Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 12/19/1989MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 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, and Tolby. Member Absent: McAllister. Also present were Martin Vanacour, City Manager; GordonL. Pedrow, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, City Attorney and Linda Ginn, Deputy City Clerk. CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPEAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -89-05 AND REZONING APPLICATION Z-89-11: 5601 WEST EUGIE AVENUE Staff briefed Council on this issue by saying this is an appeal by the applicant of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of GP -89-05 and Z-89-11. The request is to amend the General Plan from Residential: 12-20 units/acre to Limited Office and to rezone from R-4 to C -O. No specific development is proposed in conjunction with the request. The General Plan encourages office development in a corridor along Thunderbird Road between 51st Avenue and the Arizona Canal. There are several vacant or underdeveloped properties in this corridor area which are more appropriate for office development. The approval of this office proposal outside of the corridor will impede the overall corridor development as an employment and activity center. The staff is also concerned about additional traffic generated by an office project at this location and the adverse impact this will have on the adjacent residential area to the east. At their October 19, 1989 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously denied the request. Several neighbors spoke in opposition to the request. No neighbors spoke in support of the request. This item will be on tonight's Council agenda for formal consideration. 115- WORKSHOP SESSION2. PROPOSED ANNEXATIONStaffbriefedCouncil on this item by saying from timetotimetheCityreceivesrequestsinitiatedbylandownerstobeannexedintotheCityofGlendale. These are areas thatarecontiguoustoourcityboundaries. A request forannexationhasbeensubmittedbythemajorityofthepropertyownerswithinthefollowingdescribedboundaries: An areaboundedonthenorthbyNorthernAvenue, on the west by the95thAvenuealignment, on the east by the 87th Avenuealignment, and on the south by the Orangewood Avenue alignment. The total proposed area includes approximately 317 acres. Areas such as these will in most likelihood continue to ask to come into Glendale as more of the outer loop freeway is completed and the land becomes ready for development. Annexation can give the City the control it needs to see that the land is developed to our standards and is compatible with our planning process. Signed letters of approval and support for the proposed annexation have been submitted by over 51 percent of the property owners representing a majority of the assessed value involved. The area is bounded on the north by the City of 41 Glendale strip annexed boundary and on a portion of the south and east by existing Glendale City limits. Other boundaries are adjacent to unannexed properties of Maricopa County. Vice Mayor Tolby stated his concern regarding the City assuming an illegal land use in the proposed annexation area. He said there is currently an illegal land use within the proposed annexation area and he didn't feel that the City should take the responsibility to bring it into conformance which they would do if they annexed the proposed area. The county currently has jurisdiction on this area and has issued an order to cease or comply but it would take between three to six months to resolve the problem. A representative of the primary applicant expressed his company's desire to move forward as soon as possible and be annexed into the City. Mayor Renner asked legal staff what procedures the City would have to take if they annexed this area and assumed the non -conforming land use. Staff replied that if it is not a state law that the County is enforcing, then the City would have to start a whole new process after the area was annexed into the City. Council suggested that staff research this item further and bring back to Workshop January 9, for further review and discussion. 116- 3. FOLLOW-UP ON REHABILITATION COMPLAINTSStaffsummarizedthisitemandstated that on October3rd, the City Council reviewed the Housing Advisory AppealsBoard's report on complaints from 18 former clients of theHousingRehabilitationProgram. In this report, the Boardstatedthat, although the City had no responsibility to makerepairstothehomes, it should assist the homeowners incontactingcontractorsonreportingfindingstotheRegistrarofContractors. During the meeting, the Council had specificquestionsaboutthecosttoremedythecomplaintsandaskedtheHousingAdvisoryAppealsBoardforspecificcostinformationoneighthomeswheretheBoardstatedthatthe City could offer assistance if it wished. That cost would be 6,624.00. To secure this information, Great Western Builders was hired to provide cost estimates. This company has considerable experience in remodeling work and has never been involved with the rehabilitation of any homes under the program. The total estimate to repair all 18 homes is 45,992.00. City Council also requested staff to contact the Department of Housing and Urban Development about possible 40 resources to make the repairs. In summary their response states that the City has the right to establish an emergency repair program and that there is no statutory limitation on the "number of times an otherwise eligible family can receive CDBG assistance. However, repetition of very limited resources, reduces the availability of those resources to individuals of equal or greater need." The letter further states that the City's performance in assisting additional units is an area where the HUD office has an ongoing concern. The staff continues to recommend that Council accept its original recommendation on the Housing Advisory Appeals Board's report. This action would cost a maximum of 2,830.00. If Council chooses to accept responsibility for ongoing repairs to these homes, staff recommends that the City suspend the Staff Assisted Program and develop a range of other programs to address the community's housing assistance needs, which would not involve technical assistance services to individual clients. Discussion ensued regarding the focus of the program and establishing an emergency repair program. Paul Ludwick, Neighborhood Resources Director, explained the HUD guidelines for an emergency repair program. He stated that typically the scope of the emergency repair program is determined by the city and is used to address those urgent situations generally caused by equipment failures i.e. cooler outages in mid -summer; furnace outages in mid -winter, etc. He said this 117- type of program is generally used for complete failuresrequiringsystemreplacementandnotroutinemaintenance. Mayor Renner asked staff if the four houses in questionwouldfallundertheemergencyrepairfunding. Staff repliedpositively. Mayor Renner suggested that (2ouncil establish anemergencyrepairfundandbringclosureontheserequests. He further stated he felt that Council should look long andhardattheprioritiesofthehousingrehabprogramandexamine "moderate" rehab versus "substantial" rehabilitation. He suggested that the CDBG committee look into the placementofCDBGfundsformoderaterehabilitationasopposedtosubstantialrehabilitation. Mayor Renner asked staff what procedure would be needed to establish the emergency repair fund and how it would be implemented. Mr. Ludwick outlined the procedure by recommending the city accept an application from a client for the program and have them describe the repair that needs to be done. Then give them a preliminary commitment and have them get a contractor of their own choosing to give them an estimate on the work. If the estimate was within reason, then authorize them to execute a contract and pay the contractor on their behalf. Mr. Ludwick recommended they be handled more like Risk Management claims. Discussion ensued and the Mayor suggested that staff hold a public hearing on the creation of an emergency repair program and inclusion of recommendations on adding moderate rehabilitation to the rehab program. He also suggested that comments be heard regarding the amount of funds to be transferred from the rehabilitation program to an emergency repair program and possibly some alternatives in the focus of the rehab program. Council directed staff to place this item on the Council agenda of January 23 for public hearing. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m. eputy City Clerk 118-