Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 8/22/1989MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1989 AT 3:10 P.M. Mayor Renner called the Workshop Session of the GlendaleCityCounciltoorderintheWorkshopRoom, B-3, in theGlendaleCouncilChambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Falbo, Huffman, Hugh, McAllister, and Tolby. MembersAbsent: None. Also present were Martin Vanacour, City Manager; GordonL. Pedrow, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, City Attorney and Linda Ginn, Deputy City Clerk. WORKSHOP SESSION 1. PUBLIC SAFETY/COURTS COMPLEX City Manager Vanacour stated that during the workshop session on July 11, several members of the Council raised questions regarding the exterior colors of the project. After a field trip with two Council members, the architect has compiled material examples, three color alternatives and pictures of proposed landscaping for the project. Mike Thompson (architect/The Benham Group), Acting Chief Forry, Captain McCown, and Dean Svoboda were present to discuss the alternative color schemes and answer any questions the Council may have regarding the architectural design of the facility. Mr. Thompson stated that the basic differences between the color schemes were the color treatments of the plaster areas and the standing seam roofs. It is the recommendation of the Benham group, the Glendale development group and Lescher-Mahoney Interiors to go with scheme "B" which incorporates a burgundy color standing seam roof and beige plaster color. Councilman McAllister voiced his concern about the darker colored roof being susceptible to discoloration. Mr. Thompson presented the recommendations for the landscaping in the plaza area of the facility. The general consensus of the Council was to support the design team's recommendation of scheme "B". 2. REZONING APPLICATION Z-88-30: NORTH SIDE OF GLENDALEAVENUEBETWEEN83RDAVENUEAND91STAVENUECityManagerVanacourgaveCouncilabriefsummaryoftherezoningbysayingthisproposalistorezone280acresfromA-1 to PAD. The applicant proposes to develop the sitewithamixedusePlannedAreaDevelopmentincluding239acresofresidentialuses, 19 acres of shopping center, 8 acres ofoffice, a 4 acre public safety site, an 18 acrepark/retention/school site and 4 acres of additionalretentionarea. The proposal is in conformance with the land uses and densities established in the new General Plan. A maximum of 973 dwelling units would be allowed on this property in accordance with the General Plan. The proposed PAD request contains 956 units. Detailed development information will need to be submitted and approved prior to subsequent development plan or preliminary plat approvals of any portion of the property. At the April 6, 1989 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the request, subject to seven stipulations. Several of these stipulations have been modified subsequent to the Commission's action because the applicant has addressed these concerns in a revised Development Plan Map dated April 25, 1989, and in a second supplement to development plan dated June 16, 1989. Two additional stipulations have been included by staff to clarify issues on the uses of dedicated lands and the alignment of 87th Avenue. At their workshop of July 25, 1989, City Council reviewed and discussed the proposal and had questions regarding lot sizes, parks/retention areas, and street alignments, particularly the alignment and continuation of Orangewood Avenue to 91st Avenue. Letter and petitions dated July 5, 1989, and July 21, 1989 have been submitted to the Mayor and Council from Interested Property Owners" adjacent to this proposed development voicing their opposition to portions of the PAD request and master plan. Bob Coons, Planning Director, stated that staff had developed an alternative street plan for the project which did not provide continuation of Orangewood Avenue to 91st Avenue and proceeded to present the plan and other answers to questions Council had previously. (See attached). Councilman lot size issue city to assure didn't become a McAllister raised and asked staff if itself that the disaster. 65- a concern with the smaller there was any way for the development of these lots ORANGEWOOD VILLAGE (Z-88-30) CONCERNS AND ISSUES FROM JULY 25, 1989 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOPANDFROMADJACENTPROPERTYOWNERS1. ORANGEWOOD AVENUE ALIGNMENTCONCERN/ISSUEAttheworkshop, Council and staff discussed the proposedalignmentofOrangewoodanditseffectonthePeoriaHighSchoolsiteandtheHickman's Egg Ranch along 91st Avenue. Both of those property owners have expressed opposition tothecontinuationofOrangewoodAvenueatthisalignment where it would intersect 91st Avenue. Council asked staff, at the workshop, to evaluate the possibility of a circulation plan where Orangewood Avenue would not be extended to 91st Avenue along its traditional half -mile alignment and, consequently, reduce the impact upon those property owners. The property owners in the vicinity of 83rd Avenue and Orangewood Avenue alignment have expressed concern in regard to the specific location of Orangewood as it intersects 83rd Avenue. The prime concern is that those property owners not be expected to dedicate right-of-way or improve Orangewood Avenue across their properties, or be adversely impacted bytheOrangewoodAvenuealignment. STATUS/COMMENTS Staff has developed an alternative street plan (see attached Plan) for this Proiect which does not continue Orangewood Avenue to 91st Avenue along its traditional half -mile alignment. The alternate plan proposes a curvature in Orangewood Avenue southwesterly to intersect 91st Avenue at the Myrtle Avenue alignment. This alternate plan would not require any street right-of-way or construction on the Peoria High School or Hickman's Egg Ranch properties. This alternate street plan creates the need for minor adjustments in the configuration of some development parcels in the plan such as the park/retention/school site, but these configurations would not alter the planned acreages, densities, or allowed number of dwelling units. The alternate plan also identifies a north/south collector street pattern for this project and as it relates to adjoining properties. The alternate street plan, as well as the initial development plan submitted by the applicant, has Orangewood Avenue intersecting 83rd Avenue at a point 40 feet south of Orangewood Village (Z-88-30) August 22, 1989Page2theone-half mile point. Orangewood Avenue, within thisdevelopmentproject, would be developed with fullright-of-way and street construction on this project, withnoright-of-way or construction required on adjoiningpropertiestothenorth. As a result of the desire to notimpactthoseadjacentpropertyownerstothenorthoftheOrangewoodAvenuealignmentwestof83rdAvenue, OrangewoodAvenueeastof83rdAvenuewillbeoffset40feettothesouthofthetraditionalalignmenttoprovideanappropriatesignalizedintersection. As a result of this need, thepropertyowner(s) at -the southeast corner of 83rd Avenue andOrangewoodAvenue, at the time of future development, will be required to dedicate additional rights-of-way for Orangewood Avenue. In the evaluation of an alternate street plan for this project, staff did review a possible alignment where Orangewood would intersect 83rd Avenue at the Myrtle Avenue alignment. This design, however, was not possible due to the proposed Orangewood drain planned as part of the Stormwater Master Plan. At some future date, a major storm drain will be constructed along Orangewood Avenue from the east, and it will need to penetrate at the half -mile point on 83rd Avenue. West of 83rd Avenue, the future storm drain can curve along Orangewood southwesterly to intersect 91st Avenue at the Myrtle Avenue alignment, and then continue west. 2. DESIGN OF FOUR -ACRE RETENTION AREA CONCERN/ISSUE Concerns were raised at the workshop regarding the design and use of the four -acre retention area proposed at the northeast corner of 89th Avenue and Glendale Avenue, between the office parcel and the single-family development area. Council asked staff to evaluate the possible redesign of this retention area to accommodate active recreational uses, rather than the proposed passive/open space use designed in this linear retention area. STATUS/COMMENTS The development master plan for Orangewood Village included a design for a four -acre retention area between the office development parcel and the single-family area to be used as a linear, passive, open space area. This area was specifically designed for the purpose of an open space buffer between the two land uses and as an enhanced street landscaped area along Glendale Avenue, in accordance with General Plan objectives. Staff does not believe that the best desired use of this required retention area would be to provide an additional four -acre active recreational park area, but that the retention area should be utilized to Orangewood Village (Z-88-30) August 22, 1989Page3providepassive open space for this development in additiontoutilizingthatopenspaceasabufferareaandasanenhancedstreetscapealongGlendaleAvenue. The 18 -acrepark/school/retention parcel 1/4 -mile to the north of thisretentionareaprovidesanadequateareafortheactiverecreationalusesforthisprojectandsquaremile. Thisfour -acre parcel, while needed as a retention area, can bedesignedandattractivelylandscapedtoprovidemuch-neededopenspaceandmajorstreetscapeforthisproject. 3. CITY PARR ACREAGE STANDARDS CONCERN/ISSUE There was discussion and questions at the workshop regarding the City's current and future plans and standards for the size of neighborhood parks. There was also discussion regarding additional park acreage that would be provided in this square mile on adjacent properties to this project that would be developed at some time in the future. STATUSZCOMMENTS The City's Parks Master Plan includes a standard to be used for the development of neighborhood parks. That standard is one acre/1,000 population. Orangewood Village Master Plan will result in a population of 2,700 people, which would require a minimum of 2.7 acres designated for neighborhood park use. By comparison, the Orangewood Village Master Plan contains approximately 17 acres of parks/open space five -acre park, eight acres retention, and four additional acres of retention). Staff will be discussing desired revisions to the standards for the size and design f neighborhoods with the Council in the near future. The proposed park/open space acreage within the Orangewood Village Master Plan does provide for an adequate park area for this project. In additional to the park/open space acreage within Orangewood Village, adjacent development parcels not included within this request would provide additional park acreage for this square mile at the time of their development. In particular, the 80 -acre parcel immediately north of the 18 -acre park/retention/school site would require an approximately four -acre retention area within that proposed development. The design and location of that future retention area can be provided in a manner such that it abuts and ultimately combines with the large park/retention area proposed within this project. Additional park/retention areas would also be provided on other development parcels along the north side of Glendale Avenue and south side of Northern Avenue that are not included within this project. Orangewood Village (Z-88-30) August 22, 1989Page44. BIKE PATHSCONCERN/ISSUEQuestionswere raised at the workshop in regard to theprovisionforbikepathsandbicyclecirculationwithin thismasterplan. STATUS/COMMENTS path located along the entire length of Orangewood Avenue. This bike path, as identified on the street cross section concepts included within the master plan (see attached street cross section), is set back away from the street and is designated particularly for a bike path. In addition, during the future design and review of individual subdivision plats, the staff and the applicant will include necessary provisions to accommodate safe and convenient bicycle circulation from the residential areas to the future park/school areas, as well as to the commercial office areas at 91st Avenue and Glendale. S. PARKING FOR THE 5.000-S UARE-FOOT LOTS CONCERN ISSUE A question was raised at the workshop regarding a potential problem with street parking as a result of the 5,000 -square -foot lots. The concern being that the 'smaller lot sizes would necessitate a greater amount of street parking to accommodate the residential use. STATUS/COMMENTS While the proposed lots would be smaller than the typical urban residential lot, the applicant has indicated that these 5,000 -square -foot lots would contain all normal required on-site parking in either a garage or a carport, in addition to the normal driveway apron in front of the garage/carport. The 5,000 -square -foot lots would not create the need for additional street parking beyond that normally found within standard residential development in the City with 7,000 -8,000 -square -foot lots. Orangewood Village (Z-88-30) August 22, 1989Page56. LOT SIZES AND QUALITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTCONCERN/ISSUEConcernswere raised at the May 2, 1989 workshop regardingthe5,000 -square -foot lots in Parcels K and L, and theresidentialproductstobeconstructedonthoselots. STATUS/COMMENTSTheapplicant, in the Second Supplement to Development Plan, dated June 16, 1989, responds that the 5,000 -square -foot lots have been included in the plan to achieve a balance and variety in the master plan, not to achieve a higher overall density. These lots will be developed in walled communities controlled by Homeowners Associations, and will have their own common areas. The applicant advises that those lots will not be used for entry-level or attached housing, but will be single-family detached homes with specified minimum floor sizes and design guidelines. The applicant notes that the residential design guidelines will be expanded to include similar criteria as those recently adopted in the Arrowhead Ranch Master Plan. The products built on these 5,000 -square -foot lots will meet or exceed the City's Subdivision Design Expectations. The Community Development Group will review/approve all residential products in conjunction with future subdivision plat reviews and prior to building permit issuance. Those products must meet the design criteria specified by the applicant as part of this rezoning action.