HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/23/1990MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1990 AT 3:10 P.M. Mayor Renner called the Workshop Session of the GlendaleCityCounciltoorderintheWorkshopRoom, B-3, in theGlendaleCouncilChambers. Council members present were: Huffman, Hugh, McAllister, Tolby; Bellah and Scruggs arrivinglate. Members absent: None. Also present were Martin Vanacour, City Manager; GordonL. Pedrow, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, City
Attorney and Linda Duke, Executive Assistant.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. JUSTICE COURT RETENTION PROJECT
Staff presenters: Jerry Swanson, Deputy City Manager,
Community Development
Scott Lazenby, Acting Economic
Development Director
Greg Marek, Redevelopment Program
Manager
Staff reported that the City of Glendale has been
contacted by Maricopa County regarding the space needs for
Judge Jay White and space for the Glendale Justice Court.
The court has outgrown the 4,000 square feet it now occupies
and leases from the City of Glendale at 6830 North 57th
Drive. Judge White has requested that the Justice Court be
allowed to expand into the 3,140 square feet being vacated by
the Westside Food Bank and staff has determined that this is
feasible.
With the expansion needs of the court, Judge White
anticipates employing 15 people. Maricopa County has also
expressed its desire to keep the Justice Court at its current
location.
Staff has met with the County and Judge White several
times to discuss their space needs and parking requirements.
Interim parking can be provided for the court on land owned
by the City in the abandoned railroad right-of-way, and if
current development plans by the American Legion come to
fruition, a longer-term parking solution could include the
public safety parking structure as well as a downtown parking
lot that the City will develop on the west side of 58th
Avenue.
In order to pay for rehabilitation costs, the County
will either pay their costs directly, or will reimburse the
City for these costs by entering into a five-year lease with
55
an option to renew. The City costs would be recovered in thefirstfive-year period. The lease would be structured sothattheimprovementswillbeconstructedatnonewcosttotheCity. In order to proceed with the project, it is necessary tohireanarchitecttopreparethedesignplantoapointwherestaffcanprovidecostestimatessotheCountycanseewhattypeofimprovementswillbebuilt. Also, at that pointstaffwillbeabletodeterminetheestimatedleaserate. Staff has selected Reed & Associates as the architect and theagreementtohirethearchitectwillbeontheagendaattonight's meeting. The County has agreed by letter to
reimburse the City for the cost of architectural services for
this project.
This item is for Council's information and will be on
tonight's agenda for formal consideration.
WORKSHOP SESSION
2. STAFF UPDATE - IMPROVEMENT PROTEST NO. 56 - PROTESTS
Staff presenters: Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager,
Public Works
Grant Anderson, City Engineer
Other present: Keith Hoskins, Outside Legal Counsel
The Mayor and Council recently adopted a resolution
noticing their intent to form Improvement District No. 56.
After close of the protest period, the City had received
protests from property owners representing five properties,
12.9 percent of the street frontage, within the proposed
district. The protest period provided an opportunity for the
property owners to protest the formation of the district and
to object to the extent of the district. Of the protests
received, representatives of five of the properties protested
the proposed improvements, with one of the five also
objecting to the extent of the district. Grant Stanfield was
the only property owner to object to the extent of the
district.
Pursuant to State Statute, the City must hold a public
hearing to hear and pass upon all objections received and
upon the sufficiency of protests received in respect to City
of Glendale Improvement District No. 56. The hearing will be
divided into two parts, the first part dealing with protests
received regarding the proposed improvements and the second
part dealing with the extent of the district. After hearing
protests to the proposed improvements, the Council may act in
a single motion on the sufficiency of all protests received
regarding the proposed improvements. If the protests
represent a majority of the property within the district then
the district must stop. If they are not a majority then the
56
district may proceed. After hearing objections to the extentofthedistrict, the Council must take individual actionafterreviewofeachindividualobjection. If the propertywillnotbebenefittedbytheimprovementthentheobjectionisgoodandtheboundariesofthedistrictmustberevisedtoexcludetheproperty. If other property should be includedthentheboundariesmustberevisedtoincludeit. TheprocedurewouldbeginagainwithanewResolutionofIntention. Each property owner has been notified by mail of thepublichearingdate. The situations of each of the fiveprotestsareasfollows;
Protests 1 & 2: Germain H. Ball and Robert L. Fletcher
are Co -Tenant owners of the property on the southwest corner
of 59th Avenue and Cactus Road. The property represents 17.6
acres with 1783.1 lineal feet of frontage on 59th Avenue and
Cactus Road. The property is currently being farmed and the
improvement district does not require sidewalks and
right-of-way landscaping adjacent to land currently under
cultivation. Estimated assessment:
Assessment #1 Fletcher and Ball $ 60,035.74
Assessment #2 Fletcher and Ball 260,512.75
1 Protest 3: Germain H. Ball and First Interstate Bank of
Arizona are Co -Trustees of the Leona Harmon Rickenbach Trust,
owner of the property at the northwest corner of 59th Avenue
and Cactus Road. The property represents 37.1 acres with
2535.0 lineal feet of frontage on 59th Avenue and Cactus
Road. The property is currently being farmed and the
improvement district does not require sidewalks and
right-of-way landscaping adjacent to land currently under
cultivation. Estimated assessment:
Assessment #3 Ball $383,003.78
Protest 4: Grant Stanfield is the owner of Lot 13, Joy
Ranchos subdivision on the east side of 51st Avenue, north of
Cholla Street. This is a vacant parcel zoned for residential
use. The property represents 1.7 acres with 264.0 lineal
feet of frontage on 51st Avenue. Estimated assessment:
Assessment #147 $ 22,228.04
Protest 5: Jewell G. Mussatto is the owner of a parcel
of land on the east side of 51st Avenue, south of ACDC. The
property is currently being farmed and Mrs. Mussatto has
lived on the farm since 1915. The improvement district does
not require sidewalks and right-of-way landscaping adjacent
to land currently under cultivation. The property represents
57
4.3 acres with 468.0 lineal feet of frontage on 51st Avenue. Estimated assessment: Assessment #145 37,308.22Aletterofprotest, dated September 7, 1990, wasreceivedfromthelawfirmofJennings, Strouss & Salmon, whorepresentstheKochFamilyRevocableTrust, which is theownerofrecordofanundividedone-third interest in theMarshallRanchproperty. On September 14, 1990, the last dayoftheprotestperiod, the City Clerk received a letter fromJennings, Strouss & Salmon withdrawing the protest.
Special legal counsel, Keith Hoskins, explained the
process and options available to the Council.
These protests will be heard on the public hearing
section of the regular Council agenda tonight.
3. THUNDERBIRD PARK SITE REVIEW
Staff presenters: Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager,
Community Development
Lee Stanley, Leisure Services Dir.
Warren Smith, Leisure Services Mgr.
Staff stated that in 1967, Maricopa County Parks and
Recreation drafted a comprehensive Master Development Plan
for Thunderbird Park. For the last 23 years, that plan has
remained unchanged. Most importantly, it has not allowed for
the explosive growth Glendale has recently undergone. Nor
does the plan provide for the combined impact of four major
projects currently under construction adjacent to the park.
The first is the construction of the outer loop
alignment (just south of the park along Beardsley Road) and
it's connection with I-17 in about five years. Approximately
one year later, the adjacent Adobe Dam Recreation Complex
will be completed and offer a wider range of recreational
opportunities heretofore unavailable in Maricopa County. The
third major impact on the park is the continually growing
Arrowhead Ranch development on the southern border of the
park. The fourth impact is the encroaching Phoenix
residential development on the northwest perimeter of the
park.
A policy decision on the park's future direction is
needed. Staff recommends that once a direction for the park
is decided, a professional planner should be retained to
draft a new master plan for the park consistent with the
Council's wishes.
The appropriate use for Thunderbird Park has been
reviewed extensively in the past few years. The first
W.
opportunity was during the development of the parks masterplan. This document states, "Thunderbird Park should beconservedasauniquetopographiclandmarkandnaturalarea." The most recent review of Thunderbird Park came duringthegeneralplanprocess. This document calls for onlypassiverecreationaldevelopmentintheparksoastopreservethenaturalterrainandvegetation. Staff presented Council with a report on the Park andsomesuggestedalternativeusestofacilitatelong-rangeplanningofthePark. Mr. Ernster, Deputy City Manager, Community Services, thanked Mr. Al Gamez, former City intern
who had prepared the report for the Council.
Upon review of the report, Councilmember Scruggs
suggested that since any decision or direction made by the
Council would impact so many citizens, perhaps it would be
advantageous to have some kind of all day planning,
brainstorming, session at the park and ask citizens for input
on what kind of uses they would like to see incorporated at
the park.
Councilmember Scruggs also suggested that corporate
officials be asked for their input, as well, in the planning
session.
Councilmember McAllister suggested that he would like to
see a five-star hotel planned in the area.
The general consensus of the Council is support for the
park charette" concept and direction for the Parks and
Recreation Commission to schedule it as soon as possible.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
C: . • 1:.11 ,Y
There being no further items to come before the Council,
the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Lnda Ginn for
Linda Duke
59