Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/3/2000 * 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 October 3, 2000 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Gary Verburg, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; Mr. Dean Svoboda, Planning Director; and Mr. Timothy Quinn, Landscape Architect. In June of 2000, Mayor Scruggs identified a need to develop standards for the siting of big box retailers to areas suitable for large-scale commercial development and the Council supported the development of the standards. In the past several years, communities throughout the nation have seen increasing numbers of large-scale retail businesses, often referred to as big box stores. The purpose of this item is to introduce efforts to augment existing ordinances and standards specifically relating to large-scale retail development. Glendale will be the first city in the Valley to ensure that development of this type contributes positively to, and integrates with, the unique physical character of neighborhoods and the community. The Zoning Ordinance provides limited control over commercial uses allowed under current zoning. Presently, SC (Shopping Center) zoning is the only planned commercial district within the City. Staff has developed a multi-faceted approach, which will address current, as well as future, development in Glendale. The first component would be to create a text amendment to the current C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts, requiring a conditional use permit for any commercial uses greater than 75,000 square feet. This will help to protect the character of areas where commercial zoning already exists. 1 The second component is to revise the Zoning Ordinance to create two new commercial zoning districts. These new districts are Neighborhood Shopping Center (NSC) and a Community Shopping Center (CSC). The creation of the NSC and CSC districts will positively effect portions of the City that are relatively undeveloped, where commercial zoning does not already exist. The Neighborhood Shopping Center (NSC) district would replace the current Shopping Center (SC) district and would eliminate minor auto repair, movie theatre, indoor recreation facility and thrift store type uses. The NSC district is designed to serve residents of the immediate neighborhood and would not allow a single user to exceed 75,000 square feet. Typically, the NSC district uses less than 75,000 square feet and includes grocery stores, apparel and accessory stores, home furnishings, and general merchandising. The Community Shopping Center (CSC) district is designed specifically to accommodate large-scale shopping centers that serve residents of an entire community and attract regional shoppers. Uses in the CSC district could range from small shops to big box retailers, such as home improvement centers, warehouse stores, movie theatres, and other large developments that can have significant impacts on neighborhoods and the surrounding area. The third component would be to develop design guidelines for major commercial uses. These would help to mitigate the impacts of scale, mass, boxy architecture, large parking fields, pedestrian access, and other onsite design concerns to help these uses blend in with the community. The fourth component is to amend the General Plan to identify where appropriate locations are for CSC's. This will help create a commercial campus setting for big box developments, provide developers with information on the City's land planning goals, and delineate for residents where large commercial centers will occur. As is the current practice, development master plans will provide specific locations for each user. Should Council concur with the proposed changes, staff could bring the ordinance and related text amendments forward for adoption within four months. This will allow enough time for the public hearings and citizen participation required as part of the Citizen Participation Ordinance. The amendment to the General Plan can be incorporated into the current planning effort for updating the Western Area Plan, as well as the City's General Plan. While this is the first time that the City Council has reviewed this issue with staff, there has been public discussion about the effects of large-scale commercial development on the community. The development community would be made aware of any changes that the City Council adopts. There are no budget/cost impacts involved. The recommendation was to review the information presented and provide staff with direction. 2 Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he was first made aware of this issue during the Mayor's speech on June 20, 2000. He asked if a stipulation regarding maximum size could be implemented until the process has been completed. Mr. Svoboda stated that the Council has the authority to stipulate the maximum size of users who could occupy the zoning being granted. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that they have a great plan. He stated that the quicker they could get it implemented, the better off the City would be. Councilmember Goulet noted that one of the goals of the Neighborhood Shopping Center District designation is to eliminate minor auto repair and indoor recreational facilities. He said that, after reviewing the draft for both the Neighborhood and Community Shopping Center Districts, he was unable to find designations for these types of uses. He suggested creating an industrial district for those types of uses. He said that, while no one may want those types of uses in their neighborhood, they have to be factored in. He asked if the Community Shopping Center District is self-limiting, given the size and locations where that type of development could go, suggesting it could restrict that type of development in areas that need it. He also asked if a small movie theater would be precluded from coming into the downtown area. Mr. Svoboda explained that minor auto repair, indoor recreational facilities, and such would be placed in some of the freestanding commercial areas. He said that there would still be a need for some C-2 zoned areas to accommodate those types of services. With regard to limitations created by the Community Shopping Center District, he explained that most older areas of the City have C-2 zoning in place and, if it were to remain, the option would remain for a big box retailer to come in through a Conditional Use Permit. He said that the Community Shopping Center District would not necessarily place older areas at a disadvantage. In response to Councilmember Goulet's question about the movie theater, Mr. Svoboda noted that a majority of the downtown area has mixed zoning, including a pedestrian retail district. He said that the new districts are not meant to supercede or limit the types of uses that could take place in the pedestrian retail district or any future changes in land use that might occur as a result of the City Center Redevelopment Plan. Councilmember Goulet expressed his concern that, if the proposals continue to move forward without designating certain things, they might lose development opportunities when, in fact, they are trying to encourage development given the right location. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that restrictions on the size of a use in the Neighborhood and Community Shopping Center Districts overlap, with Neighborhood Shopping Centers having a maximum size of 20 acres and Community Shopping Centers having a minimum size of 15 acres. She said that their intent is to provide neighborhoods with predictability about what could be built in their neighborhoods and this would not accomplish that. She said that she does not understand why the Community Shopping Center limitations start so low. Mr. Svoboda explained that the actual placement of the zoning districts, should they be adopted, would be at the discretion of the Council and the policy guideline would come from the General Plan. He said that they would then take the most appropriate zoning district and implement it through a rezoning of the 3 property. He noted that most neighborhood centers range in size between 5 and 15 acres. He said that they provided some leeway for the neighborhood centers in the draft because there are some unique locations in the City where neighborhood centers are able to handle larger scale commercial development in terms of total square footage and total acreage. He stated that all of the numbers are subject to debate. Mayor Scruggs said that other big box developments could be put in place before the new standards could be implemented and the Council would have no say because the areas are already zoned for C-1, C-2 and C-3. Mr. Svoboda agreed, explaining that the amendment they were proposing to the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Districts is a one-line text amendment to the ordinance. He noted that they still have to go through the same procedure and meet the State law requirements for notice. He said he could put the fastest possible schedule together if directed to do so by the Council. Mayor Scruggs said that, if the Council initiates the standards, it would not have to go through the Planning Commission. Mr. Svoboda said that, if the Council initiates it, they become the owner of the application and could give staff direction to proceed with as much speed as possible. He said that it would need to go back to a public hearing before the Planning Commission before it comes back to Council. He offered to put a schedule together that compresses the required timeframe. Councilmember Clark asked for confirmation that Glendale has a lot of C-2 zoning. Mr. Svoboda reviewed a map showing where C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones are located. He stated that a majority of the commercial property in the City is zoned C-2. Councilmember Clark suggested stipulating maximum sizes within C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones. Mr. Svoboda said that he could work up a maximum size for each district; however, it would be difficult because each location is unique. He explained that the proposal before the Council gives the Council discretion in evaluating the site-specific impacts and situations. Councilmember Clark suggested they consider what surrounds the vacant parcels, not just the size of the parcel and maximum size of its users. She explained her suggestion, stating that if a parcel is surrounded by residences on three sides, it would not be an appropriate location for a Community Shopping Center. Mr. Svoboda agreed and said they would explore working that into the District and General Plan. Mayor Scruggs asked if it would only apply to in-fill property or in general. She noted that there are significant shopping centers that have residential development around them and they were planned that way. Councilmember Clark said that she was referring to older areas of the City. She asked if the Western General Plan has been placed on hold, noting that it was supposed to be completed before the Loop 101 was completed. Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager, said that they were scheduled to come before the Council at its November 7th Workshop with a draft of the Western Area Plan. Councilmember Clark asked if status reports on the Western General Plan had been issued to Council. Mr. Svoboda said that status reports were issued up until March or April of last year. He said, after that time, monthly updates were not provided. He stated that Councilmember Samaniego 4 had received regular updates. He noted that the concepts they were discussing would not add any additional time to the Western Area Plan. He explained that they have already been incorporated into the draft. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Svoboda confirmed that any single retail use, larger than 75,000 square feet, in C1, C-2 or C-3 zones requires a Special Use Permit. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the Shopping Center District would require a Special Use Permit. Mr. Svoboda said that a Special Use Permit would be required for users asking for more than 80,000 square feet. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the 51St and Olive Avenues location was ever meant to be a Community Shopping Center. Mr. Svoboda explained that the request at that location was for a community level center, but they could not apply for SC zoning because it has a cap of 15 acres. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that the Council could have stipulated a maximum size for that location, but did not think to do so. Mr. Svoboda pointed out that it had not been an issue in the past. Councilmember Clark noted that none of the findings which commercial zonings have to meet are based on size. She asked if the Council would be able to stipulate a size limit. Mr. Svoboda said it could because the findings have a lot of leeway and are subjective. Mayor Scruggs asked if there is a maximum size once a user obtains a Special Use Permit. Mr. Svoboda stated that the Conditional Use Permit would be a site-specific determination. He said, for example, that if Council approved a 100,000 square foot store, it would have to remain 100,000 square feet unless the Conditional Use Permit was amended. He stated that, with the change to the existing zoning districts, a Conditional Use Permit would require a site plan. He explained that, in Neighborhood and Community Shopping Center Districts, both a master development plan covering the basic character and a Conditional Use Permit would be required. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Svoboda clarified that the proposed Neighborhood Shopping Center District would prohibit any use larger than 75,000 square feet. He said that the text amendment proposed for the C-1 District would potentially allow a user larger than 75,000 square feet with a Conditional Use Permit, but the likelihood of there being a parcel with C-1 zoning that could accommodate a user of that size is very remote. He said that they could also look at placing a prohibition in the C-1 District. Councilmember Martinez asked if homebuilder associations had been notified of the City's intent. Mr. Svoboda stated that there had been no public notification as yet; however, if Council gives direction to proceed, a citizen participation plan would be initiated. Councilmember Lieberman asked who would determine if a property is zoned as a Community or Neighborhood Shopping Center. Mr. Svoboda explained that, with regard to new zoning, Council would make the decision at the time the General Plan category is applied to the property. He said that, with regard to older centers where C-2 zoning exists, the Conditional Use Permits would give the Council control over big box users. He noted that, once the Council adopts a General Plan designation on a piece 5 of property, it becomes the official policy of the City and can only be changed by a majority vote of the Council. Mayor Scruggs said that the community has to approve the General Plan next year as part of Growing Smarter. She asked what would be required to change the General Plan once it has been adopted. Mr. Svoboda explained that it would depend on how the General Plan is adopted and the definition included as to what constitutes a major and minor amendment. Mayor Scruggs said she was concerned about the overlap in size limitations between Neighborhood and Community Shopping Center Districts. Mr. Svoboda said that they would work on clarifying those designations. In response to Councilmember Clark's questions, Mr. Svoboda explained that a freestanding commercial center is where individual businesses are developed on independent parcels. He said that size limitations are based on what can be accommodated on the parcel. He confirmed that freestanding centers would always be zoned C-1, C-2 or C-3. Councilmember Goulet said that buffering is difficult to deal with because there is so much residential development. He said that, because everyone looks for convenience and quick access, commercial developments are built in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. He said that the question is how to limit the impact of meeting commercial needs in existing neighborhoods that have come to expect a certain lifestyle. He said he was concerned about the placement of businesses that some view as detrimental, but, nonetheless, are necessary. Mayor Scruggs said that they should also consider economic impacts because tax revenue generation is a valid issue. She explained that some entities have realized they can expand to ever-greater sizes, come into areas where there is an already established tax revenue, and wipe out the businesses it competes with. She said that, as a result, the City gets no new tax revenue generation because it loses the revenue base that was previously there. Mayor Scruggs asked why staff chose 75,000 square feet as the maximum size. Dr. Vanacour explained that they did not want to exclude grocery stores from Neighborhood Shopping Centers. He said that grocery stores are typically 55,000 to 60,000 square feet, with some coming close to 75,000 square feet. Councilmember Martinez mentioned an existing problem of a Fry's supermarket air- conditioning unit adversely affecting the surrounding neighborhood. He asked if measures had been taken to ensure that similar problems do not occur in the future. Mr. Svoboda said that both of the new districts require that, prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued, the developer provide certification that noise levels from any mechanical equipment do not exceed 55 decibels. Mayor Scruggs noted that Community Shopping Center Performance Standard B says the first phase of development must include a major user of at least 80,000 square feet. She pointed out, however, that they cannot exceed 75,000 without a Conditional Use Permit. She suggested that the standard should indicate that the first phase must 6 include a total gross floor area of 100,000 square feet, regardless of the number of users. Mr. Svoboda agreed. Mayor Scruggs asked if staff would notify everyone with C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning that they were in the process of preparing a text amendment. Mr. Svoboda said that they were required to prepare a Citizen Participation Plan and, if Council preferred, they could incorporate notifying all existing commercial property owners. Mayor Scruggs asked, in the event they chose not to notify existing property owners of the text amendment, if they would have to go through a separate process, giving property owners the opportunity to protest the amendment prior to it being implemented. Mr. Svoboda said that it would be considered a text amendment rather than a rezoning. The Council is, therefore, given some discretion in terms of notification. Mayor Scruggs noted that the amendment would not take effect until 30 days after it has been adopted. She said that she would not want to have to increase that waiting period because property owners were not aware of the amendment. Councilmember Clark agreed that everyone should be notified up front because the process could then move more smoothly and quickly. Mayor Scruggs asked how projects that are already in progress would be affected. Mr. Verburg said that they have been actively researching this issue and he suggested that they share their concepts in executive session. Councilmember Martinez asked if height restrictions in the neighborhood and community centers would remain as they currently are. Mr. Svoboda said that the Neighborhood Shopping Center District is similar to the Shopping Center District in terms of the standards for setbacks, buffering and screening. He stated that the Community Shopping Center District has greater setbacks and more buffers to reflect a greater level of intensity. He noted that the 30-foot height limitation would remain in effect in the Neighborhood Shopping Center District; however, the proposed Community Shopping Center District has a 40-foot height restriction to allow for higher ceiling heights and to accommodate architectural embellishments. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion that the proximity of residential development around a commercial property was the most important issue. He said that, with regard to the 51st and Olive Avenues situation, he felt he and the neighbors had been mislead. Mr. Coleson stated that, under the new zoning, the City would know a lot more about a company prior to entering into a development agreement. Councilmember Clark said they need to find a way to convey to the public what a Neighborhood Shopping Center is, as compared to a Community Shopping Center. Mr. Svoboda explained that the majority of the square footage is taken by grocery or drug stores and that, for a center to be healthy, there needs to be an anchor that brings pedestrian and vehicular traffic to the center. He said that they have two opportunities to convey their message to the public: (1) the purpose statement for each of the districts and (2) the definition of a Neighborhood or Community Shopping Center in the 7 General Plan. Mayor Scruggs asked if cocktail lounges were allowed under the current Shopping Center zoning. Mr. Svoboda stated that they were permitted, at the discretion of the Council. He noted that recently the Council did a text amendment to remove cocktail lounges from the C-1 District. Councilmember Lieberman said that there was a need to clearly define what they will and will not allow with a Use Permit to prevent possible future legal action. Mr. Svoboda agreed. He explained that the decisions regarding Conditional Use Permits are guided by five findings. He stated that Neighborhood Shopping Centers would range between 50,000 and 160,000 square feet and Community Shopping Centers would range between 160,000 and 500,000 square feet. He said that the Council would have control over both the Use Permit and where a Community Shopping Center District would be designated in the General Plan. Mayor Scruggs said that the majority of the Council was in agreement that, if the Neighborhood Shopping Center District will have a maximum of 20 acres, the Community Shopping Center District should begin above 20 acres. She asked why the performance standard for the Community Shopping Center District only requires that 100,000 square feet be built during the first phase, as opposed to the 50% that is required in the Neighborhood Shopping Center District. Mr. Svoboda said that this issue is subject to further discussion and debate. He explained that the original thought was that they tend to get fairly good-sized anchors at neighborhood level centers. He explained that the intent of the requirement was to prevent partially developed shopping centers. Mayor Scruggs suggested that, rather than having an arbitrary square footage amount, they require a percentage of the entire square footage be built or that the pads being built be contiguous so as to present a more completed look. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the percentage would be based on the footprint of the building or if it included parking. Mr. Svoboda explained that, on any commercial site, the yield in terms of gross square footage is about one-quarter of the site. He said that all of the numbers they provided were based on a percentage of the gross floor area of a potentially developed building. Councilmember Clark asked if the 50% requirement would be for one tenant or a conglomeration of tenants. Mayor Scruggs said that it would require multiple tenants unless the single tenant obtained a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Martinez asked if cocktail lounges require a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Svoboda explained that a Conditional Use Permit is prohibited in the C-1 District, but is permitted outright in all other commercial districts. He said that the only time a Conditional Use Permit is required is if there is live entertainment or patron dancing. 8 Mayor Scruggs summarized by stating that they would change the minimum size of the Community Shopping Center District to be above the maximum size of the Neighborhood Shopping Center District. She said they would speed up the process that provides the text amendment requiring Conditional Use Permits in C-1, C-2 and C- 3 Districts. She stated that staff would notify property owners of this amendment and the Council would like the amendment written with a 30-day enactment clause. She said the minimum amount of square footage that can be leased or sold in the first phase of a Community Shopping Center should be changed to a percentage of the total. The Council agreed that cocktail lounges should not be permitted in Neighborhood Shopping Centers. Councilmember Clark noted that staff agreed to make a clear distinction between a Neighborhood Shopping Center and Community Shopping Center. Councilmember Martinez asked how property owners would be notified. Mr. Svoboda said they would use the Maricopa County Assessor's records to send notices, far in advance of any hearing. Councilmember Martinez suggested putting a notice in the newspaper. Mr. Svoboda explained that it is a two-part process, with the first part being a courtesy notice and the second being a legal notice and posting, including an eighth of a page ad in the newspaper. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that some cities use large signs as a form of notice. Mr. Svoboda stated that, as part of the text amendments, there would be no posting of individual properties. Mayor Scruggs said that the Council had also discussed the height of the buildings. Mr. Svoboda said that an increased height is often required in Commercial Shopping Centers to allow for more warehouse storage space and architectural embellishments that add interest to the building. Councilmember Frate asked if a merchant who has an 80,000 or 90,000 square foot building would be allowed to buy out a neighbor and expand further. Mr. Svoboda explained that a development master plan that could cap the total square footage for all buildings on the property would be approved and, if a user wanted more space, it would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. He said future expansion would require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 2. DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; Mr. lain Vasey, Redevelopment Manager; and Mr. Timothy Quinn, Landscape Architect. In the Fiscal Year 2000-01 City Budget, the City Council approved $100,000 in the Capital Improvement Program for beautification of downtown sidewalks through installation of benches, planters, banners, and other street furniture. At today's meeting 9 staff presented a proposed design concept for the installation of these items in the downtown area. Staff conducted a field survey of the existing street furniture and identified locations for additional improvements. Staff recommended that certain items be considered for installation in order to enhance the "pedestrian-friendly" environment in downtown Glendale. These items include benches, trash receptacles, planters, pots, banners, and hanging baskets. The recommended improvements are projected to cost $97,997.25. Upon the direction of the Mayor and City Council, staff will prepare bid documents and solicit bids from suppliers. Staff would then return to Council for authorization to complete the purchase and begin installation of items. The bid process is projected to take six weeks to complete. Items would be delivered and installed in an additional five to six weeks. Staff has presented this project to the Downtown Development Corporation Board of Directors and received input and assistance relative to materials and proposed locations. The City Council authorized $100,000 in the Capital Improvement Program for this project as part of the Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget process. The City Council approved $100,000 for downtown sidewalk beautification in Fund Number 01-8970 (Downtown Projects). The downtown projects account, of which the $100,000 is a portion, contains a balance of $278,920, including hold over amounts from Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The projected cost of this project is $97,997.25. Maintaining aesthetic quality of the improvements will require maintenance by the City Field Operations Department. It is projected that the labor may amount to one-third of a full-time employee, approximately $13,333. Any cost for additional labor will be included in the upcoming budget supplemental process. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. At the direction of Council, staff will solicit bids from suppliers and return to Council for authorization to complete the purchase of the approved materials. Councilmember Lieberman asked why the downtown merchants wanted to do away with the hanging planters. Mr. Vasey explained that there was concern regarding the level of maintenance that would be required. He said staff was proposing that the planters contain flowers during the cooler months and hardier plants during the summer months. Councilmember Lieberman asked what the average life span of the banners was. Mr. Vasey said that they would last for approximately two years. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Vasey said that they had discussed the issue with a number of the merchants after receiving the Downtown Development Corporation (DDC) letter to see if they agreed. He said other merchants were generally supportive of the hanging planters and liked the concept. 10 Councilmember Goulet said that the merchants had expressed concern over the maintenance of the baskets, seasonal changing of plants, theft of the planters or other materials, as well as safety issues. He noted that they had originally talked about new signage in the downtown area and asked if that had been incorporated into the plan. Mr. Quinn said that new and/or additional signage was not incorporated into the plan, but could be added. Councilmember Frate said he liked the hanging planters and the benches. He asked how many trash receptacles would be added. Mr. Quinn said they would add two receptacles, but could add more if necessary. Councilmember Frate said that a lack of receptacles is a problem when events are held in the downtown area. Mr. Quinn noted the manufacturer has addressed the negative issues that were brought up by Councilmember Goulet with regard to the planters. Councilmember Clark said that she also liked the hanging baskets and she assumed the plant material expense would be built into the budget. She suggested that , if they had money left over, they include the north and south sides of the park in their plan. She expressed her opinion that it would be nice to create a visual line towards City Hall. Councilmember Goulet asked if benches would be located in certain areas, in an effort to discourage bicycle traffic on the sidewalks. Mr. Vasey said that it was their intent to encourage bicycle traffic to use other avenues. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he liked the hanging baskets. Mayor Scruggs suggested they proceed with both the hanging baskets and banners. She said that the banners would set visual boundaries of old town and would lead people to additional stores in the area. Mr. Quinn listed the various locations where banners would be placed. Mayor Scruggs asked what the purpose of a bollard was. Mr. Quinn said they are used as a safety measure when benches are placed relatively close to an intersection. Mr. Colson said that they would like direction on how to handle the hanging basket issue. He explained that they had met with the Downtown Development Corporation (DDC) three times and reviewed the design standards; however, at the last minute, the DDC indicated they were not in favor of the baskets. Mayor Scruggs suggested they go back to the DDC and let them know that the Council was in favor of the hanging baskets. Councilmember Martinez asked how many merchants belong to the DDC. Mr. Vasey said that the DDC has approximately 70 members. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion that the matter should be handled during a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to voice his or her opinions and concerns. 11 Councilmember Frate asked if holding off on the hanging baskets would delay the entire project. Mr. Quinn explained that the items would be solicited and ordered individually. It would, therefore, not hold up the remainder of the project. Councilmember Frate suggested that the DDC be given a specific timeframe to respond. Mr. Vasey noted that the DDC's next meeting was scheduled for October 25, 2000. 3. PROPOSED CITY CODE CHANGES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Dan Gunn, Code Compliance Manager. Staff presented four new codes that would expand the City's enforcement authority. The proposed codes deal with nuisance-related issues and would regulate palm tree maintenance as it relates to health and safety, recurring illegal dumping on vacant lots, odors, and the number of vehicles that may be displayed for sale in a twelve-month period at a residence. The new codes were developed through concerns that citizens have reported to their Council representatives or to the Code Compliance Division. At a subsequent Workshop session, staff will return to present changes that consolidate and clarify existing codes that apply to Chapter 25 — "Nuisances". This chapter and the City's Zoning Ordinance contain the codes most frequently enforced by the Code Compliance Division. This item was presented to Council for the first time. The proposed new codes were reviewed through a series of meetings with both the Acting City Attorney and the City Prosecutor. Following adoption of the proposed codes, a City-wide notification program would be initiated through the Marketing Department, using media such as water bill inserts, the cable channel, etc. There are no budget or cost impacts that would result from the proposed revisions. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Martinez asked if both sides of the street were inspected when they receive a complaint. Mr. Gunn said that both sides of the entire block are inspected. Councilmember Martinez asked if they would need approval from the neighborhood if a Councilmember requested that they investigate a particular area. Mr. Gunn said they would respond to a Councilmember's request without approval of the neighborhood. 12 Councilmember Goulet asked if additional staff would be required as a result of the increase in workload that the amendments could create. Mr. Gunn said they were able to handle their current caseload and, unless there was a considerable change in direction by Council, they would not need additional staff. Councilmember Clark asked if cars that are parked beyond the front plane of an "L" shaped house and visible from the street would be considered in violation. Mr. Gunn said that cars parked between the front plane of the house and the back plane of the "L" would be in violation. Councilmember Clark noted that a lot of political signs are not within the Political Sign Ordinance. She pointed out that the City was heading into a very heavy political period. She said that they needed to decide if they were going to enforce that ordinance or not. Councilmember Frate asked if the City had the ability to pick up large political signs and bring them to City Hall. Mr. Gunn said that the issue involves first amendment rights and the only time they remove a political sign is if it presents a traffic or pedestrian obstruction. He explained that they lay the sign down and call the candidate's office to explain why it was taken down and to let them know where the sign is so that they can pick it up. Councilmember Clark noted that candidates are given a pamphlet explaining the City's sign ordinance. She asked what position the City Attorney's office had taken on this issue. Mr. Verburg said that there are limitations on the City's ability to regulate free speech, with political speech being the most protected. He agreed with the manner in which Code Compliance staff handles the situation. He said that they hand out the pamphlet in the hopes of getting voluntary compliance. Mayor Scruggs referred to an article in the newspaper about a neighboring city's efforts to get tough on sign enforcement. She asked whether the City of Glendale's enforcement was as tough. Mr. Gunn said that the City of Glendale does have some of the same codes. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance controls advertising mechanisms and the City does not proactively enforce the ordinance. Councilmember Goulet stated that the existing problems would not be resolved by additional ordinances unless there were enough people to enforce those ordinances. Mr. Gunn said that they face a dilemma of maintaining a balance between too much and too little government. Ms. Kavanaugh stated that they could modify the current complaint-driven system if there were specific issues that the Council wanted them to proactively enforce. Mayor Scruggs asked if inspectors were scheduled to work on the weekends. Mr. Gunn said that they do work weekends and can be reached by leaving a message at the main number. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for clarification on the number of vehicles that could be displayed for sale on a given property within a one-year period. Mr. Gunn explained that they could display three vehicles within a twelve-month period, with no more than 13 one vehicle being displayed at any one time. He said that citizens could call Code Compliance if they were aware of a violation and Code Compliance staff would go to the property and explain the limitations. Councilmember Clark said that the term "must effectively secure", which is used to describe the action required of property owners when complaints are lodged with the City's Code Compliance Department with regard to vacant lots that are littered with debris, is very general language and is open to a lot of interpretation. She noted that a berm is not listed as an effective way to secure an area. She compared the odor ordinance to the ordinance that the City has regarding barking dogs. She explained that it is difficult to get three neighbors to complain and consistently document the problems over a specified period of time. She questioned the effectiveness of an ordinance that requires multiple people to join in on the complaint. She asked how well the barking dog ordinance has worked. Mr. Gunn said that it works quite well. He explained that the premise behind documenting the violation is that it provides material evidence, which allows the City Prosecutor to move forward with the case if necessary. He agreed that, although some citizens are hesitant to get involved, those with concerns are usually able to get others to join in the process. Mayor Scruggs said that there are two very bad things found when odors are reported: meth labs and decomposing bodies. She acknowledged the difficulties involved in the joint complaint process. She suggested that the City could conduct one check before going through the signature process. Mr. Gunn explained that they do respond when they receive an initial complaint and three signatures are only required when they receive a second complaint and it appears it could advance into a court case. Councilmember Martinez said he liked all of the proposed regulations. He stated that he supported the vehicles for sale ordinance. He noted that a particular location in the Cholla District always has a car for sale. He said he had heard that some dealers pay residents to allow them to use their location to display automobiles. He said that he also supported the illegal dumping and palm tree maintenance ordinances. Councilmember Goulet asked if they would go to court if they knew conclusively that a person has sold a fourth car within a twelve-month period. Mr. Gunn said that they would proceed to court and a judge would decide on the appropriate remedy. Councilmember Goulet said that he has numerous vacant lots in his district and they are doing what they can to clean them up and build homes on them. He asked how out-of-state property owners would be notified and how much time they would be given to respond. He also asked what would happen if a property owner refused to respond or could not afford to secure the property. Mr. Gunn said that notice is sent, both by regular and certified mail, and property owners are given 30 days to respond. He explained that, if the property owner does not take action, the City goes to bid and then cleans and liens the property. 14 Councilmember Lieberman asked if there was a State law that states a person cannot sell more than three cars from of a private residence. Mr. Gunn explained that the State Statute defines a car dealer at six or more vehicles. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he was in favor of all of the proposed codes and thanked Mr. Gunn for his efforts. Councilmember Clark said that she would like to see a clean and lien policy in cases of illegal dumping. Mr. Gunn explained the process. He stated that property owners are informed that they have been subject to illegal dumping on more than three occasions and they have to take action. He stated that if the property owner does not take action, the City would have the work done by contract and would then lien the property. Councilmember Martinez noted that a neighboring city recently passed an ordinance pertaining to boom boxes. He suggested that the City of Glendale should pass a similar ordinance. He asked how an illegal business was defined. Mr. Gunn said that the issue of illegal businesses is the most difficult one they deal with. He stated that it requires a high burden of proof, which is very difficult to achieve. Councilmember Martinez said that, even if it is difficult, the City should try to enforce the ordinance. Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Martinez. She asked if there was something in the Code that states if a business impedes the flow of neighborhood traffic, it is in violation. Mr. Gunn explained that the Zoning Ordinance limits what a homeowner can do in terms of a home occupation or business. He said that the City gathers as much evidence as possible and presents it to the prosecutor; however, in a lot of cases, the City is unable to secure much information. Councilmember Clark asked if they needed a stronger Code that makes obtaining proof easier. Mr. Gunn offered to look at the current Code to see if there were ways to strengthen it. Mayor Scruggs stated that she had received a lot of calls regarding boom boxes. She suggested that the Councilmembers make a list of particular problems they would like to see addressed. She noted that a lot of the current problems did not exist five years ago. Councilmember Martinez asked if the Council would support an ordinance restricting boom boxes and home-based limousine and taxi businesses. The Councilmembers indicated their support. Mayor Scruggs said that, while the Cities of Glendale and Phoenix have ordinances against disturbing the peace, the Codes do not specifically address vehicle sound amplification systems. Mr. Gunn agreed that the City does have a noise ordinance. He noted that the Police Department enforces vehicular noise violations. Ms. Kavanaugh stated that they would come back in a couple weeks to discuss modifications to the existing Code. She explained that the modifications would, for the most part, be an attempt to clarify the codes so that they are easily understood. 15 Councilmember Lieberman stated that the number one complaint he receives is with regard to pigeons in the parks. Councilmember Martinez thanked Ms. Kavanaugh and Mr. Gunn for their efforts. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 16