Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/11/1990MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 AT 3:05 P.M. Mayor Renner called the Workshop Session of the GlendaleCityCounciltoorderintheWorkshopRoom, B-3, in theGlendaleCouncilChambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Hugh, McAllister, Scruggs and Tolby. Member Absent: Huffman. 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. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 90-20 - TOWING SERVICE Staff summarized this item by stating that three proposals were received to supply the citizens of Glendale with towing service on an "as needed" basis during the contract period, beginning with Council approval and ending August 31, 1991. The proposal also allows for two successive one year extensions with the approval of the vendor and at the discretion of the City Manager. The proposal included towing and storage services for non -abandoned and abandoned vehicles. When a tow is required, if the citizen does not request a specific towing company, the towing service contractor will be called by the Police Department. Towing service is based on an hourly rate, prorated every 15 minutes thereafter. Storage is based on a flat rate for each 24 hour period the vehicle is held. The proposals were evaluated by a panel. Representatives were from the Police Department, Materials Management, City Manager's Office and the City of Phoenix Materials Management Department. According to a predetermined method the panel evaluated the responses. Proposals were reviewed and discussed, points were individually applied and the composite scores were totaled. The proposal from Western Towing received the highest rating from the evaluation panel and was therefore the apparent best overall response in meeting the needs of the City in the most advantageous manner. Letters were received from Knowlton Towing and Statewide Towing Services protesting the award of Proposal No. 90-20 to 35 Western Towing. The protests have been reviewed andinvestigatedbytheCityAttorney's office. The CityAttorney's office has found both protests to be without meritandrecommendstheprotestsberejected. Mayor Renner stated that the chair would only takeremarksfrominterestedpartiesattheformalCouncilmeetingtonight, not in the workshop session. He said that in theinterestoffairness, he would defer comments until themajorityofpeopleaffectedcouldbepresent. This item will be on tonight's Council agenda for formalconsideration. 2. Z-90-31 - CATLIN COURT PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT REZONING REQUEST Staff summarized this issue by stating that rezoning application Z-90-31 is a request to rezone a 4 1/2 block area immediately north of the downtown core area from R-4, C-0, and C-2 to PAD (Planned Area Development). The area of the rezoning is bounded by 59th Avenue on the west, the alley east of 57th Avenue on the east, Palmaire Avenue on the south, and Myrtle Avenue on the north. The rezoning application has been submitted by the Catlin Court District Committee, which is the authorized representative of the property owners in the rezoning area and is also a subcommittee of the Downtown Development Corporation. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the PAD rezoning request at its regular meeting of September 6, 1990. The Catlin Court District will promote the rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing properties within the proposed boundaries of the district. This will help make the area a destination place for shoppers and tourists, and will help encourage new businesses that will enhance the retail base for the downtown area. The committee is also working with the State Historic Preservation Office and the City to place this area on the National Register as an historic district. The plan provides guidelines for design standards dealing with architecture, landscaping, signage, fencing, sanitation, and entry features. Specific land uses have been identified which primarily include specialty retail and limited professional office space. The intent of the plan for Catlin Court is to encourage the existing architectural character of the single-family residences in this area and maintain the mixture of building styles and architecture from the period when this area was developed. At this time, two issues have been raised regarding implementation of the Plan. One issue deals with the 36 formation of an association of businesses in the Catlin Courtarea. The second issue relates to the implementation of theimprovementsinthepublicright-of-way. The Plan statesthattheCityofGlendaleshallberesponsiblefortheconstructionandmaintenanceofallimprovementsinthepublicright-of-way, but there is no timetable for theconstructionoftheseimprovements. Ms. Candace Paxia and Sue Branch gave a presentation totheCouncilonwhatthecommittee's expectations are for thearea. Discussion ensued on the duties and responsibilitiesoftheproposedassociation. Councilmember Scruggs statedthatshewasinsupportoftheassociationasawayto maintain the areas properties once they are through the City's development review process and assure they remain attractive. Mayor Renner suggested that a surface economic impact estimate should be done on this area to get some idea of the sales tax that would be generated by this area. City Attorney Van Haren stated that after reviewing the Catlin Court plan, the enforcement of any zoning requirements including the architectural requirements and some of the maintenance requirements falls on the City and will have to be enforced as zoning violations. He said that an association would not contain the legal enforcement capabilities for one private property owner to impose upon another private property owner. He said that CC&R's that would append the deeds of properties and agreed to by all people within the district would have to be adopted in order to have private enforcement capabilities. Councilmember Scruggs said that from her own perspective, before zoning goes in, she would like the City to be assured that there is an association that would take care of the enforcement of these specific zoning requirements within this area. Mr. Van Haren further advised that the statement within the plan that the City will be responsible for the implementation of all right-of-way improvements and the proposed zoning action does not create a legal obligation on the City to construct those improvements. He said it needs to be done through a development agreement during the adoption of a portion of those right-of-way improvements as part of the capital improvements plan and ultimately through the appropriation of money to the years it will be spent to make those improvements. Councilmember McAllister said that he was excited about this plan and looks forward to the implementation of it. HetopfeelsitwillsavetheCitytimeandmoneyinnothavingto renovate a potential blighted area if the plan is put intoactionandtheresidencesarerestoredforbusinesspurposes. Vice Mayor Hugh reiterated Councilmember McAllister'sremarkssayingthisareawouldbespecialbutifthezoningonthisareagoesthroughitdoesn't mean the publicimprovementstotheright-of-way will be maintained by theCity. City Attorney Van Haren, responded by saying this is azoningactionthatgovernstheuseofproperty. It is not anagreementbetweenthepropertyownersandtheCityastowhomisgoingtoberesponsibleforthepublicrights-of-way. City Manager Vanacour stated that the next phase would be to put together a development agreement and also talk about funding. This item will be placed on a future Council agenda for formal consideration. 3. Z-90-04 (GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION): NEC OF 57TH DRIVE AND OLIVE AVENUE This is a City Council initiated rezoning to establish consistency between a property's designated land use in the General Plan and its zoning classification. The property area is designated as Limited Office in the General Plan, but is currently zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Retail). The 2.0 -acre property, located on the northeast corner of 57th Drive and Olive Avenue, includes three completely developed parcels. The two parcels closest to Olive Avenue are developed with office buildings and the third parcel contains a day care center. All of these uses are permitted in the C-0 zoning district. The day care center is permitted by use permit. The existing center will not be required to obtain a use permit and will be able to continue operation as a legal, non -conforming use. The adjacent land uses to the north and east are single-family residential, zoned R1-6. The purpose of the Limited Office designation in the General Plan and the Commercial Office zoning classification is to provide land uses which are compatible with single-family development and create a buffer between major arterial streets and the single-family neighborhood. Any redevelopment of the property area in the future for retail commercial uses under the existing C-1 zoning would be inconsistent with the General Plan and would adversely impact the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of Z-90-04 at their regular meeting of April 5, 1990. 38 This item will be on tonight's Council agenda for formalconsideration. 4. Z-90-05 (GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION): NEC OF 51STAVENUEANDBUTLERDRIVEThisisaCityCouncilinitiatedrezoningcasetoestablishconsistencybetweenaproperty's designated landuseintheGeneralPlananditszoningclassification. ThepropertyareaisdesignatedasLimitedOfficeintheGeneralPlan, but is currently zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Retail). The 1.3 -acre site, located on the northeast corner of 51st Avenue and Butler Drive, includes two completely developed parcels. The north half of the site is developed with a day care center, while the south half of the site is developed with a small medical office building. Both uses are permitted in the proposed C -O zoning district. Day care centers are permitted by use permit. This day care center will not be required to obtain a use permit and will be able to continue operation as a legal, non -conforming use. The adjacent land uses to the north and east are single-family residential, zoned R1-6. The purpose of the Limited Office designation in the General Plan and the Commercial Office zoning classification is to provide land uses which are compatible with single-family development and create a buffer between major arterial streets and the single-family neighborhood. Any redevelopment of the property area in the future for retail commercial uses under the existing C-1 zoning would be inconsistent with the General Plan and would adversely impact the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of Z-90-05 at their regular meeting of March 22, 1990. This item has been requested to be continued from tonight's Council agenda to a future Council agenda. 5. PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE At the request of Councilmember Elaine Scruggs, Council is asked to consider the establishment of an Equestrian Advisory Committee which would function in a manner similar to the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The purpose of this proposed committee would be to incorporate city-wide citizen input and staff expertise in examining issues associated with equestrian trails within the City. Examples of these issues would include, integration of 39 existing trails into nearby development projects, trailmaintenance, trail improvements, and the possible addition ofnewequestriantrailswithintheCity. Additionally, the City last examined this issue five (5) years ago, and existing equestrian trail plans may be in needofupdatingduetothepassageoftime. Districts with horseprivilegeswouldincludeCholla, Sahuaro, Barrel, and Yucca. This committee would work with both the Parks and RecreationandthePlanningandZoningcommissionandserveinanadvisorycapacity. The general consensus of the Council is support of this committee. 6. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPORT Marion Porch, the Intergovernmental Liaison, briefed the City Council on state and federal legislative issues and related matters. This item is for information only. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items to come before the Council, eting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. 40 Deputy City Clerk