HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/15/2000 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at
the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council.
MINUTES
CITY OF GLENDALE
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
February 15, 2000
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers
Goulet, Lieberman, Martinez, McAllister, and Samaniego.
ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City
Manager; Peter Van Haren, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira,
City Clerk.
1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-98-03: GLENDALE MEDIA/ICON
STUDIOS
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager; Mr.
Dean Svoboda, Planning Director; and Mr. Ray Jacobs, Zoning Administrator.
The General Plan is the City's official policy regarding future land use and development.
As such, it is used as a guideline for public and private decision-making. A specific
area plan can be adopted as part of the General Plan. This is commonly used when a
major master planned development or other unique situation requires a greater level of
detail than is typically provided by the General Plan.
Glendale Media/Icon Studios Inc. has requested an amendment to the General Plan in
the form of a Specific Area Plan. The property includes 398 acres located between
Northern and Glendale Avenues, from the 89th Avenue alignment to the 95th Avenue
alignment. The majority of this property lies within the City's unincorporated strip
annexed area. The purpose of today's workshop is to review the details of the
applicant's proposal prior to a future City Council hearing.
General Plan Amendment Application GP-98-03 was originally submitted in March of
1998 as the "Parkside Specific Area Plan". At that time, it included 1,834 acres and
had Continental Homes as a co-applicant. The application was amended in 1999 when
Continental Homes withdrew from the application. The "Glendale Media/Icon Studios
Specific Area Plan" was submitted in October of 1999.
The existing General Plan shows business park use along the entire east side of the
Loop 101 Freeway. This includes only a small portion of the applicant's property. The
1
majority of the property is currently planned for residential use, at a density of 2.5-3.5
dwelling units per acre. Portions of the property are also shown for 5-8 units per acre,
limited office, shopping center, neighborhood park, and public facility use.
The applicant's proposal will reserve all of the land for employment-related land uses.
It envisions a major employment center west of 91st Avenue, with a large central core
for a single major user. This would be surrounded by supporting business park, office,
and commercial uses. The proposal emphasizes a major movie, television, and video
studio as the core user, but will accommodate any large employment use in a campus
setting.
As proposed by the applicant, the Specific Plan land use categories west of 91st
Avenue are Studio/Employment, Studio/Business Park, and General Commercial. The
land east of 91st Avenue is designated for Shopping Center, and Limited Office use.
The Studio/Employment area will accommodate a single major user in a campus
setting. The Studio/Business Park will accommodate office, light manufacturing and
assembly, and support service uses. A portion of the business park could also be used
for studio-related housing, if needed, to support a major studio.
The proposal adds 57 acres of General Commercial use to accommodate a power
center and other freeway related uses along Northern Avenue. An additional
neighborhood shopping center is added at the southeast corner of 91st and Northern
Avenues. The shopping center shown by the existing General Plan at the northeast
corner of Glendale and 91st Avenues will be slightly increased in size. Office uses will
wrap the neighborhood shopping centers as a transition to adjacent land uses.
The proposed amendment greatly increases the scale, height, and intensity of land use
currently planned for this area and will create a focal point within the community. The
Studio/Employment area would be allowed a maximum building height of 170 feet and
a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) up to 2.0. The Studio/Business Park area would allow
building heights up to 110 feet, with a maximum FAR of 0.6. The General Commercial
area would have a maximum building height of 56 feet and a maximum FAR of 0.4.
The Shopping Center and Limited Office categories provide for the standard building
height and FAR of 30 feet and 0.3 respectively. (FAR is the ratio of gross building floor
area to net land area and is used as an indicator of land use intensity.)
The proposed intensity of land use will require adjustments to the adjacent street
system. Northern Avenue will be reclassified as a major arterial between 91st Avenue
and the Loop 101 Freeway. 91st Avenue will also become a major arterial from
Northern to Glendale Avenues. It will remain an arterial south of Glendale Avenue.
Glendale Avenue is currently classified as a major arterial in the General Plan. The
collector streets within the employment center will also be established. A traffic study
previously submitted by the applicant indicates that the proposed street system will
handle the potential traffic generated by this employment center.
Additional design guidelines are proposed by the applicant to supplement the City's
2
adopted Commercial Design Expectations and the West Glendale Avenue Design Plan.
All of the property within the boundaries of this application are represented by Glendale
Media, with the exception of one 11-acre property owned by Hickman's Egg Ranch.
The City Code requires that the applicant represent at least 75% of the owners of
property within the area of the application. This application meets that requirement.
The land use concepts proposed by the applicant could have been presented with a
simple General Plan amendment instead of a Specific Area Plan. This would have
required concurrent amendments to several different sections of the General Plan,
including the future land use map, the major street system map, the trails and bikeways
map, the building heights map, the floor area ratio map, and the Parkside Character
Area Development Guidelines. The standard land use designations used on the future
land use map would have fulfilled this purpose. The applicant chose to use a Specific
Area Plan, with custom land use classifications, to emphasize the proposed movie,
television, and video studio.
If approved, this amendment will not convey property rights or rezone the property. It
will provide a basis for future rezonings.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Parkside Specific Area Plan on
June 25, 1998 but did not take any action. The Planning Commission held the first of
two public hearings on the Glendale Media/Icon Studios Specific Area Plan on January
13, 2000. The Planning Commission held a second public hearing on January 20, 2000
and recommended approval of General Plan Amendment GP-98-03 by a 4-3 vote.
The original General Plan Amendment GP-98-03 included extensive citizen
participation. The applicant held four public meetings in 1998, prior to the June 25,
1998, Planning Commission hearing.
The applicant invited previous citizen contacts and interested parties to a fifth public
meeting on November 3, 1999 to discuss the revised application. The Planning
Commission meeting of January 13, 2000 included 13 speakers. Nine speakers spoke
in support, with four speakers raising concerns regarding surrounding land uses and
employment characteristics of a movie studio. Four citizens submitted speaker cards in
support, but did not wish to speak.
The Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 2000 included seven speakers. Five
speakers spoke in support of the request, with two speakers expressing concerns
regarding agricultural uses in the area and the City's authority to plan for this area.
Three citizens submitted speaker cards in support, but did not wish to speak.
Additional notification will be provided to nearby property owners and other interested
parties prior to the City Council hearing.
3
The recommendation was to review the application by Glendale Media'Icon Studios in
preparation for a future public hearing.
Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that the plot of land located immediately north
of Hickman's Egg Ranch is owned by a school district and would be surrounded on the
north and west by the proposed General Plan Amendment. Mr. Svoboda stated that
the Peoria School District owns the parcel of land that Councilmember Lieberman was
referring to.
Councilmember Goulet asked for clarification of the uses that are permissible under the
General Plan. Mr. Svoboda stated that the General Plan does not rely on a listing of
specific uses, but describes a character for a broad type of development that is to be
encouraged. Councilmember Goulet expressed his opinion that, if the General Plan is
targeted as a specific use, it may discourage other uses. Mr. Svoboda explained that
the Specific Area Plan which was brought before the Council places a great deal of
emphasis on the movie studio. It should, however, be noted that it also provides for
other types of campus-style users. He stated that, rather than use a traditional
business park setting, it really targets the one large single campus user. He stated that
any of the business-type uses that are generally seen under the City's General Plan
designation could be accommodated as well.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the usual floor area ratio was for a business park.
Mr. Svoboda replied by saying that typically, in a business park setting, the maximum
would be 0.5. He reminded the Councilmembers that they had recently reviewed a
request to change Glen Harbor from 0.3 to 0.5. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that they
were asking for a 2.0 floor area ratio. Mr. Svoboda explained that the applicant's intent
was that the entire property would not be developed at a floor area ratio of 2.0, but it
would accommodate certain office towers and hotels that might be needed on portions
of the property. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the City would do with the 2.0 floor
area ratio if ICON went away. Mr. Svoboda explained that, as a General Plan
Amendment to the Specific Area Plan, it would be the City's official policy that any user
would have the ability to rely on that policy and use it as a guideline for future
rezonings. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what the street reclassification entails. Mr.
Svoboda stated that the developer would be responsible for constructing street
improvements to a higher standard to handle the greater amount of traffic that would be
expected. He stated that, should the property not be developed, it is doubtful that the
full improvement would be made because the improvement of the property is what
triggers the street improvements. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed concern about the
building height request. Mr. Svoboda noted that the area designated as studio
employment would have a maximum height of 170 feet. The surrounding business park
would have a maximum height of 110 feet.
Councilmember McAllister stated that the City is in competition with the cities of
Phoenix and Peoria and that the City of Glendale is limited in terms of hotels. He
explained that, if a hotel is looking to locate in a particular city, they choose which city to
locate in by looking at how long and complex the process is. He noted that Glendale
4
has area restrictions that other cities do not have. He suggested that they need to have
it ready for someone to come in and do something. He explained that every major
developer goes across the country, speaking to different potential clients, and those
clients want to know what they can build and do and, more importantly, how long will it
take. Councilmember McAllister expressed his opinion that this is setting the potential
for future hotel development. He stated that the people who build the hotels seldom
build them on three or fewer levels and this is what this commitment is about. He noted
that John F. Long will have higher floor area ratios and will be a strong competitor.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the Specific Area Plan was a locked document when
it was approved or if they could make changes at the time they want to come in for
specific zoning. Mr. Svoboda stated that, if approved, the Specific Area Plan would
become an official amendment to the City's General Plan and serve as a guide for any
future rezoning. Councilmember Martinez asked if the traffic study that: was done was
reviewed by Glendale's traffic staff. Mr. Svoboda explained that the traffic study he
referred to was provided by the applicant through its consultant and reviewed by the
City's Transportation Department. He stated that it is based on general parameters and
would be revisited again at the time of rezoning and that specific details would be part
of this review.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if the 170-foot height restriction was put in so that a
set can be built to that height rather than a permanent structure. Mr. Svoboda stated
that it was his understanding that the 170-foot maximum was requested by the
applicant to accommodate the large sound stages that are typically found in major
motion picture production studios. He noted that it would also accommodate individual
office towers and hotels. He stated that the Specific Area Plan does contain additional
language that refers to outdoor temporary sets and they have advised the applicant that
the procedures they are proposing and the concept of dealing with these temporary
heights at this stage of the amendment is not appropriate. The Planning Commission
was advised that it should not be part of their consideration. With regard to the major
arterial street, Councilmember Lieberman asked where the centerline runs between
Glendale and Peoria Avenues and down Northern Avenue. He asked what street
improvements the City of Peoria would put in to accommodate a Super Target if it is put
in east of 99th Avenue. Mr. Ken Reedy stated that streets on the northern boundary
belong to the adjoining neighbor; therefore the City of Peoria will be responsible for the
street improvements. He noted that the City of Peoria will have its own requirements
that the developer will have to meet. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the developer
will have to comply with the City of Peoria's requirements for street improvements. Mr.
Svoboda stated that there will be coordination with the City of Peoria at every stage
throughout the process and that each property owner on each side of the street will be
required to do the street improvements necessary. Mr. Reedy noted that they will work
out a deal with the developer on behalf of the City of Peoria.
Councilmember Samaniego stated that they have recently looked at the Western Area
Plan and looked at a four-phase process of bringing the entire western area into a plan.
He asked if this project causes the staff any concerns with regards to the process. He
5
also asked if the land use concepts proposed by the applicant could have been
presented with a simple plan amendment rather than with a specific plan amendment.
Mr. Svoboda stated that the Council directed staff to finish the work necessary for the
Western Area Plan and that work is in process. He noted that the City Council has had
ongoing discussions over the past two to three years relating to the freeway corridor
and the lands adjacent to the east. He stated that, throughout those discussions, the
City Council has been comfortable with the concept that the section of land between
91st and 99th Avenues between Northern and Glendale Avenues poses unique
opportunities for future employment. He stated that the concept of creating a major
employment corridor at this location is certainly not contrary to the overall intent of the
Western Area Plan. In response to Councilmember Samaniego's second question, Mr.
Svoboda explained that the applicant felt that a more specific area plan was necessary
in order to continue the emphasis on the movie studio. He stated that it is appropriate,
when there is a major master plan development associated with the General Plan
Amendment, to use a Specific Area format. He noted that this format allowed the
applicant a very concise way to do the multiple amendments that would be necessary.
He stated that they believed the same results could have been achieved by a simple
General Plan Amendment that would have designated some extra height, extra floor
area ratio, changes to the street classification map and the general designation of
business park or perhaps business park/light industry.
Councilmember Martinez noted that the North Valley Area Specific Plan was approved
by the cities of Glendale and Peoria. He asked if the City of Peoria could be affected by
this case and, if so, would this case need to also be approved by the City of Peoria. Mr.
Svoboda explained that it is common practice that any proposal that is near or adjacent
to a boundary with an adjacent city be referred to them for review. He stated that the
City of Peoria has had the opportunity to review this proposal. Councilmember
Martinez asked if the other support uses that Mr. Svoboda stated the business park
could have might include apartments. Mr. Svoboda stated that the way in which the
Specific Area Plan is written makes provision for multi-family residences if they are
needed to support the movie studio. He noted that the location and amount would have
to be determined at the time of zoning.
Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested that the staff conduct a comparison study to
determine if the City of Glendale is competitive with other cities.
Councilmember McAllister stated that they have been looking at this issue for three
years, which indicates that the City of Glendale does have problems.
Councilmember Goulet noted that they could use a maximum height of up to 270 feet
on a temporary basis. He questioned what the development impact could be and
stated that they need to be cautious about what is proposed.
Mayor Scruggs noted that 1996 was when they embarked on their first attempt to
update the Western Area General Plan and that the Council made it clear that it would
like to shift more away from residential and more towards business. She explained that
6
one of the original obstacles was the residential aspect of the previous proposal. She
stated that the Council has reaffirmed several times its commitment to commercial
uses. She noted that the confusion is due to the fact that the request was to adopt the
Glendale Media/Icon Studios Specific Area Plan as an amendment to the General Plan.
She restated Councilmember Goulet's question that, once this is done, is the Council
telling the world-at-large that it wants a movie studio there. She stated that this was her
biggest question since movie studio, television studio, production and all aspects are
allowed uses without any further conditional use permit or variance. She suggested
that the material received from the applicant points to uses other than a movie studio.
She noted that in a letter dated February 3, 2000 received from Ms. Clare Abel with the
law firm of Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A., there are four references to the fact that this could
include studio uses, but that, in general, they are looking at a wider range of uses. She
pointed out that, in a letter received from Trammel Crow, they refer to large-scale
corporate employment, which is what the Council is seeking to bring to the community.
She noted that most of this application is probably along the lines of what the Council
wants, other than specifically stating that they want to save the area for a movie studio.
Mayor Scruggs stated that, with regard to height, 270 feet is out of the question. She
also questioned whether the 2.0 floor area ratio could cause everything to be clustered
together, with no green space, which is contrary to Council's direction. Regarding the
multi-family issue, she stated that it is deceptive to the public because, while there is no
multi-family classification, this plan, if adopted, will allow 20 units per acre. She
expressed concern that it would eliminate planned neighborhood parks if the land use
was changed from residential to employment and she warned against eliminating
neighborhood parks without full disclosure. Mayor Scruggs summarized that the
Council wants employment and commercial uses in this area. She noted that the staff's
analysis with regard to height states that the proposed 170-foot height within the
studio/employer area is intended to accommodate large sound stages and that, while
this may be higher than needed for typical sound stages, it will provide flexibility for any
special needs and office towers. She stated that she does not have enough
information to form an opinion on the 170-foot height issue. She said that the
amendment to the General Plan is not specifically written for a movie studio.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if Evans Whithicomb had 30 units per acre at
Arrowhead. Ms. Svoboda explained that they were built under vested zoning, which
essentially allowed up to 43 units per acre. He noted that the new units have been built
under the equivalent of R4 zoning, which allows a maximum of 20 units per acre.
Mayor Scruggs stated that they have lakes and a lot of open space. She said that she
did not believe they built at 30 units per acre.
Councilmember McAllister noted that some of the Councilmembers went to California to
visit the studios three years ago and they were struck by the fact that all of the other
cities they visited had clean businesses that were paying taxes. He stated that, up until
that point, he was looking at more homes and less businesses. He explained that, if
there are no income-producing properties, the average taxpayers are faced with a high
burden of tax on their homes. Therefore, it is obvious that the well-planned cities have
a combination. He noted that they also build around a village concept, which allows
7
people to live close to where they work. Councilmember McAllister stated that he was
struck by the fact that every city they talked to wanted a movie studio because during
good times they bring in all kinds of revenue and during bad times they still bring in lots
of revenue. He stated his belief that a movie studio would create higher paying jobs
than most businesses. He stated that this was an opportunity for Glendale to bring in a
business that would be a positive force.
Councilmember Martinez stated that he had gone on the trip to visit the studio and
other cities and he looked at an in-fill development. He questioned why they were
creating a new specific designation when Business Park includes studio uses.
Councilmember Goulet stated that he did not make the California trip, but he has been
there and is somewhat familiar with the movie industry. He stated that his concern was
what the designation would do to that part of the City and those looking at development.
Mayor Scruggs noted that workshops are reserved for Council and staff and that the
public hearings which are held at regular Council meetings are a time to hear from the
applicant and other interested members of the public. She noted that there has been
one property owner, who has figured prominently in this case, who has expressed his
opinion that he has never been given the opportunity to address the Council directly
about his concerns and issues. She stated that the disappointment of this particular
property owner is well known and, in an effort to be as open and fair as possible, she
extended an invitation to the Hickman family to address the Council in open session by
one or more family members, without their attorney. In an effort to preclude any
appearance of favoritism, she stated that she also called the applicant and extended
the same opportunity to him.
Mr. Glen Hickman, President and General Manager of Hickman's Egg Ranch, read a
prepared statement which included a history of the Hickman family and its company in
the community, as well as current business details. He suggested that other residents
in the area share their concern that, if the Hickman operations were impacted and they
were no longer there, it would also impact their chosen lifestyles. He stated that the
proposed development believes it would be at least as compatible to the Hickman
operations as the houses that are currently planned. Mr. Hickman stated that this was
not reassuring. He questioned if they were truly sincere because they have threatened
both the Peoria School District and Maricopa County with legal action pertaining to their
manure drying operation and that last fall they cut the water off to their hog farm with
very little notice. He suggested that a business park might be compatible, but said that
he did not know if there was an immediate need considering the fact that Glen Harbor
already exists and is mostly empty. He questioned the compatibility of having a hog or
chicken farm next to a hotel. Mr. Hickman stated that this issue has taken a personal
toll on him, as well as a business one. He recognized that it was not the intent of the
Council that these actions have these consequences, but it is inferred. He stated that
he hoped the Council would consider all factors when making any decisions to plan and
develop the land around them.
8
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked Mr. Hickman to comment on the idea which some people
have that farming stands in the way of progress and if he believes he stands in the way
of this progress. Mr. Hickman expressed his opinion that his business was progressive
and, if it was not there, the City would not have a net gain because his business
produces a tax base and pays a number of salaries. He stated that he was very
concerned about the project's compatibility with his current operations.
Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Hickman for his opinion on the transportation link that
will soon be completed. He noted that, when areas become more accessible,
development occurs naturally. Mr. Hickman stated that they were excited about the
freeway because it would make it easier to distribute their products. Councilmember
Goulet asked if Mr. Hickman saw it as the same type of opportunity for other
businesses that want to come into the area and if their rural lifestyle would be impacted.
Mr. Hickman replied by saying that a fair amount of people and businesses will think
that locating near a freeway is a benefit and a fair amount will not.
Mayor Scruggs stated that they will be voting on the Growing Smarter legislation and
the Citizens Growth Management Initiative in November. She stated that, regardless of
which one wins, land planning will have to be done for each community's designated
area that the community intends to develop within 10 years. She stated her belief that it
would be highly unlikely that current residential uses would be removed in favor of
agricultural uses, because there are already landowners that have relied on that
designation. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Hickman if it would be better to have business
uses planned around their business use, rather than residential. She noted that
residents want to be outside at night and that the side effects of Mr. Hickman's
business do not go away and are even more pronounced in the evening. She stated
that seizing this opportunity to change the General Plan to business-related uses is in
the best interests of the Hickman's business because, depending on which of the two
propositions win, it could be as long as ten years before they would get to vote on
changing the General Plan again. She stated that she strongly supported business, but
questioned if they had to be specific about the type of business. Mr. Hickman
suggested that, if the agricultural land that currently surrounds his business changes in
character, something industrial or commercial would be the most compatible use.
Councilmember McAllister stated that they probably need to find a way to solve this
issue through a transition of Mr. Hickman's business and location. He noted that the
pressures are going to continue to increase.
Councilmember Lieberman asked Mr. Hickman if he really believed that the General
Plan would have a direct effect on them, even though the Council was trying to skew it
towards commercial and business park. Mr. Hickman stated that he could not tell what
lay ahead for his business, but he was concerned over discussions that apartments and
hotels would be placed near a chicken farm.
9
Councilmember Martinez noted that a chicken farm could exist there and would not be
as problematic as a hog farm. He asked Mr. Hickman if he agreed. Mr. Hickman
agreed that a swine operation was more odorous than a foul operation.
Mayor Scruggs clarified that there are three parts to Mr. Hickman's business: egg
production and distribution; swine operations; and manure spreading operations. She
noted that it is the last two operations that cause problems. She stated that the manure
spreading operation would be going away because the School District is going to need
the site. She asked Mr. Hickman why the egg ranch was not compatible with
employment and commercial uses. Mr. Hickman stated that his operations do not
divide easily along product lines, it is a farm. He stated that eliminating the pigs will not
eliminate the issue. He explained that the manure drying operation and the selling of
fertilizer is a byproduct of having livestock on the farm, much in the same way that they
have a trucking company as a byproduct of the distribution process for their egg ranch.
Mayor Scruggs asked where the manure spreading was done before the Hickmans
started leasing the property from the School District. Mr. Hickman explained that it was
done in the area where they built the feed mill in 1990. Mayor Scruggs asked where
the manure spreading operation would be moved to if the School Districts wanted its
property back. Mr. Hickman stated that they had not addressed this because the
School District has not given any indication that the high school is even in its planning
process.
Mr. Hickman confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that they have a year-to-year lease
with the School District. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that the Hickmans would be
grandfathered in on the 11 acres on Northern Avenue and would not be obligated to
make any changes. Mr. Hickman stated that they could use that land as a place to
spread the manure if they no longer had the school site.
Councilmember Lieberman noted that residential property is located to the east of the
Hickman property. Mr. Hickman agreed with Councilmember Lieberman, but pointed
out that they all have their own livestock too.
Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that the area they were referring to was a business park.
He asked Mr. Hickman if it was a question of whether they did not believe hotels and
apartments be compatible with their operations. Mr. Hickman explained that cotton and
alfalfa fields are currently located to the west of his property and he was concerned with
anything that could be developed which would have his business construed as a
nuisance. He cited, as an example, people who move into an area that has an airport
and then sue to get flight paths change. He explained that his concern was that this
type of thing could happen, thus impacting his operations. He noted that it would affect
his operations if he had to reduce his livestock or haul manure 30 miles away.
Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Hickman if they currently receive complaints about
the odor. Mr. Hickman replied that they receive about six complaints per year. He
explained that they try to minimize the impact that their livestock has on their neighbors.
10
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Hickman how they would rate Glen Harbor on a compatibility
scale. Mr. Hickman restated that industrial and manufacturing uses are more
compatible than hotels and apartments would be. He noted that there is a distinction
between commercial and industrial uses because they have received complaints from
businesses that are located in the shopping center, complaining about the impact they
feel the Hickman operation has on their retail operations. He indicated that the Target
store that is going to be built across the street will have the same problem.
The meeting was recessed for a short break.
Mr. Jerry Kosowsky, President of Glendale Media/Icon Studios, stated that the City of
Glendale must be aggressively developed. He stated that they were working with
Trammel Crow on what they envision being a special business park.
Mr. Eric Brown, Vice President of Trammel Crow, addressed the Council as the project
manager on this development. He explained that their vision was to get the area in
position for the major employment centers that seem to pass the City by. He noted
that, along with employment, would be ancillary retail services. He stated that Glen
Harbor is not the type of development they envisioned for the area, explaining that their
development would be higher-end light industrial. He stated that they see this site as
being strategically located in relation to its proximity to the freeways and the Glendale
Airport. He also noted that fiber optics are already in place in the area.
With regard to the height issue, Mr. Brown stated that the market will determine the
height and density of the structures. He explained that the heights and densities that
were being requested would set the maximum and that they did not envision building to
these maximums. He stated that, because there is no timetable to the General Plan
process, marketing cannot be done until the formalities are completed. He suggested
that a studio may be part of the major employment, but he reiterated that they also want
to be able to take advantage of other opportunities.
Councilmember Goulet stated that it sounded like Mr. Kosowsky was couching his
presentation in terms of things that could fit into the General Plan rather than the
Specific Area Plan. He asked Mr. Kosowsky what his feelings were on this. Mr.
Kosowsky stated that the things he had mentioned were things that go into the Specific
Area Plan. He explained that the Business Plan of the City of Glendale does not
include what they would need for their specific use and they would be asking for this
from the Planning and Zoning Commission. He noted that they are unable to request
this zoning until it is allowed in the Plan and they want to be prepared for all potential
uses so that they can shorten the process by six months when they find a user.
Councilmember Goulet stated that he had checked with the City Engineer and was told
that there are no fiber optics along Glendale Avenue. He questioned how the applicant
could consider this an asset when it does not exist. Mr. Kosowsky stated that he was
relying on information he had received from U.S. West and the City's Economic
Development Department that there was already a main trunk line that runs out to Luke
Air Force Base that could be used almost immediately. Councilmember Goulet stated
11
that there was a dedicated Department of Defense line for Luke, but no one could tap
into it. Mr. Kosowsky stated that they were going strictly by what they had been told by
U.S. West Communications during several meetings.
Councilmember Lieberman noted that some of the designations the applicant was
asking for included a movie studio. He expressed his opinion that it should not make a
Specific Area Plan necessary. Mr. Eric Brown stated that, based on prior discussions of
the type of studio that would have an interest in a location here, there is a staff
recommendation that a Specific Area Plan is necessary. Councilmember Martinez
questioned whether Mr. Svoboda actually said that. Mr. Svoboda explained that, when
it was discussed three years ago, a Specific Area Plan made sense. He noted that it
was a companion to a General Plan Amendment, a rezoning and an annexation. He
stated that the Specific Area Plan is not necessary to accommodate the studio.
However, without further amendments to the General Plan in regards to various
character elements, the studio could not normally be accommodated. He also noted
that the studio could not be accommodated without custom zoning because the
development standards in a standard Business Park zoning district are not conducive to
a major studio. He stated that the applicant was encouraged to pursue a simple
General Plan Amendment and chose not to do so. Councilmember Lieberman asked
for clarification that the plan, as submitted, would be more favorable or conducive to
putting a studio in than a regular General Plan Amendment. Mr. Svoboda explained
that one approach which could occur is a regular General Plan Amendment, with a
policy added to the Parkside character guidelines that encourages a movie studio or
other unique use at this location. He stated that the Specific Area Plan allows the
applicant to place extra emphasis on the concept of a movie studio and it was his
understanding that this was their intent.
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Eric Brown to assist the Council with its concerns regarding
height. Mr. Brown stated that they were more concerned with the expediency of the
process and the opportunities that may be lost. He explained that they would like the
maximum set as presented in the Specific Area Plan, but they are trying to get through
the general land uses so that, by year end, this property could be marketed as a
deliverable site for employment. Mayor Scruggs noted that Mr. Mahoney of Trammel
Crow has written to the Council, stressing that Trammel Crow is experienced in, and will
be seeking, large corporate employer commitments. She asked Mr. Brown to describe
what these large corporate employer entities would need. Mr. Brown stated that he
could not address the need for multi-family housing, as that is an ancillary part of the
studio. He questioned why there would be a problem with multi-family housing since
they have 400 acres. He cited an example of a similar 160-acre project in Tempe.
Mayor Scruggs noted that the proposal which was presented states that multi-family
housing would only occur if there was a studio and would only be for those people who
work at the studio because the western part of Glendale prefers to not have multi-family
housing. Mr. Kosowsky agreed that the multi-family housing would be for studio
employees. He noted that it was brought to their attention by staff that this is becoming
a popular situation. He explained that they are not looking to put in multi-family
housing, but rather they are looking for it to be tied to the employment generator.
12
Councilmember Samaniego expressed his concern that this market is not deliverable at
the present time. He noted that USAA had a difficult time getting a clear path to the
title. He stated that the Council was in support of large employment centers and
development. He also expressed his concern that the applicant was more concerned
with expediency. He noted that expediency was what got them into the long path they
are now in. He said that he wanted to be both prudent and expedient in moving forward
to ensure that they accomplish what they all want accomplished. He suggested that the
dialog they have had today, both with the applicant and Mr. Hickman, is the first phase
of the planning process.
Mr. Kosowsky noted that, after meeting with staff and the City Manager, they decided to
unbundle the project and go slowly so as not to muddy the water in any way. He noted
that they have specifically not brought forward any hard zoning requests, any PAD
requests, or the annexation request. He stated that they have had corporate users
approach them, that may not be there in a year, and that, with the current General Plan,
they cannot market effectively. Mr. Brown added that they were not saying they want to
rush and make imprudent decisions, but they would like to work through the process as
quickly and prudently as possible, while making sure that the decisions are made
properly.
Mayor Scruggs asked if the applicant would give up its studio land if corporate users
came in and wanted it. Mr. Kosowsky explained that he was speaking more about the
business park surrounding the studio, but, if a corporate user came in and would benefit
the economics of Glendale, the studio could look for another site. He noted that the
studio is in a phased-plan stage and they hope to get it built fast enough to be a trigger
for development. He stated that they were not saying no to any users. Mr. Brown
reiterated by saying that marketing cannot begin until a finite time period has been
established.
Councilmember Lieberman asked the applicant how much of the 398 acres Glendale
Media owns or directly controls. Mr. Kosowsky stated that it owns or directly controls all
of the 398 acres in this request, except for approximately 3.5 acres that belong to Mr.
Manual J. Silva, .5 acres that is owned by the Larwill and Lois Biddle Trust, and the 11
acres that belong to the Hickmans. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that the
applicant has assembled the property and has it in escrow. Mr Kosowsky confirmed
that the property is in escrow and that they have already closed escrow on close to 200
acres. Councilmember Lieberman then stated that the applicant would riot be gathering
any property while the Council was reviewing this issue. He asked the applicant if this
was why he dropped it from the original request. Mr. Kosowsky stated that they had
always intended to focus on the property that they either owned or controlled and that,
because of other circumstances, they became involved with planning the entire three
square mile area and went into a joint venture with Continental Homes. He stated that
they never had any interest in the residential portion. Councilmember Lieberman asked
for confirmation that the property which the applicant was requesting the amendment
on was all under its control, with the exception of the 14.5 acres. Mr. Kosowsky stated
that this was correct.
13
Mayor Scruggs stated that Trammel Crow will do the marketing of the project, when it is
able to do so, and bring prospects to Glendale Media. She noted that ICON Studios is
a separate entity that might also go to Glendale Media and request a certain amount of
space. Mr. Kosowsky explained that Glendale Media is a limited liability corporation
and ICON studios is a separate limited liability corporation. He stated that, while there
is similar and, in some cases, identical ownership between them, the goals of the
partnership and the investment monies that were put in is to find the highest and best
use for the property. Mayor Scruggs stated that the studio designation appears to be
the most important because it drives towards the heights, the floor area ratio, the
transportation circulation and multi-family features that would be attractive, not only to
the studios, but to other users. Mr. Kosowsky stated that the traffic and infrastructure
studies and comparisons to other cities indicate that these features are necessary to be
competitive.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if Mr. Kosowsky was a partner in Glendale Media I and II
and if the other property owners were the other partners. Mr. Kosowsky stated that he
was a managing member of both L.L.C's. He stated that the current landowners are
not partners. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if he had an exclusive listing with Glendale
Media for marketing. Mr. Brown stated that they are working in direct conjunction with
Glendale Media and ICON Studios to provide a comprehensive plan for the strategic
development of the Parkside plan. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that they are a
welcome site in the west Valley. Mr. Brown stated that they also intend to work with
Glendale's Economic Development staff when they are ready to do so. He stated that
they will be looking at the highest and best use for the property on a case-by-case
basis. He stated that it was their goal, with the corporate relationships, corporate
services and their relationship with the City of Glendale, to strategically plan and identify
corporate users. He noted that they have people in California who are familiar with
movie studios.
Councilmember Lieberman said he recognized that Trammel Crow is a national force in
development. He noted, however, that until the Council agrees to the General Plan
Amendment, completes the annexation, and then agrees to the final zoning of the
property, Trammel Crow cannot do anything. He said that they were talking about the
same things that they were talking about two years ago and nothing has been done.
Councilmember McAllister stated that he had experience in selling and doing things for
high-corporate presidents and one thing that he found out is that, if you are going out to
acquire a piece of property and are going to place your job on the line, you have to be
able to deliver the property. He stated that if they had had the west side assembled
and zoned, USAA would now be located there. He said that if the Council started on
this process today, at least Trammel Crow would be able to tell interested developers
that they were on step one of the process. He stated that the City has to be ready and
competitive or it will lose opportunities to the surrounding cities.
14
Mayor Scruggs noted that Ms. Abel's February 8th letter advised the Council that
Trammel Crow was now involved in the project. She also stated that a letter dated
February 10th from Mr. Mahoney stated that their agreement called for them to begin on
February 10th. She stated that the biggest stumbling block with USAA was that
individual property owners wanted to be paid what they felt their property would be
worth if USAA was located there and totally built out. She noted that USAA had
intended to buy out the Hickman Egg Ranch. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Trammel
Crow agreement was for a specific time period. Mr. Brown stated that the development
services agreement was for a period of 18 months and could be renewed and the
marketing agreement was for three years. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Brown to describe
what they felt the impact of the Hickman Egg Ranch and ancillary businesses would be
on the property. Mr. Brown stated he also understood that the hog and manure
operations were the offensive uses. He suggested that if they stay, it will tie the City's
hands if the property is annexed for future development. He stated that this is a
stalemate that needs to be addressed. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Brown's opinion of
the suggestion that, if the Hickman's loose the school property, they would move to the
11 acres. Mr. Brown stated that he believed this was a bad suggestion. Mr. Kosowsky
stated that it was their understanding that this was not possible. He explained that, in
discussions with Maricopa County, they were told that it was against regulation to move
manure off of your property and dry it on an adjoining property that is not an accessory
use to the operation. Mayor Scruggs asked if they could move it to the Egg Ranch
property. Mr. Kosowsky stated that his understanding was that currently they could not
do that either and he suggested that the Council talk to the County and his counsel
regarding this issue.
Councilmember McAllister stated that he hoped they could work out a win/win solution
for everyone.
Mayor Scruggs asked the applicant, if the decision was made to get the zoning from the
County because it was faster, would all of the entities be willing to do so by following
the design guidelines and expectations of the City of Glendale. Mr. Brown stated that
he assumed the County's requirements would pertain to the property. Mayor Scruggs
stated that they would have the ability to build to Glendale's higher requirements. Mr.
Brown stated that Trammel Crow always tries to develop nice projects so the
requirements would be acceptable to Trammel Crow and the users.
Mayor Scruggs stated that the multi-family housing issue was a very serious problem
for her, the Council, and, she believed, the citizens. She explained that they have had
very bad experiences when multi-family housing has been placed on zoning that has
been in place for over 15 years. She said that this situation would be worse and stated
that she was not in favor of it. She asked Mr. Brown if, in his professional opinion, a
400-acre mixed use project was viable without a multi-family component. Mr. Brown
stated that it would work just fine, but Trammel Crow's interest is not in multi-family
housing.
15
Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that the property would not be any more desirable if it was
zoned for a studio as long as there was a pig farm and manure operation that could not
be moved. Mr. Brown stated that it was their hope that they could find a solution that
would benefit all parties. Mr. Kosowsky stated they understood that the Hickmans have
to be dealt with in a fair manner. He said that, although this issue has to be addressed,
it really has no effect on the timeline of bringing users in. Vice Mayor Eggleston
restated his opinion that they will not be able to make much headway until the Hickman
issue is addressed.
Councilmember Lieberman noted that there was no reason they could not deal with
both issues at the same time.
Councilmember Martinez stated that the Planning Commission has made it clear that
multi-family housing will only be done if the studio comes first. He stated that he still did
not understand why they could not do this as a business park instead of a studio. Mr.
Kosowsky explained that the City Planners told them that they would have to come
back with either several General Plan amendments or with a Specific Area Plan for that
use. He stated that the business park does not have enough in it to allow the uses they
are envisioning. He stated that the particular uses was what they were looking for, not
the name, and this is where the Specific Area Plan came into play. Councilmember
Martinez asked if they would consider not doing the studio if something better came
along. Mr. Kosowsky explained that they believed the studio was the highest and best
use for the property, but stated that they were open to other alternatives.
Councilmember McAllister stated it has been his experience that, depending on the
situation and the information they are getting, what you get can change. He stated that
this emphasizes the problem with a timeline and suggested that Glendale is no different
in that respect from a lot of cities. He agreed that anyone trying to market a property
needs to have an established timeline.
Mayor Scruggs noted that during the last Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Kosowsky
stated that he would not be managing the studio and she asked who would be. Mr.
Kosowsky explained that he would be the Chief Executive Officer and there would be a
capable staff managing different aspects of the day-to-day operations. Mayor Scruggs
stated that all of this was about jobs and that was what the Council was looking for.
She requested specific answers regarding jobs, noting that Glendale has an up-to-date
list of the types of jobs Glendale residents are in. She questioned the types of jobs the
permanent employees would be in and how many there would be. She also asked
what the contract employees would do and who they would work for. Mr. Kosowsky
explained that, within the studio itself, there would be anywhere from 750 to 1,500
permanent employees, such as set designers and light and grip operators. He stated
that the range in salaries for tenants within the studio building is $45,000-$50,000. He
stated that about 70% of any show or production would be done with local employees.
He noted that there are other jobs tied to the studio, including architectural firms and
blue printing companies. He stated that they are a very well-paying industry and that
this accounts for the reason that they have several people who only work part of the
16
year.
Councilmember Martinez asked how many employees were at the studio full-time. Mr.
Kosowsky stated that there are between 1,500 to 2,000 people working on the lot at the
studio at CBS Radford. He noted that everyone is on a contract basis, explaining that
this is the way the business is set up.
In summary, Mayor Scruggs stated that, after listening to everything the Council had
said, she believed the applicant must be aware that there are certain issues that
concern the Council and identified them as the designation of the specific use of the
property, the height requirement; the floor area ratio, although, this has not been
expressed as strongly as some of the other issues; the multi-family housing component;
and how transportation would fit in working with Peoria, how they would accomplish that
and what it would mean in terms of what Glendale would be required to build and when.
Mayor Scruggs suggested that they work on those issues before it comes forward for a
vote.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that, at this stage, he did not know if he agreed that
most of those concerns were vital to whether they want to pass it or not. He stated that
considering these concerns, even if they agreed to move things along so that they do
not stop again for another two to three months or more, they still have the issue of
annexation to deal with, as well as the issue of zoning. He stated that every item
mentioned by Mayor Scruggs could be accomplished in the actual business of zoning
the property. He stated that he saw these things as simply another way of dragging the
Council's feet rather than moving on with these projects. He stated that he believed the
Council could answer the height with zoning, answer the apartments with zoning and
that the traffic issue with the City of Peoria that he had brought up would have to be
worked out, no matter who develops it. He noted that the Council was more than willing
to put in massive roads or whatever USAA wanted and did not even suggest whether
they would work with the City of Peoria or not. He stated that he believed the specific
usage they were now discussing was impossible to define because, until the Council
annexes the land, and decides what the zoning will be, there is no possible way that
Trammel Crow or any other developer is going to tell them what the specific usage is.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that anything they say, pro or con, regarding the
movie studio questions whether the Council is trying to get away from the fact that it
does not want a movie studio or whether the Council is trying to help them create a
movie studio, attempting to, to paraphrase Mayor Scruggs, move on and forward with
what they are doing to show the rest of the State and County that they are forward
thinking. He stated that he did not see a single one of the five concerns that were
brought up by Mayor Scruggs as being a reason to slow up the fact that the City needs
to proceed with the Amendment to the General Plan. He stated that every single one of
those concerns, with the exception of traffic, are satisfiable when it comes to zoning.
He said that he sees it as a way of saying "we're going to delay you a little longer, work
with our staff," but he does not know if they will ever get the height down. He asked if
the Council saw 170 feet as impossible and questioned, if USAA came to the Council
17
and said they were going to build a 20-story building, would they turn it down at 200
feet. He noted that they would not have turned it down. He stated that they, as
members of the Council, were willing to put up millions of dollars to get USAA in now,
and not later. He stated that, in this case, the Council keeps throwing obstructions in
the way. He stated that those that went to CBS studios, did it in June of 1997, two and
one-half years ago, and he questioned why the Council was not moving forward on it.
He asked why they are not showing the rest of the cities and counties that they are a
progressive city. He asked why they should put stumbling blocks in that the Council
cannot control when the zoning issues come up after annexation, which is still far off.
He stated that he did not understand this at all. He asked if the Council was there to
help these people create a better source of living, to help them create jobs or if it was
there to throw road blocks in their way again. He asked how long they could work with
staff and if there was some way that the Council could control that.
Mayor Scruggs stated that she was simply trying to summarize what she had heard
coming from the majority of the Council.
Councilmember Martinez stated he did not think that the request that was being made
was unreasonable and the applicant should be able to respond quickly.
Mayor Scruggs noted that, although the applicant does not have to do anything
different, it is her responsibility to give direction and these are issues that she has heard
raised.
Mr. Kosowsky asked what timeframe Mayor Scruggs would envision being able to do
this. Mayor Scruggs stated that she does not keep track of calendars. Dr. Vanacour
stated that, if the applicant does not want to amend anything, they could get it to the
Council at the March 28th regular meeting and get it published. Mayor Scruggs stated
that they could still get it to the Council by the March 28th meeting even if the applicant
chose to make changes, depending on the scope of the changes.
2. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Amy Rudibaugh, Director of
Intergovernmental Relations; Ms. Dana Paschke, Assistant to the Director of
Intergovernmental Relations; and Mr. James Holland, Commercial Long Range
Planning Manager.
A number of legislative bills have been introduced that could affect the City of Glendale
in various ways. Intergovernmental Relations staff discussed the most significant bills
and their current status. This was the fourth legislative update of the 2000 session.
Department heads were notified of proposed legislation that may affect their respective
areas of City administration and were asked to provide comments, as appropriate, to
the Intergovernmental Relations staff contacts. Intergovernmental Relations staff
highlighted those legislative proposals that could have significant financial impacts on
18
the City of Glendale.
The item was presented for information, discussion, and possible direction on
legislative issues.
Regarding House Bill (HB) 2524, Councilmember Lieberman noted that one state had
just passed a bill similar to this in the last month. He stated that he was not in favor of
this bill.
In regard to the Growing Smarter proposal, Mayor Scruggs asked if they would actually
be zoning the land designated as agricultural with one residence per acre or if it would
go into the General Plan. Mr. Holland explained that it would apply to both the General
Plan and zoning regulations. Mayor Scruggs asked if the land would have to be re-
designated every year. Mr. Holland stated that this would be a possibility if they wanted
to preserve the option of long-term holding. Mayor Scruggs stated that, during a
meeting she had attended, where someone presented Growing Smarter to a group of
mayors, it was presented that one of the features of Growing Smarter is that all new
zonings or rezonings must meet the Noland Doland test. She asked Mr. Holland if this
was correct. Mr. Holland stated that it was correct and he noted that it was something
that both the planning profession and the legal profession now follow as a matter of
course. He said that they are required to consider the issue of taking a reasonable use
property and crafting regulations.
Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he did not see how the agricultural change was
expected to help the City and asked who it was intended to help. Mr. Holland explained
that in many ways it does not help the City, it makes effective land management within
the municipal boundaries harder. He stated that the landowners would be the main
beneficiaries.
Councilmember McAllister stated that the agricultural designation changes the value of
the land. Mr. Holland agreed that it would change the value of land located close to
existing developments. He suggested that it could result in some agricultural land
having a high potential for residential developments.
Councilmember Lieberman noted that when land is broken up, it is traditionally broken
into 5-acre parcels and that, under this proposal, he could sell each individual acre and
put one residence on it. He suggested that this would totally change the structure of
the existing laws. Mr. Holland stated that it would be very difficult for them to regulate
the splits of the smaller parcels if they were rezoned.
Councilmember McAllister asked what the County Assessor would do. Mr. Holland
stated that he did not feel qualified to answer this question.
Councilmember Martinez asked about open space. Mr. Holland stated that there have
been a lot of proposals concerning various mechanisms for dealing with State Trust
lands. He explained that they specifically decided not to put those into their
presentation because it is something that may not directly affect them. He stated that
the Board Agreement will create some kind of commission to review nominations for
State Trust lands and that cities, counties and towns will be able to directly nominate
State Trust lands for preservation to the commission. He stated that the commission
will review the nominations and forward a set of recommendations to the Legislature.
He said that two sticky points of this issue are how much land can be designated or
preserved and whether there would be any guarantee that any State Trust land would
19
ever be conserved past the first batch that went through the Legislature.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that the taking of property is extremely dangerous
because property owners will want the property values that the property will have in
twenty years. Ms. Rudibaugh stated that this was supposed to be an advisory piece to
the Council so that, if someone could not go through the court system, they could go
through this administrative process. If the Council disagreed with the administrative
process, it could then go to court.
Councilmember Martinez asked who would do the administrative review. Ms.
Rudibaugh explained that originally it was the City Attorney and/or his designee. She
stated that she was not sure how it currently reads.
Mayor Scruggs asked if this included a date by which they must complete their new
General Plan. Mr. Holland stated that it would remain the same, December 31, 2001.
He said that they are seeing more responsibilities, the same deadline, and no division
of funds.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
20