Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/17/2000 * 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 17, 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 APPLICATION PROCESS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; and Ms. Gloria Santiago, Neighborhood Revitalization Manager. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Orrin Bradshaw, Chairperson of the Community Development Advisory Committee. Each year, the Chairperson of the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) meets with the City Council. The purpose of this meeting is to seek guidance from the Council on funding priorities for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. In November of 2000, applications for funding will be accepted from various non-profit agencies and City departments. Eligible CDBG activities include housing rehabilitation, infrastructure improvements, public facility improvements, and public service programs. The use of HOME funds is limited to activities that provide affordable housing. All grant-funded activities must primarily benefit low and moderate income individuals and families, or eliminate blight. The guidance provided in the past by the City Council has been helpful to the CDAC and staff. Both the CDAC and staff have been diligent in following the Council's direction. Staff has provided Council with the suggested funding priorities from the past five years. 1 The Community Development Advisory Committee met on August 16, 2000 to prepare for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 grant process. On October 19, 2000, the Neighborhood Revitalization Division will conduct an orientation meeting with prospective grant applicants to provide technical assistance on the CDBG and HOME funding process. On October 5, 2000, previous and prospective CDBG and HOME applicants were notified of the upcoming grant cycle by the Neighborhood Revitalization Division and invited to the orientation meeting. On October 5 and 12, 2000, public notices were published in The Glendale Star, notifying interested parties of the availability of funds for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, providing the date, time, and location of the orientation meeting. In Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the City will receive approximately $2 million in CDBG funds and $450,000 in HOME funds. The recommendation was to review the information and provide input to the Community Development Advisory Committee regarding funding priorities. Councilmember Goulet said that, while progress has been made, people feel the downtown area still has room for improvement. He suggested that certain visually undesirable areas be demolished. He said people in his district are also very supportive of the Angels on Call program (a community volunteer program that provides minor home repairs). He identified, clearing, cleaning, and in-fill rebuilding as his priorities. Councilmember Martinez agreed with Councilmember Goulet. He said that he would also like to include, and emphasize on, programs for seniors and youth. He stated that there should be room to accommodate unexpected requests recommended by the Community Development Advisory Committee. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with both Councilmembers Goulet and Martinez. He said that he would also like to keep the door open for new projects. He stated that he was particularly interested in Faith House, now Prehab of Arizona, because of the tremendous work they do with victims of domestic violence. He said that he also supported the Youth Center. Councilmember Clark asked what the current boundaries are of the CDBG area. Ms. Santiago stated that they can use the funds in neighborhoods or census tracks that meet the income guidelines by 51% or more. Councilmember Clark asked if they would review the recent census results to determine which tracks would be applicable. Ms. Santiago said that they would review the census track information and update the City's eligibility as soon as the results are made available. She explained that the CDBG criteria is based on population, age of the housing, income levels, and condition of the housing. Councilmember Clark said she supported revitalization of older neighborhoods. She suggested they identify programs that provide tools or services to assist the elderly in their day-to-day living experiences. She agreed with 2 Councilmember Goulet's concerns about demolition and clearance of blighted properties and burn-outs. She said that she was also in favor of affordable childcare for the working poor. Vice Mayor Eggleston thanked Mr. Bradshaw for the work he and his Committee had done. He said he liked the priorities that were set last year, including affordable housing and programs for the youth and seniors, and he would support keeping this year's priorities consistent with those priorities. Councilmember Frate said that he was in full support of affordable housing programs. He asked if the programs were strong or if it was getting harder for people to purchase a home. Ms. Santiago stated that they have several agencies offering homebuyer programs, including Habitat for Humanities and Community Services of Arizona. She said helping people with down payments was the biggest need. Councilmember Clark asked that they look at the cost of administering a program to determine how much value is actually received by the clients. Councilmember Martinez asked if there would be any money left over from this year's budget. Ms. Santiago said that there would be. She explained that, in the past, they have been able to return approximately $100,000. Councilmember Martinez suggested finding out if neighborhoods that qualify would be interested in participating in the sewer extension program. Ms. Santiago said that she would look into the issue. Mayor Scruggs suggested that they coordinate with the other departments in terms of the lead time that the program requires. Explaining that it could take up to three years, Mayor Scruggs questioned whether they could hold on to the CDBG funds for that long. Councilmember Goulet asked about the orientation session. He mentioned innovative programs being done in other communities. He asked Ms. Santiago if, in the event she were to learn of a success elsewhere, would they bring that program to Glendale. Ms. Santiago said that she was open to new ideas and services, as long as they fall within the guidelines that come with the funds. She said orientation would be held on October 19, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. in Conference Room B-3 of the Council Chambers. Mayor Scruggs asked if they had considered checking on the financial strength of an organization before giving them any funds. Mr. Bradshaw replied that they required a financial statement with each of the applications and the applications are thoroughly reviewed. He said that they do take it into consideration if it appears that too much of the funds are allocated for administration. Mayor Scruggs asked if previously- funded organizations were required to show how the money was used and who benefited from it. Ms. Santiago stated that organizations are required to submit quarterly reports to ensure they are accomplishing what they said they would. Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested that the Councilmembers tell representatives of worthy programs to attend the orientation meeting. 3 Mayor Scruggs said she believed it was good that the City continues to fund new programs and services. She said that she was not in favor of a level amount of contribution from City departments and believed they should be worked into the City's budget. She summarized by stating that the Council was in favor of cleaning, clearing, and in-fill development, affordable housing, and programs for the youth and seniors. 2. PROPOSED CITY CODE CHANGES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Dan Gunn, Code Compliance Manager; and Ms. Nancy Khiel, City Prosecutor. At today's workshop staff presented various code revisions that would consolidate and clarify existing codes that apply to Chapter 25 — "Nuisances". Also, several of the revisions are to correct ambiguities in the code language, such as what constitutes an abandoned vehicle, what can and cannot be placed in the rights-of-way, and that the discharge of pool water into the street is a violation. With more citizens accessing the codes on the City of Glendale's website, the proposed revisions will provide citizens a better understanding of the most commonly violated City codes. The four new codes that were presented at the City Council Workshop on October 13, 2000 have been incorporated into the ordinance changes that were presented today. These new codes are in italic type. At a recent Workshop, staff presented to Council some proposed new codes to Chapter 25 "Nuisances". Staff informed the Council that additional proposed code revisions would be coming forward at a subsequent Workshop. The proposed new codes and code revisions were reviewed through a series of meetings with both the Acting City Attorney and the City Prosecutor. Following adoption of the proposed code revisions, a City-wide notification program will be initiated through the Marketing Department, using the water bill newsletter, the cable channel, etc. There is no budget or cost impacts that would result from the proposed revisions. The recommendation was to review the proposed revisions and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman said he had been told that the State allows six vehicles to be sold on a private property per year. He asked if that was true. Mr. Gunn replied that the State Statute defines someone who sells more than six vehicles per year as a broker. With regard to Code 22, Councilmember Lieberman suggested that they include the zoning provision language so that people know what the actual provisions are. He asked how abandoned vehicles are handled. Mr. Gunn said that abandoned vehicles on the street are regulated by the Police Department. He noted that the Chapter does address abandoned or inoperable vehicles that sit on private property. 4 Councilmember Martinez inquired about vehicles that are inoperable and do not have automobile covers. Mr. Gunn said that vehicles which are defined as abandoned or inoperable have to be removed from public view. Councilmember Martinez asked how they would determine whether a vehicle was inoperable or not. Mr. Gunn said the inspection would occur from the public rights-of-way and the vehicle would have to meet certain conditions. He stated that they would not enter onto a property to verify whether a vehicle had current license plates. He said the ordinance does not address how long a vehicle can sit on private property. Mayor Scruggs asked for clarification that abandoned or inoperable vehicles cannot be stored in public view unless they have a cover. Mr. Gunn stated that there are limits as to where abandoned or inoperable vehicles can be stored. He confirmed the fact that an abandoned or inoperable vehicle can be stored in a carport without any kind of time limitations. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the provision states that vehicles can be parked on an improved surface. He asked for assurances that vehicles cannot be parked on a gravel yard across the front of a house or protrude onto the sidewalk. Mr. Gunn said that another chapter addresses cars that protrude onto the sidewalk. Ms. Kavanaugh suggested they work on the language to make it clear that vehicles cannot be parked on gravel in front of a house. Councilmember Lieberman noted that, while parking in the front yard is subject to other City provisions, the Code does not identify those provisions. Mayor Scruggs stated that they get a lot of complaints about trucks being parked overnight. She asked for clarification of the Code, which states that this cannot occur on vacant properties, except where lawful commercial activities are allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gunn explained that some commercial districts allow overnight parking of semi-tractors and/or trailers. He said that each case is considered on an individual basis and they research what the zoning regulations allow. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits overnight parking of commercial vehicles, except in industrial areas, regardless of whether or not they have the property owner's permission. Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Svoboda to brief the Council on discussions that the Planning Commission had on this issue. Mr. Svoboda explained that the Planning Commission had held one workshop session on the topic and staff has done some research. He said that it is currently on the Planning Commission's agenda for its November 9, 2000 workshop session. He explained that their discussion was geared towards the parking of large commercial vehicles, primarily in neighborhood shopping center parking lots. Councilmember Clark noted that Item No. 10 does not make any distinction between wood and firewood. She asked if a person who stores firewood next to their house would now be held liable. Mr. Gunn said that the Code refers to scrap wood. Councilmember Clark suggested that they make a distinction in the Code. She said 5 she thought the Council had decided that people could set out their loose trash two weeks prior to the pickup date. Mr. Gunn said he believed trash could be set out one week prior to the scheduled pickup date. Councilmember Clark suggested putting that into the Code. She commented that Code 19 was not clear and that Code 22 was confusing. She asked if Code 28 would apply to retention basins and, if so, who would be cited. Mr. Gunn confirmed that retention basins would fall under that Code. He explained that they would look to whomever was responsible for maintaining the basin. Councilmember Clark said that she was concerned about that because, typically, homeowner associations do not have enough money to cover this type of problem. Vice Mayor Eggleston said that most of the calls he receives are about tall grass and, up until now, the answer to those calls has been that they cannot do anything about it if it is not deemed a fire hazard. He noted that Codes 11 and 12 appear to address this issue. Mr. Gunn said that they would still view it from the standpoint of a possible health or safety hazard, but the grass would not have to be brown for the City to deal with it. Mayor Scruggs asked what constitutes a health issue. Mr. Gunn stated that each case is reviewed on an individual basis. He explained that, if they are talking about a small area of green vegetation, they ask the property owner to voluntarily do something about it. He said that they would address an overgrown yard, regardless of whether the grass was green or brown. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the law states, if a person's grass is six inches tall, they are in violation. She suggested that some people expect the City to act like a homeowners' association because of the way the Code is worded. Mr. Gunn said that the language reading "that may constitute a hazard to the public health and safety" could be added to Code 12. Councilmember Clark suggested they indicate that it is at the City's discretion. Ms. Kavanaugh said that they would work on the language and bring it back at a later date. Councilmember Goulet asked if Code 16 could specify a size and refer people to the Code. He also asked if prosecution could be initiated if there were three consecutive months of problems. Mr. Gunn explained that, after three verified violations, the City has the option of citing property owners and bringing them to court. He confirmed for Councilmember Goulet that inoperable vehicles and historic vehicles being repaired would still be permitted in a garage. Councilmember Goulet suggested that they add language in Code 29 requiring spas to have covers. Mr. Gunn said that this language could be added if the Council so desired. He noted that it would be similar to the secondary fence requirement for a swimming pool. Councilmember Goulet said that he viewed it as a safety issue and believed it would be a minor cost to the home owner. Councilmember Lieberman said that he believed the County enforces this issue. He noted that the County required his neighbor drain his pool. Mr. Gunn agreed that the City works closely with the County on these issues. 6 Mayor Scruggs asked if the definition of a vehicle in Code 2 extends to all codes that deal with vehicles. Mr. Gunn said that the definition is specific to Chapter 25 and he could not say how it might impact other Chapters. He said that they would work with the City Attorney's Office to ensure that the changes do not conflict with other codes. Mr. Verburg agreed that the definition only applies to Title 25. Mayor Scruggs said that Code 33 sounded reasonable. She asked if they had received any expert input to determine whether a twice weekly animal waste clean-up was a reasonable requirement. Mr. Gunn said that it was an existing code. Mayor Scruggs suggested that they add a code dealing with commercial food vendors who operate 24 hours a day. Councilmember Clark agreed that they should be proactive in dealing with this issue. Mr. Gunn said that although a permit is required, no other restrictions apply. Mayor Scruggs asked if there was Council support for staff to look into the Phoenix ordinance. Councilmember Clark said that she would support staff researching the issue and coming back with recommendations. She added, however, that she did not necessarily support Phoenix's solution. The Council expressed its support of having staff research the issue. 3. TRANSFER OF LEASE AGREEMENT - DESERT MIRAGE GOLF COURSE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms, Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director; and Ms. Meaghan Ellsworth, Parks Project Coordinator In April of 1997 the City of Glendale entered into a lease agreement for the operation of Desert Mirage Golf Course with Par Golf. The sole remaining member of Par Golf, Kelly G. LaFay, requested a transfer of the assigned rights under the term of the lease agreement to Glendale Mirage Golf, L.L.C. (GMG), another Arizona limited liability company. GMG will assume Par Golf's responsibilities under the lease and assumption of the existing $1.95 million loan from Bridge Financial. GMG will direct its affiliate, Shamrock Golf, L.L.C., (Shamrock Golf) to conduct the duties as the management company of the Desert Mirage Golf Course. At today's workshop staff discussed the transfer of the lease. Shamrock Golf's principals are Patrick J. McGroder III, Bob Ramsey, and David B. Graham. Shamrock Golf specializes in the acquisition, development, management, and construction of high quality public pay-for-play golf courses. Shamrock Golf currently manages courses in the cities of Scottsdale and Queen Creek and the White Mountains and has projects planned in the cities of Tucson, Casa Grande, Buckeye and Las Vegas. The partners in GMG are Patrick J. McGroder Ill, a Phoenix attorney, and Bob Ramsey. GMG's principals have participated in the construction, ownership and management of many successful golf courses in the Phoenix area. Included are The Ahwatukee Golf & 7 Country Club, Apache Sun, The Links at Queen Creek, Pepperwood Golf Club, Foothills Golf Club and River Run Golf Club. GMG intends to improve the operations and management of the Desert Mirage golf course, but is not seeking any changes to the terms of the lease or increasing the debt against the property. The lack of advertising, league development, and signage significantly restricts the course's earning ability. GMG intends to increase advertising expenditures, seek additional signage, and improve the clubhouse amenities. The Chief Financial Officer for the City of Glendale has reviewed a letter of financial capabilities from Northern Trust Bank. This document demonstrates Glendale Mirage Golf's ability to successfully assume the lease agreement. There has been no previous action on this issue of transferring the lease agreement. The first amendment, requested by Par Golf and approved by the City Council in 1997, was for the addition of an adjacent retention basin for the golf course. Staff contacted all parties involved in the transfer of the lease agreement to include Par Golf, L.L.C. and Glendale Mirage Golf, L.L.C. No public notice has been held, as this is a business transaction. There are no budget impacts from the transfer of the license agreement. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Martinez said it was apparent to him that Shamrock Golf has the financial wherewithal and necessary credentials. Councilmember Clark asked what a fixed intangible asset was. Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director, explained that intangible assets include things like patents. Councilmember Clark asked what would happen to the golf course if the Council did not approve the transfer. Mr. Smith said the that golf course did not do well last year and he believed the new owners would do more to market the course. He said they still have a lease agreement with Park Golf and it has to comply with that agreement. Councilmember Clark asked if bankruptcy was a possibility. Mr. Smith said that they may not fulfill the terms of the agreement, which would then trigger action by the City. Councilmember Clark asked what Shamrock Golf was willing to invest to promote the golf course and what their plan was for the future. Mr. Smith said that Shamrock Golf would assume the debt and make improvements to the club, snack bar, and grounds. He noted that they were bringing $400,000 cash to the project. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the Council needs to approve the transfer, although she would like to see the future plans for the course. Councilmember Frate expressed his opinion that the transfer was in the City's best interest. He noted that Shamrock Golf has a proven track record. 8 Mayor Scruggs pointed out there are not many companies interested in nine-hole golf courses. She stated that this project provides hope for a new beginning. Mr. Smith noted that Shamrock Golf had already overseeded the course and it was scheduled to re-open on the 20th of October. He said that the City would be able to enforce the agreement because of the parameters of the lease agreement, as well as the City's monthly visits and inspections. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to move forward on this issue. 4. COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: FOLLOW-UP REPORT CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Dean Svoboda, Planning Director. At the City Council installation ceremony which was held in June of 2000, Mayor Scruggs announced her concerns about the proliferation of "big box" retailers and the disruption they can cause to existing neighborhoods and commercial development. She further suggested the creation of an ordinance to regulate the siting of these retailers into appropriate areas. Glendale was the first city in the Valley to publicly declare and communicate a vision which would require that neighbors and developers work in partnership to generate high quality economic development projects that also enhance the quality of life of surrounding residents. Such an ordinance would also provide the development community an opportunity to plan their projects, with the knowledge of what would be compatible with adjacent properties. This bold and innovative initiative will position the City as a leader in the region. Furthermore, it will also create an atmosphere of openness and full disclosure between the development community and adjacent properties. Staff developed this idea and presented a proposal to the City Council at the October 3, 2000 Workshop. This proposal included the creation of two new commercial zoning districts and the addition of a conditional use permit requirement in the C-1, C-2 and C- 3 zoning districts for any store in excess of 75,000 square feet. At today's Workshop, staff was available to respond to specific points the Council raised at the last Workshop. The six points identified by the City Council and the staff responses are summarized as follows: 1. Eliminate the overlap between the minimum acreage allowed for a Community Shopping Center and the maximum acreage allowed for a Neighborhood Shopping Center. Staff is making this modification in the draft ordinance. The maximum allowable acreage for a Neighborhood Shopping Center will remain at twenty acres. The minimum acreage for a Community Shopping Center is recommended to be not less than twenty acres. 9 2. Change the gross floor area required in the first phase of a Community Shopping Center from 100,000 square feet to a percentage of the total project and eliminate the requirement that the first phase contains a major user of at least 80,000 square feet. Staff has researched this issue further and now recommends that at least one of the major anchors for the center and a percentage of the total gross floor area of the center, as determined at the time of master development plan approval, be required. Pad sites could not be developed prior to the development of the first major anchor. Similarly, the proposed Neighborhood Shopping Center District has been revised to require the major anchor for the center to be developed in the first phase of development. Pad sites could not be developed prior to the development of the major anchor in this district as well. 3. Eliminate cocktail lounges as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Shopping Center District. This modification has been made in the draft ordinance. Cocktail lounges will be allowed in the proposed CSC (Community Shopping Center) District, as well as the C-2 and C-3 districts. 4. Maintain the 30-foot maximum height requirement for the Neighborhood Shopping Center and the 40-foot maximum height requirement for the Community Shopping Center. The maximum heights proposed in the draft ordinances are 30 feet for a Neighborhood Shopping Center and 40 feet for a Community Shopping Center. These requirements will remain the same. 5. Expedite the process for adopting the text amendments to the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts so that the amendments are adopted before the end of the calendar year. Staff will accelerate the text amendment process and target adoption to occur before the end of the year. In order to accomplish this schedule, it will be necessary to hold a special City Council hearing on December 19th and a regular Planning Commission hearing on December 7, 2000. The text amendments will take effect 30 days after City Council approval. 6. Notify property owners with C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning of the proposed text amendment. Staff will notify these property owners as part of the Citizen Participation Process. In addition to these ordinance amendments, staff will also be developing new design guidelines for major commercial users. The new guidelines will help mitigate the impacts of scale, mass, boxy architecture, large parking fields, pedestrian access, and other onsite design concerns to help these areas blend in with the community. As part of the General Plan update, staff will be identifying and recommending to the City Council appropriate locations for Community Shopping Centers and Neighborhood Shopping Centers. 10 At the City Council installation held in June of 2000, Mayor Scruggs directed staff to begin working on alternatives to address her concerns about the proliferation of "big box' retailers and the disruption they can cause to existing neighborhoods and commercial development. An initial draft report of the alternatives was developed by staff during June and July of 2000. In August and early September of 2000, these were reviewed and modified by Planning Department staff, Economic Development Department staff, and staff from the City Manager's Office. The draft ordinances and text amendments were presented to the City Council at the October 3, 2000 Workshop. A Citizen Participation Plan will be developed as part of the process for creating the two new commercial zoning districts and amending the C-1, C-2 and C-3 districts. The development community will be made aware of any changes approved by City Council. The recommendation was to review the information presented and provide staff with direction. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why they did not suggest a percentage or size. Mr. Svoboda explained that their focus was on whether there would be a major anchor for the center, rather than an arbitrary size or percentage. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if it would be up to the Council to decide what type of user could go into a shopping center. Mr. Svoboda said that this decision is made at the time the development plan is reviewed. He noted that Section B requires the first phase to include at least one major anchor. Councilmember Lieberman asked if it was staff's preference to have more flexibility than to work with set percentages or sizes. Mr. Svoboda stated that this was correct. Councilmember Martinez asked if the Council would know who and what the anchor was. Mr. Svoboda said that there would be many situations wherein the Council would know who the anchor would be; however, by the time the shopping center was constructed, that anchor could be substituted with another anchor of equal size and intensity. Councilmember Martinez noted that the maximum acreage for a Neighborhood Shopping Center is 20 acres, while the minimum acreage for a Community Shopping Center is recommended to be not less than 20 acres. He said that this would allow both shopping centers to be 20 acres, pointing out that the Community Shopping Center design standards allow for a lot more. Mr. Svoboda explained that the 20-acre mark is a key milestone to separate the design standards; however, the determination of when each of the districts is used is determined by the General Plan. Councilmember Martinez asked if it would be easier to say that a Community Shopping Center would be over 20 acres. Mr. Svoboda stated that, although the ordinance could be written that way, he would hesitate to lock the Council into that requirement. Mayor Scruggs said they were told last week that they would know who was going into a center, but they are now being told that they can only know the type of user. 11 Councilmember Clark stated that Ms. Cheathem sent a letter reiterating the fact that the City of Phoenix does not approve a request until they know who the tenants are. She asked staff why the City of Glendale has not followed up and moved in that direction. Mr. Svoboda said that they had made some calls and were trying to confirm the statement. He stated that it is not unusual for a particular user to drop out and be substituted with another user of similar size and intensity. He noted that specific users are sometimes regulated through development agreements. Mr. Colson explained that the situation which Ms. Cheathem referred to was a redevelopment project that was underway for numerous years. He said they knew who the users would be because a development agreement was in place. He said it would be illegal to make zoning decisions based on any particular end user. Mayor Scruggs said that, typically, the City of Glendale uses development agreements when incentives are being offered. Mr. Svoboda said that, in the instances where they have a development agreement for other purposes, the agreement is legally tied to a particular user, giving the City additional authority. Mayor Scruggs explained that a neighborhood might support a bookstore, but not a 24-hour auto parts store, both of which would fit in the same space. Mr. Svoboda said that this is why the list of permitted uses is important. He said problematic uses should be eliminated from the permitted use list or subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Clark asked if a development agreement could be used more frequently to gain more control. Mr. Svoboda said that he would look at that issue and bring it back to the Council. Councilmember Clark asked why they were dropping all design stipulations under the Master Development Plan. Mr. Svoboda said that both the individual buildings and the overall design for the entire center would still be subject to design review. He explained that, since concern had been expressed that the Council not become involved in a public design review process, they took out the word "design". Councilmember Clark noted that design review must be approved under 5.717 Performance Standard B. Mr. Svoboda said that the intent of the original language is that Council approve the scale, intensity and basic layout of the center, with finer points being handled at the administrative level. He confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the overall picture would still be presented to Council for approval. Councilmember Clark asked if they usually get to look at the Master Development Plan when reviewing material for a rezoning request. Mr. Svoboda said that, at this time, there is no requirement that a preliminary site plan be presented with a commercial rezoning request. He stated that sometimes an applicant will offer one; however, it is not binding and could be changed at any point. He acknowledged that they require a site plan on residential zoning to include either the Planned Residential Development Overlay or a Subdivision Plat. Councilmember Clark asked why they do not require it on commercial zoning requests. Mr. Svoboda said that the Council had not previously requested it and, often times, the configuration of the center is not known. Mayor Scruggs clarified that they will know the overall layout, but will not know the details of the project. She asked for confirmation that the Council would know if a neighborhood would face the back of a major anchor. Mr. Svoboda said that they would and it would be a binding determination. 12 Councilmember Clark said that they still need to address how they will know who is coming into a shopping center. Mr. Svoboda said they need to remember that land use is a very fluid economic mechanism and that the user originally in the center would probably not be the user in 10, 20 or 25 years. He stated that the Council needs to consider the level of control it wants and legally can have over the user. Mayor Scruggs directed Mr. Svoboda and Mr. Colson to continue researching ways in which the Council and neighborhoods can have some assurance as to who the initial tenants would be when rezoning applications are considered. Councilmember Martinez asked if the height limitation would apply to a property that has vested zoning. Mr. Svoboda said that it would not, because vested zoning has site specific conditions. Mayor Scruggs said that they were told the text amendment would apply to all existing Cl , C2 and C3 properties. She asked if that included properties with vested zoning. Mr. Svoboda said that it would affect all properties uniformly, except those that have very specific circumstances. Mayor Scruggs specifically asked about Arrowhead Ranch. Mr. Svoboda said that he would research that issue with the City Attorney's office. Dr. Vanacour said that the Council should resolve whether it is more comfortable with a specific clarification of acreage on both Neighborhood and Community Shopping Centers. The Council agreed that it would support changing the minimum acreage for a Community Shopping Center to eliminate the overlap. Mr. Svoboda said that they would write the provision to have a maximum of 20 acres on Neighborhood Shopping Centers and a minimum of more than 20 acres for a Community Shopping Center. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for clarification as to whether they would know the type of user that would act as an anchor, but not the specific user itself. Mr. Svoboda said that the Council would see the size of the center and the distribution of square footage between the users. He stated that, when developers come before the Council in the future, the Council will have an indication of who the users will be. He said that they cannot stipulate to a specific user through the normal zoning process. He offered to explore other mechanisms within the State Statutes to see if they give the Council any additional level of authority. Councilmember Clark asked how they could ensure that developers do not misrepresent their intent. Dr. Vanacour said that they were moving in that direction with the six points and that they would continue to research how the City of Phoenix handles that issue. 13 Mayor Scruggs commented on the difficulty of identifying which users fit within a specific square foot size. Mr. Svoboda stated that the Council would have some control through the General Plan and the development Plan. He said that, if a center was approved and then wanted something different at the time of development, they would have to come back to the Council for an amendment. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to look for aspects of the law that give the edge to citizens rather than property owners. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. 14