Minutes of the work session held October
14, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
Members Present
Mayor Ronald Drake and Council Members Marie
Lopez Rogers
Peggy
Jones
Stephanie
Karlin
Betty
Lynch
Albert
Carroll, Jr.
ALSO PRESENT
Todd Hileman, City Manager
Andrew McGuire, City Attorney
Absent/excused
Raymond Shuey
2)
ENGINEERING GUIDELINES – RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Todd Hileman, City
Manager, stated that a couple of months ago, there was a discussion about
changing the speed limit to 25 mph on residential collector streets. He stated
that another discussion followed about the actual construction of the streets
and whether narrower streets should be designed to encourage the 25 mph speed
limit. He asked Mr. Fitzhugh to address this item.
David Fitzhugh, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the
proposed standards. He stated that physical characteristics controlled the
speed limit on a street. He stated that it was the Council’s desire to have
lower speeds on streets due to the proximity of schools, pedestrian traffic and
the general residential nature of the neighborhood. He stated that currently,
the streets were designed for 35 mph. He stated that the existing standard was
a 38 foot wide street with one lane in each direction and a turn lane in each
direction. He stated that there was an 8 foot public utility easement and a
13.5 foot landscaped sidewalk area with a meandering sidewalk. He stated that
there was 5.5 feet for a curb, gutter and bike lane. He stated that there was
a 14 foot driving lane, a 14 foot turning lane and the same thing on the other
side. He stated that there was nothing wrong with the design and it served the
purpose and comfort of having people drive 35 mph on it. He stated that the
streets were usually one mile or less in length and did not interconnect
neighborhoods.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that staff proposed to base the design
on a 25 mph posted speed limit and reduce the street width to 40 feet. He
stated that there would be one lane in each direction, turn lanes only at
intersections with major streets or arterials and the horizontal curves would
be shortened. He stated that there would still be a 6 foot meandering sidewalk
and the 80 feet of right of way would be maintained. He stated that would give
an additional 14 feet of landscaping within the street corridor. He stated
that the street would be reduced by 18 feet. He stated that other
neighborhoods had been successful with those types of streets. He stated that
he needed input from the Council and to discuss the issue with the Home
Builder’s Association. He stated that if the Council agreed with the proposed
design, he would incorporate it into the design guideline updates.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that staff was currently going through
all of the engineering design guidelines and the new street design would be
inserted as a new cross section. He stated that staff would bring that before
the Council in three to four months. He stated that there may be a need,
depending on the type of subdivision, to have the current cross section. He
stated that the size of the area and traffic volumes may cause a need for
that. He stated that staff would still maintain the existing cross section in
the design guidelines when the traffic reports indicated that more traffic needed
to be moved. He stated that Dean Svoboda, Director of Planning and Building
Services, had some discussions with home builders and was trying to encourage
them to not locate schools on the main collectors for residential areas.
Mayor Drake stated that he would rather give the extra 14
feet back to the builder and asked if there was 14 feet on each side.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that there was 7 feet on each side for a
total of 14 feet.
Mayor Drake stated that the home builder would say that they
were being made to put on 14 more feet of landscaping and were not getting
credit for that for open space. He stated that extra area might help the home
builder with their lot sizes or help build a park.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that he would recommend a 70 foot right
of way and giving 10 feet back to the builder.
Mayor Drake stated that he would be in favor of that. He
stated that 10 times 5,000 would give the home builder an acre of land that
they could possibly make $400,000 or $600,000 on. He stated that he would hate
to see extra landscaping and especially with water being scarce.
Council Member Carroll stated that he had similar thoughts
and instead of using the extra feet for landscaping, it should be used for
lengthening the lots. He stated that would enable the houses to be moved
forward and provide larger backyards for children to play. He stated that it
would save in landscaping costs and water conservation. He stated that the
public utility easements would still be maintained.
Council Member Karlin stated that she disagreed. She asked
if the reduction would allow for more density of the homes because that was one
of the things that the City had not been encouraging. She stated that putting
in more landscaping and open space area was beneficial to the entire
community. She stated that giving the extra feet back to the home builders
would only benefit them for a couple of homes.
Mayor Drake asked if Mr. Fitzhugh would talk to the Home
Builder’s Association and get back to the Council. He stated that the Council
Member Karlin’s point was valid.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that Jerry Levitt, Home Builder’s
Association, suggested narrowing the street to 70 feet instead of keeping the
80 feet.
Council Member Jones stated that if the City was going to
impose a 25 mph speed limit, the street design needed to encourage that as
well. She stated that she was willing to split the difference with the
homeowners’ association. She stated that the bike lane was proposed to be
reduced by one inch and it was too narrow to begin with. She stated that more
space should be given for that.
Council Member Carroll stated that he agreed that schools
should not be built on main thoroughfares. He stated that residential streets
should have posted speed limits of 25 mph.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that the City, the builder and the
school district all had to agree to that. He stated that putting a school on a
local street instead of a collector would draw complaints from neighbors.
Mayor Drake stated that putting a school on a street other
than a collector would cause more problems.
Council Member Lynch entered the meeting at this time.
Mayor Drake briefed Council Member Lynch on what had been
discussed so far and how Mr. Fitzhugh would come back before the Council in
three to four months with a recommendation.
Council Member Lynch stated that when the item was first
discussed, there was an idea to make the landscaping deeper to maintain the
same street scape effect.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that he proposed to maintain the same,
80 foot, right of way width and narrow the street from 58 feet to 40 feet. He
stated that would provide an additional 18 feet of additional landscaping.
Council Member Lynch asked if all of the turn lanes would be
eliminated.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that would depend on the type of
intersection. He stated that some areas would be flared out to have turning
lanes and some areas would be wider, based on a traffic study.
Council Member Lynch asked how the turn lane would be used
near a walking school.
Mr. Fitzhugh stated that could be part of an analysis. He
stated that the example he had was of a school where buses were used.
Council Member Lynch stated that special consideration
needed to be given to what was going into the development near that collector
street.
3)
GENERAL PLAN STATUS
Todd Hileman, City Manager, stated that on September 10th,
the Avondale voters approved the proposed general plan. He stated that staff
would provide an overview of the overall process and answer questions regarding
the Council’s role with regard to the process for any general plan amendments.
Dean Svoboda, Director of Planning and Building Services,
stated that the plan was adopted in June, ratified by the voters by 81% and was
in effect. He stated that the general plan met all of the requirements of
Growing Smarter Plus and could remain in effect for up to 10 years from the
date of adoption. He stated that before that time, the Council would need to
adopt a new general plan or to readopt the plan and have it ratified by the voters.
He stated that amendments to the plan did not require voter ratification and
there was no limit to the amendments that could be made. He stated that major
and minor amendments could be made. He stated that major amendments could only
be considered once per year and required 2/3 majority vote by the Council. He
stated that applications for major amendments would need to be made in January
each year while minor amendments could be filed and heard anytime throughout
the year.
Mr. Svoboda stated that the City was required by state law
that any rezoning conform with the general plan. He stated that the use and
intensity ranges needed to match the goals and objectives in the land use map.
He stated that the capital improvement plan needed to be reviewed on an annual
basis for conformance with the general plan and note anything not consistent
for the record. He stated that staff would prepare a status report once per
year to identify what had taken place to date.
Council Member Lynch asked if the Council could do updates
during the 10 year period so that items did not pile up at the end.
Mr. Svoboda stated that they could.
Council Member Lynch asked if citizens, staff or the Council
needed to make a change that became a major change if that could happen without
a public vote. She asked how that process would take place.
Mr. Svoboda stated the Council could do that through the
normal process. He stated that could be handled as a major amendment on an
annual basis.
Council Member Carroll asked if all of the minor changes
could be done instead of a major change.
David Fitzhugh, Assistant City Manager, stated that
according to estabished criteria some would automatically make it as a major
amendment. He stated that if a minor amendment became major, it would have to
be held back until the following year.
Mayor Drake asked if staff would be directing the Council on
that.
Mr. Svoboda stated that they would. He stated that staff
would try to make sure that the development community and property owners
understood that and would start to collect all of the major amendments mid-year
to be ready to be filed in January.
Council Member Carroll asked if staff recommended that the
calendar year be used instead of the fiscal year.
Mr. Svoboda stated that he would. He stated that the
development community worked on the calendar year because of tax reasons.
4)
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Dean Svoboda, Director of
Planning and Building Services, stated that the City Council started discussing
the issue in February. He stated that a presentation was given to the Planning
and Zoning Commission in June and some concerns were expressed. He stated that
a joint work session was held September 7th and staff was directed
to redraft the text amendment and resolve some of the issues. He stated that
there was an issue of approval authority and it was resolved at the work
session that the Commission would continue to be the primary approval
authority. He stated that there needed to be a process where those approvals
could be referred to the City Council. He stated that brought up the issue of
a rehearing versus an appeal and the legal issues associated.
Mr. Svoboda stated that
staff drafted some language that the Commission would continue to approve
conditional use permits. He stated that the he and the city attorney were
trying to work on some language that would refer to a rehearing rather than an
appeal. He stated that the hearing would void the Commission action and the
process would be restarted for the Council. He stated that the Council would
have the benefit of the record from the Planning and Zoning Commission but
would not be bound by it. He stated that after the Council made a final
decision, any appeals would go to the court. He stated that staff was
clarifying the findings and making minor refinings to the ordinance related to
expiration of conditional use permits and clean up language. He stated that
the Planning and Zoning Commission would be briefed on the information at their
next meeting. He stated that when the language was finalized, it would go to
the Commission hearing and before the Council.
Council Member Jones
stated that there was wording which said, “should a rehearing request be
accepted.” She asked who determined whether that would be accepted or not.
Mr. Svoboda stated that
there would be some criteria for acceptance. He stated that one of those
criteria would be who had the right, under the ordinance, to make a request for
a rehearing. He stated that there might also be some other types of submittal
requirements that need to be met that would be made very clear in the
ordinance.
Council Member Jones asked
if any resident who did not like the decision could ask for a rehearing.
Mr. Svoboda stated that
there was some thought that there should be some limit on that. He stated that
needed to be discussed further.
Council Member Jones
stated that she liked the term, “appeal,” rather than, “rehearing”.
Council Member Lynch asked
about other businesses that did not like the decision or if there were not
residents within that boundary.
Mr. Svoboda stated that
the whole intent of the conditional use permit was to judge the impact on
nearby property owners and the community as a whole.
Council Member Lynch
stated that she was talking about a business owner within the same industrial
park.
Mr. Svoboda stated that
they would have the same rights as any other property owner.
Council Member Lynch asked
how residents farther than 500 feet would be treated.
Mr. Svoboda stated that
the boundaries could be set to be at-large, within a geographic area or subject
to certain performance criteria.
Council Member Jones
stated that a conditional use permit was approved on Dysart for a nursing home
and a drug rehab center was being put in there. She asked if applicants
defined what the intended business was to be.
Mr. Svoboda stated that it
was possible to have a conditional use permit approved in a generic fashion but
normally, when working with someone, a specific business or franchise was
involved. He stated that the difficulty was that when looking at a conditional
use permit, the type or category of use was being looked at and not the
specific business itself. He stated that a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru
all had similar characteristics. He stated that it was impossible to
differentiate from a land use standpoint. He stated that if a conditional use
permit was approved where the property owner said it would be a McDonald’s, as
long as the operation and site plan was within the land use intensity
categories, McDonald’s could sell the property and it could become a Burger
King. He stated that the stretch between a nursing, drug rehab center and
apartment complex might be broader. He stated that he might be intrigued in
looking into that situation further.
Council Member Jones
stated that she thought that was something that the City needed to be very
diligent about.
5)
GOVERNMENT CENTER MONUMENT ENTRY SIGN
Jeff Fairman, Economic Development Director, stated that
staff tried to come up with a sign package that would resonate throughout the
community and be familiar with many of the residents. He stated that a sign
package was created several years ago by JRC Design and was the basis of the
sign created for Western Avenue modernized and given some specific design
elements unique to the area.
Mr. Fairman stated that he had three options to present. He
stated that the first option was a sign that would represent the river and
would read, “Avondale Civic Center.” He stated that there would be six signs
and two at each entrance. He stated that there was a relief on the sign to
mimic the Estrella Mountains. He stated that the sign would be 8 feet in
height. He stated that the three options had different landscaping elements.
He stated that the issue that needed to be discussed, was what the area would
be called. He stated that “Avondale Civic Center” was proposed and open for
discussion.
Dean Svoboda, Director of Planning and Building Services,
stated that there would be variations in landscaping around the sign. He
stated that the intent was to provide broad, conceptual categories to be
further refined.
Council Member Karlin stated that she liked Option No. 3
quite a bit and especially having blue tile for the river.
Council Member Jones stated that Option No. 3 was similar to
the design she had seen earlier. She asked if it could legally be used.
Andrew McGuire, City Attorney, stated that he would have to
look at the agreement regarding the similarity to the previous design. He
stated that most of the architectural drawings became the City’s property once
completed.
Council Member Jones stated that she liked Options 1 and 3
very much. She stated that there were glass and lighting features built in to
the original design she had seen.
Vice Mayor Rogers stated that she liked Option No. 3.
Council Member Carroll stated that he did not like Options 1
and 3 because they were not distinct. He stated that the palm trees would help
the sign stand out. He stated that he did not like having the words, “civic
center,” in the name. He stated that the name should tie the City and the
county together.
Mr. Hileman stated that the words, “government” and
“commerce center,” did not fit on the sign unless it was made extremely large.
He stated that the words, “civic center,” would cover the City and the county.
Council Member Carroll stated that he wanted more choices.
Council Member Lynch stated that the sign could read
“Avondale Government Center” with the word “Government” being smaller in the
middle.
Council Member Karlin suggested that the sign read,
“Avondale Civic Complex” to encompass all of the functions.
Mr. Hileman stated that staff came up with the word “civic”
because it was the only word that truly encompassed government, recreation,
amphitheater, public areas and helped tie in the government center with the
private sector. He stated that “Avondale Center” was discussed but lost the
government side of the discussion.
Council and Staff continued to discuss the wording for the
signs.
Council Member Jones stated that she wanted to encourage
staff to obtain the original renderings because the materials that were
involved were unique to the City of Avondale. She stated that she was
concerned about the materials in the sign.
Mayor Drake stated that he would hate to see a decision get
made without Council Member Shuey being present. He stated that everyone
seemed to like the monument but that there were issues with the landscaping and
the name.
Council Member Jones stated that she was comfortable with
the name on the sign
Mayor Drake stated that he did not have a problem with the
name either.
Mr. Hileman stated that Options 2 and 3 could be brought
back.
Mayor Drake stated that Option No. 2 looked very clean and
he liked that look as well. He stated that he would not mind if staff simply
made the decision.
Council Member Carroll stated that the Council should make
the decision.
Mayor Drake stated that Council Member Shuey needed to be present
so that all were in unison of the decision.
Mr. Hileman stated that it sounded like there was favor for,
“Avondale Civic Center” and the monument sign. He stated that Option No. 3
would be cleaned up to look less cluttered. He stated that both would be
brought back the next week.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council,
Council Member Karlin moved to adjourn. Council Member Lynch seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m.
Mayor
Drake
Linda M. Farris, CMC
City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the
foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the work
session of the City Council of the City of Avondale held on the 14th
day of October, 2002. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and
held and that the quorum was present.
City Clerk
