
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at
4:45 p.m.
Assistant City Clerk