HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 9/25/1990MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 AT 3:10 P.M. Mayor Renner called the Workshop Session of the GlendaleCityCounciltoorderintheWorkshopRoom, B-3, in theGlendaleCouncilChambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Huffman, Hugh, McAllister, Scruggs and Tolby. Members Absent: None. Also present were Tim Ernster, Acting City Manager; David Pennartz, Deputy City Attorney and Linda Duke,
Executive Assistant.
WORKSHOP SESSION
1. MARICOPA COUNTY RABIES/ANIMAL CONTROL - DIFFERENTIAL
LICENSING FEES
Staff stated that pursuant to City Code Section 6-4 (c),
licensing fees for dogs permanently incapable of reproduction
may be lower than for those that can. This section of the
City Code was originally adopted by Council nine years ago in
an effort to prevent unwanted canine litters. The purpose of
differential licensing is to therefore reward dog owners with
lower annual license fees.
Susan Svitak, Assistant Director for Maricopa County
Public Health, stated that although Maricopa County approved
differential licensing in 1982, it has not been practiced
since 1986, wherein it was repealed by the former director of
Rabies/Animal Control. The current annual license fee for a
dog four months or older is $9.00.
On September 17, 1990, the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors voted to re -institute differential dog licensing
in addition to revising licensing fees. New dog licensing
fees have been set at $15.00 per year for a non-sterile dog
and $7.00 per year for a sterile dog. This new fee structure
will take effect October 1, 1990. Because of the new fee
structure, it will be necessary in the near future to
approach Council with a resolution adopting the new fees.
This item will be placed on a future Council agenda for
formal consideration.
2. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT RECOGNITION PROGRAM
Staff briefed Council by stating that the Community
Development Advisory Committee is continuing to develop
proposals to implement the recommendations of its 1988
Housing and Neighborhood Condition Survey.
43
One of the observations made in that survey was that "iftheCitywantstofosterhealthyneighborhoodswithinthecommunity, it is very important that they recognize formallythoseareaswheretheneighborsareworkingtogethertoimprovethesocialandphysicalfabricofthecommunity." Over the last year, the Committee has been discussing anddevelopingaproposalforaprogramwhichwouldrecognizeneighborhoodimprovementefforts. The program is broad basedandflexible. It would recognize neighbors who work togetherwithintheirownneighborhoodorcommunityservicegroupswhomakespecificcontributionstotheimprovementofneighborhoods. The program proposes a variety of ways to
recognize those groups.
One of the suggestions is to develop "Better
Neighborhood" certificates so that members of the Committee
could hand them out to neighborhood groups whenever they
happen to catch a group of people doing good things for their
neighborhood. The second suggestion is that the committee
might seek nominations from the general public, civic groups,
or realtor groups throughout the year for annual awards in
three or four catagories of neighborhood improvement. It is
possible that a video program might be developed annually to
showcase the particular improvment made to various
neighborhoods.
Another proposed way to recognize groups is attractive
signs similar to "No Parking" signs might be placed at the
entrances of neighborhoods that are being recognized for
particular successes. Any of the above forms or recognition
could be followed up by a letter from the Mayor and the
particular Councilmember who represents the district that
that neighborhood belongs to.
Mayor Renner said he felt this was a terrific idea but
wondered where the funding for such a program would come
from. Staff replied that the costs would be minimal and
right now could probably be absorbed by the Neighborhood
Resources budget.
The general consensus of the Council is support for the
proposed program and all the suggestions for recognition.
3. VISIBILITY AND ENCROACHMENT REQUIREMENTS
Staff reported that the City Traffic Engineering
Department desires to modify existing ordinances with regard
to sight distances at intersections and the encroachment of
vegetation into streets and sidewalks.
The proposed ordinance changes establish a City standard
for sight distance at intersections which would satisfy
44
L
minimum traffic engineering standards. In addition, thechangesestablishminimumstandardsforcontrollingtheencroachmentofvegetationintosidewalksandroadwaytravellanes. Specific changes include requiring landscaping, fencesutilityboxesorotherobstructionstosatisfyStandardDetailsG-147 and G-148 of the City of Glendale DesignGuidelinesforSiteDevelopmentandInfrastructureConstruction. Standard Detail G-148 establishes minimumstandardforintersectionsightdistancesforvehiclesenteringcollectorandarterialintersections. StandardDetailG-147 retains an un -obstructed view triangle at all
intersections.
The general consensus of the Council is support of this
proposed change. They recommend placing this item on a
future Council agenda for formal action.
4. ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Staff reported that a comprehensive revision to the
Zoning Ordinance is identified as a 1990-91 City Council
goal. The extensive public participation program included in
the General Plan process identified and established several
new land use categories, development policies and standards
for the City. These development guidelines included within
the General Plan can be best implemented through the
development of a new Zoning Ordinance. The Council has
identified this need to update the Zoning Ordinance as a
major objective in the program to implement the General Plan.
The process planned for the development and adoption of
the new Zoning Ordinance includes public participation by a
wide variety of individuals and groups. Participation by
residents, property owners, special interest groups, and the
development community is encouraged. The ordinance review
process includes the creation of the Zoning Ordinance
Revision Committee which consists of a joint subcommittee of
members from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board
of Adjustment. This group will serve as a public forum for
receiving comments from the general public, as well as
various special interest groups, regarding particular issues
to be considered within the ordinance revision process.
Mayor Renner suggested that the Council have a joint
meeting with the Zoning Ordinance Review committee. Staff
responded that it would be very beneficial to both bodies to
have such a meeting and it would be scheduled into the
timeline.
45
Councilmember McAllister stated that he hoped theproposedordinancewouldincorporateadequatebufferingrequirements. Councilmember Tolby stated that he hoped the proposedordinancewouldremainsensitivetopropertyownersthathavecertainusesineffectnow, as well as, ones that havesubstantialinvestmentsindevelopingusesontheirexistingzoning. The general consensus of the Council is support for theproposedordinance. They directed staff to schedule a jointmeetingbetweentheCouncilandtheZoningOrdinanceReview
Committee after the end of the public participation process.
5. PRELIMINARY 1990 CENSUS RESULTS
Staff briefed Council on this issue by stating
preliminary results from the 1990 U.S. Census of Population
and Housing have been received by the City. The preliminary
count of the population for Glendale for April 1, 1990 is
146,042. Based on this preliminary data, the City of
Glendale is now the 4th largest city in the state, following
Phoenix, Tucson, and Mesa. Based on population estimates
made prior to release of the Census results, Glendale ranked
5th, behind Tempe.
These Census results compare favorably to the estimate
of 145,149 for July 1, 1990 adopted by the Maricopa
Association of Governments. The Census Bureau estimates
there are 60,377 total dwelling units in the City, of which
7,644 are vacant. The preliminary Census results contain
only number of housing units by block, the smallest unit of
Census geography. Dwelling units and number of vacant units
are available by census tracts, which are typically
mile -square areas bounded by arterial streets.
Following the receipt of preliminary results from the
Census Bureau, staff conducted a post -census review. This
review did not uncover any major discrepancies in the Census
Bureau's figures for dwelling units.
Councilmember Bellah asked staff how the City compared
to other valley cities in percentage of vacancies to the
overall housing. Staff replied it was about 12% on the
average.
Mayor Renner questioned staff if the City would receive
the necessary information from the Census Bureau in time to
do their redistricting plan. Staff replied that the more
detailed information that was needed in order to do the plan
would be received later in the spring. They said that an
46
internal task force is meeting now and beginning toprioritizedutiesinanticipationofreceivingthedata. This item was mainly for information and Council will beprovidedupdateswhenthedetailedresultsarereceivedfromtheCensusBureauinApril. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONSNone. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further items to come before the Council,
the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
47
lmcCc..l.Y r i1
Linda Ginn for
Linda Duke