Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 7/17/2001 * 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 July 17, 2001 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; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. GLENDALE GATEWAY AND MANISTEE TOWN CENTER (COYOTES) DEVELOPMENT UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Tom Hocking, President of T.L. Hocking and Associates, financial consultant. City Staff provided an update on the Coyotes - Glendale Gateway/Manistee Town Center development projects. Specific items discussed included a review of the financial concepts being considered for providing up to $180 million for construction of the NHL Coyotes arena. In April of 2001, the Council unanimously approved a memorandum of agreement with the Coyotes and the Ellman Companies to develop the Glendale Gateway Arena/Mixed-Use Project and redevelop Manistee Town Center. Council directed staff to negotiate development agreements for two development projects that met the mutual objectives of the Coyotes/Ellman Companies and the City of Glendale. Staff has been working with the Coyotes/Ellman Companies to structure the agreement in such a manner as to ensure a positive, long-term working relationship between all parties. As a result of the action taken by the Council, the City of Glendale will be the home to the National Hockey League (NHL) Coyotes and a mixed-use development consisting of at least 1.6 million square feet of diverse retail, entertainment, dining, office and residential development. In addition, the Ellman Companies have agreed to redevelop the Manistee Town Center site, which will result in a major improvement to the city center area and provide a new amenity to the City. 1 The Ellman Companies have also agreed to partner with the City in purchasing, planning, and redeveloping the sites currently occupied by the Hickman's. The City of Glendale has dedicated a portion of its web site to these projects and has also established a special telephone hotline for those without Internet access. The City has entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Ellman Companies to develop Glendale Gateway and redevelop the Manistee Town Center. The City's financial commitment is to provide funding of up to $180 million, over a thirty-year period, in exchange for a specific amount of development (at least 1.6 million square feet of diverse retail, entertainment, dining, office, and residential development), according to the terms and conditions which will be outlined in the development agreement. The planned development will result in increased sales tax to support general services, pay the debt service on the $180 million, and provide additional police and fire service throughout the City. This project will also accelerate development in the Glendale Gateway Area, resulting in increased amenities, job opportunities, and tax base; and significantly increase property values and assessed valuation. This item was presented to the Council for information, discussion, and staff direction. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that citizens have expressed concern that the arena will cost more than anticipated and asked if the City would be obligated to pay for any overruns. Mr. Colson said the development agreement would include provisions that protect the City by making the developer responsible for cost overruns. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked for an explanation of the difference between a power center and a specialty center. Mr. Colson explained that power centers include big-box stores and neighborhood uses, while specialty centers are made up of specialty retailers who tend to be smaller in nature and generate more revenue per square foot. He confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that the breakdown of power centers and specialty centers is market driven and would be determined during the site planning process. In response to a question posed by Councilmember Lieberman, Mr. Colson stated that the City's investment is capped at $180 million. He noted that the developer is required to provide at least $30 million worth of demonstrated public value. Councilmember Martinez asked what the City was getting in return for financing the stadium. Mr. Hocking said they need to consider the cost of capital. He explained that the Ellman Companies would pay the same amount, regardless of the financier, and the City stands to benefit because of the savings received in terms of the interest rate. Mayor Scruggs stressed the fact that the memorandum of agreement always included the option of having the City provide financing. Mr. Lynch agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He noted that less contribution is required on the part of the City and its citizens when the City provides financing. Councilmember Goulet asked if a development schedule for Manistee had been determined. Mr. Colson stated that they did not have a specific time for demolition or redevelopment of the Manistee site at this time. He noted that all environmental studies and cost estimates had been done. He said their intent was to have the site 2 demolished no later than the fall of this year. He stated that the feasibility study would be completed within two weeks. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Lynch if they were looking at a separate financing package for Manistee and if it would be based on past uses of the site. Mr. Lynch said they were approaching it as an entire project; however, the City will provide separate financing to take care of the Manistee acquisition and development. Councilmember Clark asked what alternative uses would be identified in the feasibility study for the Manistee Town Center. Mr. Colson said they had talked about various uses, including youth-oriented sports, recreation, office space, or a combination of uses. He stated that they believed it wouldl be a primarily retail site. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Lynch for an example of specific public components that would be eligible for tax-exempt bond financing. Mr. Lynch said an amphitheater, public park, and open space and trails would all be public tax-exempt types of financing. He explained that parking amenities could be funded through tax-exempt funding; however, if certain revenue generating components exist, the type of financing that can be used changes. He said financing, in terms of being taxable or tax-exempt, have to be determined once the site plan is developed. He confirmed for Councilmember Clark that infrastructure which benefits general public use is considered a public amenity. Councilmember Clark asked if a certain amount of retail would be required to open simultaneously with the arena. Mr. Colson stated that the development schedule is critical because it generates tax flow and they believe the six month schedule will allow them to get the entire 800,000 square feet online. He said they expected that a significant amount of development would be online prior to the arena opening; however, a specific square footage requirement would not be part of the final agreements. Councilmember Clark expressed her concern that the developer is not required to open a minimum amount of retail along with the arena. She asked how a six-month delay in the opening of the retail elements would impact the City. Mr. Lynch explained that construction financing would be provided as phases are completed. Mr. Hocking noted that the construction schedule contemplated a six-month delay. He said he would expect that they would issue short-term debt at least for the seven-year build out period so that, in the event the development schedule did not materialize, they would be able to make adjustments in the debt structure. He said if retail development does not take place within the six-month period, a share of the hockey revenues would be used to make up a portion of the shortfall. Councilmember Lieberman stated that the debt structure would remain the same, but the debt payback could be varied. Mr. Lynch agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. He explained that, although the $180 million is a fixed amount, the City has some flexibility in terms of repayment. Councilmember Goulet said, while retail and restaurants have been a strong component, he would like a recreational, sports, or convention type use considered. Mayor Scruggs asked who was actually in charge of the Manistee redevelopment. Mr. Colson said the developer was ultimately in charge of developing the site. He said the City and the developer have agreed to work together to identify the best possible uses. Mayor Scruggs warned that placing too many constraints or limitations on the developer could result in a non-viable project. Mr. Colson agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He noted that the developer had expressed a desire to develop a unique retail site that offers a variety of shopping and dining opportunities. 3 In response to a question posed by Mayor Scruggs, Mr. Flaaen reported that the agreement for the Hickman property would be brought forward for Council's consideration at the July 24, 2001 Council meeting. 2. "COMMERCIAL VIP" (COMMERCIAL VIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM) CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Mr. lain Vasey, Redevelopment Manager. In May of 2001, Economic Development Department staff presented a review of the Paint, Pave, Plant and Sign Program (PPP&S) and Downtown Façade Improvement Program. Staff also presented proposed modifications to improve the operation and effectiveness of these programs. Council directed staff to return with a new name for the program and to clarify methods of operation to ensure optimal performance such as maximum funding levels. The PPP&S and Façade programs will be combined into one property improvement assistance program that will be administered as a pilot program known as the Commercial Viability Improvement Program ("Commercial VIP"). Any commercial property older than 15 years or in a redevelopment district would be eligible to receive a 50% matching grant on exterior improvements. The new program would allow more diverse redevelopment programs to participate, including exterior building and site improvements, expansions, and removal of blighted structures when undertaken as part of an overall property enhancement. The maximum matching grant award would be $250,000. The City Council will review every project requesting $50,000 or more in assistance from the City. The application period for projects would remain open throughout the year, but an amount of $65,000 (approximately one third of the annual $200,000 budgeted amount) will be retained as a reserve. The reserve amount will not be allocated for projects without Council approval until the last 60 days of the fiscal year. This is to ensure that no project opportunity is missed due to insufficient funds. The proposed modifications to the improvement programs would allow for a wider scope of property improvements. This would allow larger and more diverse improvement projects to be included in the program and presented to Council for review. The City Council reviewed the history and operation of the PPP&S and Façade programs at the May 14, 2001 Council Workshop. Council directed staff to make several clarifications regarding the proposed new program and to devise a method of ensuring that funds are still available for projects at the end of each fiscal year. 4 If the proposed modifications are authorized, staff will implement a promotional campaign to notify commercial property owners who may be potential applicants for the program. This will include press releases, newsletters and other promotional activities. The PPP&S Program currently contains a balance of $567,762 and the Façade Program has a balance of $62,385. Combined, the balance of these accounts is $630,147. The funding for the Commercial VIP program would utilize the funds budgeted annually for the PPP&S program ($200,000 for Fiscal Year 2002). This item was presented to the Council for review and to provide staff direction. Vice Mayor Eggleston commented that it appears the plan would make immediate and dramatic improvements to older structures. Councilmember Martinez asked if an amount beyond the $100,000 that came in late would automatically be approved under the next year's budget. Mr. Vasey explained that they currently have a very large surplus in the budget; however, they could look at using the next year's funding if necessary. Councilmember Martinez suggested that the program be called the Property Improvement Program. Councilmember Lieberman questioned why, considering that money is available, projects were not currently being solicited. He said he liked the idea of combining the two programs. He agreed with Councilmember Martinez's suggestion to call the program the Property Improvement Program. Councilmember Frate said he liked the fact that the application process is open throughout the year. He said he also likes the fact that the City is willing to match up to $250,000 in funds. He stated that it could open up opportunities for large redevelopment projects. Mr. Colson suggested that the program be named the Visual Improvement Program. The Council agreed. 3. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Z-01-11 PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND CHILDREN'S RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY IN THE C-2 DISTRICT CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director. The Arizona Baptist Children's Services is interested in acquiring the former Charter Hospital located at 6015 West Peoria Avenue. The facility would be used to accommodate the various children services included in the request, counseling and administrative offices. Arizona Baptist Children's Services originally sought to operate as a legal non- conforming use based on the previous Charter Hospital operations. They were directed to file a text amendment to accommodate the proposed Children Residential Care facility and private school. 5 The text amendment was being brought forward for consideration of potential alternatives because of concerns raised since the Planning Commission approval about the City-wide impact on the C-2 district. The amendment includes a new use in Children's Residential Care facility and an existing use, private schools, that is currently limited to residential districts. This was a request by Mr. Richard Bellah, on behalf of the Arizona Baptist Children's Services, to amend the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district regarding private schools and children's residential care facilities. The request would add the definition of children's residential care facility to the ordinance. Both the private school and children's residential care facility would be uses subject to a conditional use permit in the C-2 district. The proposed children's care facility is similar to the shelter care facility currently included in the C-2 district, subject to a conditional use permit. The time period for children to stay in the children's residential facilities may reach 18 months, as opposed to the 30 days typical of shelter care facilities. Private schools are currently subject to a conditional use permit in residential districts. The property must be at the intersection of two collector streets or fronting or siding on an arterial street. Several charter school providers have expressed interest in a text amendment to locate private schools in the C-2 district. Currently business schools are the only educational facilities permitted in the C-2 district. The use permit process would allow review of the proposed locations for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and stipulations related to the operation of the facility. Staff considered alternatives, including placing the Children's Residential Care facility in the ordinance through the Special Use District. Staff does not support this alternative since the use is riot consistent with the intent of the Special Use District and would require rezoning of the property. A second alternative is to modify the text amendment to include a significant square footage requirement for the Children's Residential Care facility to minimize similar requests. The private school could be limited to being only in conjunction with a Children's Residential Care facility. This would not permit additional requests for private schools in the C-2 district. The Planning Commission approved Zoning Text Amendment Z-01-11 at its June 7, 2001 meeting. The text amendment application included a citizen participation process. Those individuals who are on the City-wide interested parties' list were notified. One letter in opposition to the request was received. 6 This item was presented to the Council for review of the proposed Text Amendment and to provide direction in preparation for the public hearing on the request. Councilmember Cllark stressed the fact that she had no concern regarding the plans of Arizona Baptist Children Services. She explained that her concerns were with regard to the effect that approval of the text amendment would have on other C-2 properties. She stated that tenants do not want school children located in their shopping centers because they can, in some instances, drive customers away. She asked if the text amendment was the best way to meet the request of Arizona Baptist Children Services. Mr. Froke stated that it was. Councilmember Clark noted that Arizona Baptist Children Services is not in a strip center, but is a stand-alone building. She asked if a condition could be added to the text amendment stating that it only applies to stand-alone buildings. She asked if a new zoning district could be used to deal with the issue of private schools. Mr. Froke said they would have to analyze whether or not to allow the use in a shopping center versus a stand-alone building. He noted that the uses, if approved, would require an additional level of approval by the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Department staff and Planning Commission would determine whether the site was appropriate or not for that particular use. Councilmember Clark asked that the text amendment be carefully crafted to meet the narrowest need and preclude a broad range of other entities that could take advantage of it. Mayor Scruggs stated that she shared Councilmember Clark's concerns about addressing specific needs without opening the City up to others who might take advantage. She said, when children-oriented uses go into commercial centers, commercial uses leave. She stated that she would not support private schools in C-2 districts. She noted, however, that the request of Arizona Baptist Children Services was another matter. She expressed concern about relying on the Conditional Use Permit process because it would be too easy to characterize those who do not support it as being insensitive to children when, in reality, they are only trying to protect a neighborhood. Councilmember Martinez stated that he, too, would like to accommodate Arizona Baptist Children Services at this location, but he shared the concerns previously mentioned. He noted that there have been problems with regard to the Maya School. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Froke if he would recommend including a time constraint to see iif problems ensued. Mr. Froke said they would not typically time stipulate new construction because of the capital improvements required. He stated that a time stipulation could be considered on existing facilities. Councilmember Goulet asked what type of care a children's residential care facility provides and how the children are monitored. Mr. Ernster offered to obtain that information for the Council. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that the request should be accommodated because it is a worthwhile cause. He asked if the issue could be brought before the Council once again prior to the next Council meeting. Councilmember Martinez asked if the facility would be similar to a group home. Mayor Scruggs stated that there are a number of federal and state laws that direct the location of group homes. Councilmember Clark reiterated the fact that she would like to accommodate Arizona Baptist Children Services without having to broaden the definition of C-2. 7 Vice Mayor Eggleston suggested that a representative from Arizona Baptist Children Services educate the Council on the types of services they provide. He asked if the company could be brought to the City if, contrary to staff's opinion, Council did not believe a text amendment was the best way to handle the issue. He asked Mr. Ernster if he originally had any reservations regarding the services that Arizona Baptist Children Services would offer and the impact it would have on the neighborhood. Mr. Ernster explained that their concern was that the neighborhood should have the opportunity to review the use before it was allowed. He expressed his opinion that the changes they were suggesting would severely limit the proliferation of this type of use in C-2 Districts. In response to Councilmember Martinez's previous question, Mr. Froke explained that a group home typically provides a permanent home rather than a temporary home as proposed. Councilmember Martinez asked how old the children would be. Mayor Scruggs agreed that the age of the children should be defined as part of the text amendment. Mayor Scruggs permitted Mr. Richard Bellah, attorney for Arizona Baptist Children's Services, to address the Council. Mr. Bellah stated that the Council's concerns were valid and everyone agreed they needed to find a way to resolve the issues. He stated that, although they do qualify as a non-conforming use, in an attempt to be a good neighbor, they decided to go through the text amendment process. He suggested that they remove the private school definition and extend children's residential care to a stand-alone facility in excess of 50,000 square feet. He explained that their facility provides help to depressed children or those who have been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD). He stated that the ages of the children range from 6 to 17 and their stays range from one week to eighteen months. He said allowing the children to stay overnight and providing educational services were the only two services they provided that do not fall under C-2. He stated that the children were supervised and were not allowed to go off campus. He noted that another facility had existed without incident in the City of Phoenix for 41 years. He expressed concern about delaying the Council vote. He explained that the sale had to be completed by the end of September or they could lose their down payment. Mr. Bellah confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that his suggestion would be to have a stand-alone facility of at least 50,000 square feet in a C-2 District with a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the Conditional Use Permit would allow for a second method of control. Councilmember Martinez asked how many children would reside at the facility. Mr. Bellah explained that they were licensed for 30 children, with approximately 18 additional children bused in from various school districts. He noted that they hoped to be licensed for up to 120 children in the future to fully utilize the available space. Councilmember Goulet asked if a physician would be on duty and, if so, would medication be dispensed to the children. He also asked about the student-to-staff member ratio. Mr. Bellah stated that the ratio was one staff member to every ten students. He explained that students would receive medication and both a physician and nurse would be on staff. 8 Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the stand-alone component was a key element. She agreed that private schools were a separate issue and should be dealt with as such. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that a stand-alone facility should not be interpreted as a free-standing pad in a commercial center, but rather it should mean a parcel unto itself. Councilmember Clark suggested that they specify a minimum parcel size. Mr. Flaaen cautioned that they were getting to the point of needing special legislation. Councilmember Lieberman suggested including the term "long-term residential care facility" and doing away with charter and other private schools in shopping centers. Councilmember Goulet asked if they would increase the number of students incrementally. Mr. Bellah stated that it would depend on licensing and demand. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Bellah if it would be possible to ask for an extension from the property owner. Mr. Bellah said they had discussed that possibility, but feared it would weaken their leverage. Councilmember Clark asked if the item would have to be re-published if changes were made. Mr. Flaaen said the request, as proposed, was appropriately published and any necessary amendments would be made by motion at the public hearing. He suggested that the motion be prepared in advance. Councilmember Lieberman stated that they would need the amendments in their packets by Friday. He noted that the item could be removed from the agenda if necessary. Mr. Flaaen clarified that the hearing on the Use Permit could not take place until the amendment takes effect 30 days after Council approval. Mr. Bellah stated that they were trying to get a second Planning and Zoning meeting in September. Mr. Flaaen suggested limiting the area to not less than 50,000 square feet and a stand- alone parcel of not less than eight acres. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that the applicant could apply for a Special Use Permit any time. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council would proceed with the ordinance at the next meeting. She directed staff to prepare language allowing a children's residential care facility on a stand-alone parcel of not less than 8 acres in a building of not less than 50,000 square feet with an approved Conditional Use Permit, Councilmember Martinez suggested that they look for a state definition of a children's residential care facility and mirror it as closely as possible. Mr. Bellah stated that there were two definitions, one for short term stays and one for indefinite stays. He said their definition was crafted to allow for both short term and longer term care. 4. GLENDALE: ADULT CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Warren Smith, Parks and Recreation Director. 9 OTHER PRESENTER: Ms. Tamara Caraway, architect and partner of the architectural firm of Hunt & Caraway. Ms. Caraway provided additional elevation drawings to the City Council for review and direction. During the City Council Workshop held on April 17, 2001, the architect presented a conceptual architectural elevation and proposed floor plans for the new facility. After some discussion, the City Council gave direction to proceed with the floor plans and second-floor shell, but expressed an interest in the development of alternative elevations for review. The consultant presented additional conceptual elevations for City Council review and direction. This item was discussed by the City Council during its Workshop session held on April 17, 2001 and direction was given to proceed with the floor plan and second-floor shell. A presentation was made by the architectural firm at the City Council Workshop held on July 18, 2000 to discuss the project site, gather initial Council input, and determine expectations for the new Adult Center. The City Council previously approved the purchase of the project site and the professional services agreement with the architect at the May 30, 2000 City Council meeting. City staff conducted two public meetings during September of 2000 for the purpose of notifying the general public of the proposed improvements at the site and to gather specific user concerns and preferences. The first meeting was held at Sahuaro Ranch School and the second was held at the existing Adult Center. City staff received substantial response from the comment cards distributed at the public meetings, along with a number of direct calls from users and neighbors. All of the information gathered through the meetings and public input had been incorporated into the design development programming phase and presented to Adult Center staff and the general public for review in March of 2001. City staff and the consultant had been working with the First Southern Baptist Church regarding the site that is located at the easterly end of the presently vacant site, which fronts 59th Avenue. The relationship with the design team for the First Southern Baptist Church has been established to ensure aesthetic continuity and user convenience regarding both facilities on the combined site. The project's consulting civil engineer is finalizing grading and drainage plans for the entire site that include the improvements required for both the Adult Center and First Southern Baptist Church. The budget for this project is $8,300,000. 10 This item was presented to Council for review of the conceptual design and for Council to provide staff with direction. Councilmember Frate pointed out that the roof overhang would provide protection from the sun and inclement weather, thus providing additional square footage. Ms. Caraway agreed with Councilmember Frate. Councilmember Frate said the style appears to be functional and, compared to other styles, more cost effective. Ms. Caraway clarified for Councilmember Frate that the amount of glass was reduced. She showed a sample of the glass that would be used. She said the glass meets energy requirements without requiring a reflective coating. She confirmed that certain types of glass are as good, in terms of insulation, as a standard block masonry wall. Councilmember Goulet suggested changes to the entrance that would draw attention towards it and add architectural interest. Ms. Caraway thanked Councilmember Goulet for his suggestion. She said they had generated a number of options for that area. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his support for Plan A. He stated that it matched the unique architecture found elsewhere in the City. He pointed out that cost was not an issue when the Fire Station at 59th Avenue and Mountain View Road and the Foothills Library were built. He noted that the dual-pane thermal efficient glass has a better thermal barrier than brick and is less expensive. Councilmember Clark asked where spandrel glass would be used. Ms. Caraway explained that it would be used in areas where they want the look of glass, but do not want people to see through it. She stated that the spandrel glass has the same thermal efficiency as the other glass that would be used. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that Plan A was stronger architecturally. Councilmember Martinez stated that Plan A was his first choice, but he could also support Plan D. Mayor Scruggs stated that she preferred the glass that could be seen through. She said she believed Plan D fits better both in terms of use and location. She stressed her desire that the facility be distinct from other facilities in the City. Ms. Caraway confirmed for Councilmember Lieberman that the glass could be tinted, using a variety of colors. Ms. Caraway discussed different options for the entryway for Plan D. Councilmember Goulet suggested having a glass roof rather than solid roof to allow for more light, especially if a fountain will be built. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that Plan D was not as dynamic as Plan A. 11 Councilmember Frate pointed out that the facility needs to be built with the users in mind. He stated that it should be comfortable and appealing. He expressed his opinion that Plan A was too stark. Mayor Scruggs asked for cost information on Plans A and D. Ms. Caraway stated that they had not as yet done a full cost estimate. Ms. Caraway clarified for Councilmember Frate that Plan A does not have a covered sidewalk. She noted, however, that Plan D does. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the small overhang could be extended to allow for a shaded walkway. Ms. Caraway stated that it could be. Council directed staff to proceed with Plan D, with the suggested modifications. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m. 12