Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 11/14/1989I MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1989 AT 3:05 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. LIFEPAK TEN HEART MONITOR DEMONSTRATION Mr. John Nunes, Fire Chief, stated that on November 3, 1989, the Glendale Fire Department placed in service five LifePak Ten Heart Monitor/Defibrillator/Non-Invasive Pacing Units. Each of the city's Advanced Life Support Units will be equipped with one of these units. Mr. Doug DeSanti, EMS Coordinator, stated the LifePak Ten Unit was introduced in May of this year by Physio Control Corporation of Redmond, Washington. It provides four distinct advantages over the LifePak Five Monitor/Defibrillator Glendale Fire ALS Units currently carry. The unit: 1. Enables Paramedics to pace a patient's heart that is not responding to pre -hospital drug therapy. 2. Delivers smaller amounts of energy for defibrillating infants and children. 3. Stores patient cardiac rhythm history in the computer memory enabling retrieval at any time during the patient's pre -hospital care. 4. Makes it possible to transmit patient heart rhythms to base hospitals utilizing a small cable and portable radio. Overall the LifePak Ten reduces the amount of equipment carried on ALS Units, equipment maintenance costs are reduced, and the service level is the highest possible. Thi,-- item is for information only. 95- 2. APPEAL OF REZONING APPLICATION Z-89-08: 6612 W. PARADISELANEMr. Greg Comstock, Senior Planner, gave Council a briefhistoryofthiscasebystatingthatthisisanappealbytheapplicantofthePlanningandZoningCommission's denial ofRezoningApplicationZ-89-08. The request is to establish aspecialusedistrictforcommercialstorageofapproximately153recreationalvehicleson2.5 acres in an R1-6 district. Storage of recreational vehicles and automobiles beganillegallyatthislocationin1986orearlier. Thisviolationwasnotprosecutedwhilethespecialusedistrictprocedureswerebeingestablished. The request is not in conformance with the General Plan designation of residential: 8-12 units per acre and, if approved, would disrupt the development character of adjacent properties. It would tend to encourage further commercialization in an area not identified as appropriate for commercial development. At their meeting September 7, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously denied this request. Neighbors spoke both in support and in opposition to the request, with opposition from the adjacent property owners to the west, east, and north. Mr. Comstock further stated that City Manager Vanacour and one councilman have received a request by the applicant to table this item and to initiate an ordinance amendment to allow recreational vehicle storage as a use permit for a specific time period. Mr. Comstock stated this item has been advertised for a public hearing and recommended Council conduct the hearing to review testimony before considering the request to table. Councilman Huffman asked staff if there was anything developing around this request and if it was time for some type of development to take place in this location. He also asked what would happen to the property if development did not take place and if there was any kind of intermediate use that could be assigned as opposed to five years or nothing. Mr. Comstock replied that there is no provision right now that would allow the applicant to run this type operation at this location on a temporary basis. Mr. Comstock explained that the property is zoned residential right now and that would allow them to put a single-family residence or perhaps even do a small development on the property. He said that the General Plan shows it as being appropriate for a slightly higher residential density of approximately 8-12 units to the acre. He said that would represent a patio home or low density town house project. City Manager Vanacour asked what the process would be iftheCouncildecidedtoallowatemporaryuseatthislocation. Mr. Jerry Swanson, Deputy City Manager, CommunityDevelopment, explained that the zoning ordinance would havetobeamendedtoprovideforaspecialuseinthesingle-family zoning district or some other district to allowforausepermittobegranted, which is the traditionalmethodofallowingtemporarykindsofactivities. He saidthatwiththerequiredpublichearings, it is from 90-120daystoamendtheordinanceplustherewouldbeanapplicationfortheusepermitthattheapplicantwouldhave to make. The process for the use permits is a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and unless appealed or challenged or called up for review by Council the decision would be final at that time. He said that effectively about 30-45 days beyond the ordinance amendment would be needed to secure the use permit. Mr. Swanson said that given the public testimony that has been offered to date through the rezoning application, it's fair to expect that there would be a challenge on this case. Councilman Huffman stated was more of a transitional way property from what it is now that what he was referring to for the applicant to take his to another goal that will be down the road less than five years. Mr. Swanson replied that over the last three years this activity, which was established in violation of the zoning ordinance, has been allowed to continue pending resolution of various applications for General Plan changes, zoning ordinance, use permits, etc. He said there has been at least three years of temporary use pending some final resolution of this issue by the Council. He also stated that some of the things that staff has discussed today and what the applicant is requesting would undoubtedly extend that period perhaps for another year. Councilman McAllister stated that it's obvious that what's out there doesn't fit with the area. It's also quite apparent that there is a need for a place to store recreational vehicles. He further stated that if the Council passes this appeal today they will be sanctioning a use that doesn't fit. He said that he was not for that but it does seem to him that there is a situation where an individual could make use of the property for a period of two to five years if requirements of buffering were met. Mr. Swanson replied that the Council did have the power to amend the ordinance to allow for a use permit procedure. He said that they traditionally impose certain stipulations on the issuance of a use permit. One is time; another one is 97- improvements to make that use compatible with adjacentresidencesandtoimprovestreetfrontage, hold down dust andimproveairquality, etc. Mayor Renner asked what uses, if any, are allowed withusepermitapprovalinR1-6. Mr. Swanson replied thatchurches, clubs, recreational facilities of some type. MayorRenneraskediftheCouncildidnotdiscusssomethingcalledaresidentialservicesdistrict. He said he thought they haddiscussedaprovisiontoprovideoutsidestorarge. City Manager Vanacour responded that is what thisspecialusedistrictdid, that Council allowed, except in an R-1 district. If an applicant meets certain criteria such as traffic and landscaping and then goes before the public and no objections are received then the application would be allowed. However, in this case, the Babineau's neighbors have objected. Mr. Swanson stated that this mechanism that was fairly recently adopted by the Council (special use district), includes cemeteries and some other uses that might well go anywhere. They are not in residential districts but they replace the zoning. He said there are places where these types of uses make sense; they're necessary, they're providing a useful service. He further stated that it is staff's recommendation that this particular location is not the best place. Mayor Renner asked staff how outside storage of boats and trailers is handled in townhouse and high density developments. Staff replied that is just part of the site plan approval for storage and it is non-commercial and for the residents of the area. Mr. Dean Svoboda, Planning Manager, stated that given the size and scale of this facility, it is attracting R.V's from a much larger area than the immediate neighborhood. He said staff believes this is more along the lines of a commercial operation; attracting from a much broader base. Councilman Huffman stated that he felt it was better to have one place for the storage of recreational vehicles rather than have them stored in individual driveways and have control over the storage facility. Mr. Svoboda responded that, that thinking came out very clearly both in the surrounding neighborhood and from some people further away at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. He said there is a definite need within the community for these types of facilities. What they heard from the adjacent and nearby landowners was that this was not the appropriate location. Mr. Svoboda also pointed out that the Babineau's havethesamepotentialforredevelopmentassomeoftheirneighborsonthecorner. One of the staff's concerns is thatbyallowingevenatemporaryuseatthisparticularlocation, the city would be frustrating any potential redevelopment atthoseotherproperties. Mr. Svoboda clarified that the pointhewastryingtomakeregardingthethreeproperties, wasthatnoneofthemfitintothesingle-family character of theneighborhood. He said they are all anomalies. Councilman McAllister stated that he felt there is aneedtodosomethingonatemporarybasisbutnotputitinconcrete. Vice Mayor Tolby stated that he had never been a fan of use permits. He said they are awful hard to make temporary. He said he also had a concern that Council cannot ask for the level of improvements on a temporary basis as you can on a permanent basis and feels that this can promote substandard developments. He also said he questions whether this permit is detrimental to the neighborhood. He said he thought that the storage of vehicles would promote far less traffic than a higher density development. He suggested that maybe if Council makes this a permanent use and imposes the same building standards it would be less detrimental to the neighborhood than the same amount of houses or apartments. Mr. Swanson responded that the General Plan allows 8-12 units to the acre at this location which is a town -house, patio home. He said that R1-6 is 6,000 square foot single-family. He said that the zoning is currently single-family. He said it is an active use as opposed to the storage use but it is a residential use. He said that whether it was detrimental to the neighborhood was not a clear cut issue as they had received comments from both sides during the Planning and Zoning hearings. Mr. Swanson said he concurs that temporary approvals tend to be not so temporary. Councilman McAllister asked staff if the application was approved what stipulations would be placed on the permit. Mr. Comstock replied that typically they would stipulate that the applicant dedicate the right-of-way. Then they would ask for certain surfacing of the storage area itself and walls around the development. The applicant would have to go through a development review like a typical commercial project. Mr. Svoboda said that because this is somewhat of an unusual zoning district (special use overlay) one of the requirements is that the Council approves the site and development plan for this property simultaneously. He said many of those items which the Council has evidenced concern, right-of-way, access, perimeter screening, height of light standards, lighting and water retention need to be addressedatthistime. He stated further that anything that relatestothecompatibilityandnatureoftheuseneedstobedecidedbecausetheCouncilwillbeapprovingwhatyousee. City Manager Vanacour stated that staff is recommendingtogoaheadandholdthepublichearingtonightandreceivefurtherpublicinput. This item will be placed on tonight's Council Agenda toreceivefurtherpubliccommentandformalconsideration. 3. PROPOSED UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ORDINANCE Mr. Jerry Swanson gave a brief overview of the ordinance by stating the undergrounding of new and existing overhead utility lines has long been an objective of the Council and is a specific goal of the Glendale General Plan. At present, our only authority for requiring undergrounding applies to subdivisions and is continued in the Subdivision and Minor Land Division Ordinance. For all other development projects, we currently rely on negotiations during development plan review to get utilities underground. In order to fully accomplish the Council goal of undergrounding and comply with the General Plan, an ordinance is necessary to cover development projects other than subdivisions. 1 Mr. Bill Amlong, Land Development Engineer and project manager, further explained that using the recently -enacted ordinance of the City of Tempe as a model, a series of four 4) drafts of the proposed ordinance were prepared and reviewed by staff, the utility companies and the Homebuilders Association. He said the proposed ordinance is not intended to immediately underground all of the existing overhead utilities within the City, but rather to accomplish undergrounding as new development and redevelopment occur. Sufficient flexibility has been incorporated into the ordinance to allow for deferment or waiver of undergrounding as may be dictated by specific development constraints or economic considerations. Provisions have been included to accommodate special programs such as the Salt River Project Aesthetics Improvement Program" by authorizing the City Engineer to waive portions of the ordinance when acceptable alternate plans are presented. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on October 19, 1989, and recommends approval of this ordinance. The City Council Utilities Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance at its rte, regular meeting on October 23, 1989, and recommends approval of the ordinance. 100- Vice Mayor Tolby asked staff who would make thedeterminationonwhatwasanupgrade. Mr. Amlong respondedthatifadditionalequipmentisaddedtotheexistingequipmentthatisconsideredanupgrade. Dr. Christine Gibbs, Salt River Project, Jerry Smith, Salt River Project and Rudy Paz, U.S. West Communicationsspokeinsupportoftheproposedordinance. They allexpressedsupportofthewaiverprovision. This item will be placed on the December 12th Councilagendaforformalconsideration. 4.PUBLIC/PRIVATE COST SHARING OF PARK IMPROVEMENT Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager, Community Services, gave Council a brief summary by stating for several months, staff has been working with the Honeywell Corporation on a public/private cost-sharing agreement, for the development of two adult -size softball fields at Foothills Park, 59th Avenue and Union Hills Road. Since this type of agreement will result in exclusive use of a public facility by a special interest group, payments or compensation to the City require open competitive proposals. It is the intent of this project to stretch limited public capital improvement funds by cooperating with a private corporation. The resulting improvements will provide recreation facilities that will benefit both the general public and employees of the company. Also, this project demonstrates to others how the City of Glendale can assist and cooperate with the private sector in meeting its employee recreation needs. The successful proposer will: 1. Make a minimum cash contribution of $75-,000 to the City. 2. Contribute $2,000 annually to a repair and maintenance fund. 3. Pay the current hourly rate for the use of the ballfields. 4. Will be allowed to use the two softball fields three nights per week from September 1, through April 30 each year during the six years of the agreement. 101- n J It is estimated that it will cost $375,000 to developtwolighted, adult -size softball fields, including supportitemssuchasparking, restroom/control building, etc. Mr. Chuck Boyes, Honeywell, reiterated staff'srecommendationsandtheirconcurrencewiththeproposal. Mayor Renner suggested that provisions for parking beincorporatedintothisproposalforfutureuse. It was the general consensus of Council to put this itemoutforrequestforproposalandthenplacetheRFPontheCouncilagendaforformalaction. 5. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPORT Marion Porch, the Intergovernmental Liaison briefed City Council on legislative issues. This item is for information only. COUNCIL COND(ENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 411116111WIVI There being no further items to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. 102- Deputy City Clerk