HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/8/2002 (9) * 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
January 8, 2002
1:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and
Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M.
Goulet, H. Philip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez
ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager;
Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk
Mr. Beasley introduced and welcomed Mr. Terry Zerkle as the City's new Assistant City
Manager.
2. GLENDALE 2025 - THE NEXT STEP/APPLICATION NO. GP-01-03
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr.
Jon Froke, Planning Director; Mr. Ron Short, Long Range Planning Manager; and Ms.
Kate Langford, Senior Planner.
OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. David Williams with the WLB Group, Planning Consultant.
The current General Plan was adopted by the City Council on January 24, 1989. The
purpose of this Workshop was to present and receive comments on the preliminary
draft of the City's Glendale 2025 - The Next Step documents. Glendale 2025 includes
the General Plan, Implementation Program, and Technical Appendices.
The 1998 Growing Smarter and 2000 Growing Smarter Plus legislation requires the
update of the General Plan every 10 years and adds new elements such as open
space, growth areas, cost of development, environmental, and water resources. In
addition, the new legislation requires voter ratification of the General Plan for
communities with 10,000 or more in population.
The City contracted with Community Sciences Corporation to prepare Glendale 2025.
The consultants were asked to provide a Citizen Participation Program, General Plan
Update, Implementation Program, and Technical Appendices.
The area covered by Glendale 2025 is the entire Municipal Planning Area, which
includes the current City limits of approximately 56 square miles and the strip annexed
area west of 115th Avenue consisting of approximately 40 square miles.
1
Glendale 2025 consists of the following documents:
• General Plan (To be adopted by the City Council with voter ratification)
• Use of the Plan
• Glendale Vision
• Planning Assumptions
• Planning Administration
• Goals and Objectives
• Implementation Program (To be approved by City Council - Voter Ratification
is not required)
• Plan Policies
• Action Steps
• Performance Measures
• Statutory Plan Requirements
• Technical Appendices (Background information only - City Council is not
required to approve the Technical Appendices.)
• Public Participation
• Future Land Use Legend
• Technical Papers
• Steering Committees
• Public Focus Group
• Technical Committee
• Supporting Adopted Plans and Excerpts (Givens)
• Glossary
• The General Plan Future Land use Map features:
• Reduction from 37 to 17 land use categories
• New land use categories
• Suggested land use categories for the strip annexed area
• Existing plans will be incorporated into the General Plan, pending City
Council approval. Proposed plans include:
• Western Area General Plan Update
• Transportation Plan
• Parks and Recreation Master Plan
• City Center Master Plan
• The Grand Avenue Vision Study
2
Several community workshops were held as follows:
• June 21, 2001 - Visioning/Goals. Participants developed an overall vision
statement and goals for each of the 19 plan elements, which are incorporated
into Glendale 2025.
• July 18, 2001 - Issues. Participants identified several issues, which were
addressed through Goals, Objectives and Policies in Glendale 2025 and
Implementation Program.
• September 19 and 22, 2001 - Alternative Plan Concepts/Gaming. Three
plan alternatives of low, moderate, and high growth were presented to
participants for the municipal planning area. Gaming simulation was
conducted to allow participants to alter the housing, employment, and
commercial for each alternative. Participants then chose the alternative they
felt best suited the future of Glendale. Three gaming sessions were
conducted.
• October 17, 2001 - Preferred Alternative. A moderate plus alternative was
presented to participants based on prior gaming and public input. This
preferred alternative of moderate plus growth plans for a 2025 population
increase of 77,220 in the Municipal Planning Area. About half of the
population increase would be east of 115th Avenue and the other half west of
115th Avenue in the strip annexation area.
Planning consultants and staff have met with individual City Councilmembers to inform
and discuss workshop session results. City Councilmembers also attended City-wide
workshops on Glendale 2025. Planning Commission workshops were held on
November 29, 2001 , December 13, 2001, and January 3, 2002 to review and comment
on Glendale 2025.
City-wide participation activities were held consistent with the Citizen Participation Plan:
• Public Focus Group meetings were held each month.
• Briefings were made at area meetings.
• City-wide workshops were advertised in the newspapers, flyers, and letters
sent to citizens.
• A briefing was provided to the Planning Commission.
Communication was accomplished consistent with the Citizen Participation Plan:
• Feedback questionnaires were used in City-wide workshops.
• Database papers were distributed at workshops.
• Unique gaming sessions were held to evaluate alternatives.
• Planning consultants conducted interviews.
3
• Newspaper articles explained the workshops and results.
• A Web page was developed and used by citizens.
Technical Committee meetings were held to assure that review and input was received
by City departments.
Planning consultants met with groups and individuals to gain strong citizen input. The
result of significant citizen input is a bottom-up planning process, in which the General
Plan reflects the aspirations of Glendale citizens.
The Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Glendale City Budget provides $250,000 for planning
consultant services and $70,000 for printing, meetings, publications, and
advertisements. The funding is one-time for the General Plan Update project. There
are no additional staff requirements needed for the Glendale 2025 project.
The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction.
Mr. Williams stated that they were approximately half-way through the General Plan
process. He noted that a review draft was submitted in November of 2001. He said the
final draft plan is scheduled for submittal to the City on February 1, 2002.
Mr. Williams stated that the review draft is a three-volume document and includes the
General Plan, the Implementation Program, and Appendices. He said the General Plan
is comprised of two primary sections, the Introduction, and the 19 elements. He stated
that the Implementation Program included a process for implementation of the General
Plan, the action steps the City can take to ensure progress on each of the 19 elements,
and performance measures to determine if the plan is on target or if adjustments are
needed. He explained that the General Plan document would go before the voters for
ratification, but the Implementation Program and Appendices would not.
Mr. Williams reviewed the Introduction section of the General Plan. He stated that it
includes a Preface, a user's manual, a vision statement, a set of planning assumptions,
and the Planned Administration section. He reviewed growth assumptions that formed
the basis of many of the elements, including Land Use and Circulation. He explained
that the moderate growth scenario was preferred by the residents.
Mr. Williams reviewed the 19 Municipal Development elements. He stated that they are
the building blocks of the plan. He noted that 15 of the 19 elements come from State
Statutes; however the four additional elements (Neighborhood, Economic
Development, Fiscal, and Urban Design) are not necessarily found in other
municipalities' General Plans. He stated that the citizens wanted growth to improve, not
deteriorate or detract from, the quality of life in Glendale. He explained that the recent
Growing Smarter legislation added five long-range planning mandates for Arizona
municipalities. Mr. Williams listed the five growth areas identified in the plan: (1) the
city center or downtown area; (2) the Western Area Plan Update; (3) the northern tier;
(4) outside the City limits in the 303 corridor; and (5) the Luke compatible area. He
reviewed the General Plan Future Land Use map. He explained that it embraces the
land use pattern currently within the City, the Western Area planned land uses, and
future land uses for the area west of 115t" Avenue. He stated that all of the elements
were formatted consistently to facilitate use of the document. He noted that each
element includes an existing conditions summary, goals and objectives, and a set of
4
recommendations.
Mr. Williams stated that policies specific to each of the 19 elements are contained in the
Implementation Program. He said the specific action steps included in the
Implementation Plan are broken into three timeframes: short-term, up to 2005-2006;
mid-term, out to 2010; and longer term. He said performance measures were included
in the Implementation Program to track how the City is doing in terms of implementing
the General Plan and if any changes need to be made to the plan.
Mr. Williams reported that they would meet with the Planning Commission on January
14, 2002, with the first of three public hearings with the Commission scheduled for
January 21St. He said a 60-day review period, required by State law, would begin on
March 4, 2002, wherein they will send the plan to various agencies, including Maricopa
County, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), and the Department of
Commerce. He stgted that the second and third Planning Commission hearings will
take place on the 7t and 21st of March, 2002 and they will come back to the Council at
the April 16th and May 7th Workshops. He noted that November 5, 2002 is the target
date for voter ratification.
In response to Councilmember Goulet's questions, Ms. Langford stated that the
document would be linked to the City's web site and a hard copy would be available for
a fee shortly after February 1, 2002. Councilmember Goulet suggested that people
who cannot afford to purchase a copy be able to access it through the Library.
Councilmember Lieberman voiced his concern over the planned growth of 38,000
people over the next 23 years. Noting that average growth over the past ten years has
been 5,600 people per year, he expressed his opinion that they should plan for twice
that amount of growth. He pointed out the fact that the Arizona Republic newspaper
predicts the current growth rate will continue for the next 30 years.
Councilmember Martinez said the plan is excellent and includes a great deal of public
input. He stated that the plan's flexibility will allow the City to adjust to population
increases. He pointed out that employment, not the number of houses, drives the
growth rate.
Councilmember Frate stated that this is the most comprehensive General Plan in the
State of Arizona. He asked about employment-to-housing ratios included in the plan.
Mr. Williams said the plan includes specific provisions in terms of the timing of
residential development in relationship to employment uses and a limit on the amount
of residential development. Ms. Langford said two of the proposed General Plan
categories, Corporate Commerce Center and Sports Entertainment Mixed Use, requires
30% of the gross square footage of the employment-generating use be developed prior
to any housing being initiated. She noted that there is a 15% cap on the amount of
housing that can happen within those areas as well. Councilmember Frate pointed out
that one of the Council's goals was to focus on employment.
Councilmember Clark asked if major revisions to the plan would require another vote.
Mr. Williams explained that voter ratification is required any time the City deems it is
appropriate to re-adopt the plan. Councilmember Clark asked if the recommendations
were crafted by the citizens. Mr. Williams explained that, although they were crafted by
staff, they derived from the citizen input.
Mr. Williams confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that Maricopa County would be responsible
for planning the area that is not yet in the City of Glendale. He stated that Maricopa
5
County is required to comply with Growing Smarter mandates. Their plan, however,
would not be subject to voter approval. He stated that they would be required to go
through a public process if they wanted to make major changes to their plan.
Councilmember Goulet said the recommended plan is sound in principle and he was
comfortable that they were going in the right direction.
Councilmember Frate suggested that tabs be added to the final report.
Councilmember Clark asked what the City could do if Maricopa County's plan for a
certain area differs from the city's vision. Mr. Williams said, until an area is annexed
into the City, the City Council has a limited amount of say in what is approved. He said
Maricopa County will take what the cities of Glendale, Peoria and Surprise have
adopted into consideration in terms of their extra-territorial planning efforts. He
emphasized the need for the City of Glendale to communicate a clear message with
regard to preferred uses and sensitivities.
Vice Mayor Eggleston stressed the fact that the General Plan is a living document that
is meant to change and evolve over the next 25 years.
3. CITY COURT CODE AMENDMENTS
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. LaVerne Parker-Diggs, Human
Resources Director; Mr. Cecil Patterson, Acting Presiding Judge; and Mr. Jim Scorio,
Acting Court Administrator.
Judge Patterson recommended that the method of establishing the salary for city
judges be updated. The salary of the presiding city judge would continue to be set by
the City Council. However, the salary of all city judges would be set at a pre-
determined percentage of the presiding judge's salary. This will establish uniformity of
pay among the judges, as required by Arizona law.
Staff recommended changes to the process in which city court judges are selected,
retained, and compensated to the City Council at its Workshop session held on
Tuesday, December 18, 2001.
The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction.
Ms. Parker-Diggs provided copies of a survey of pay differentials between presiding
judges and city judges. She stated that, based on the professional compensation
practices generally followed, the typical differential ranged between 15% and 20%, with
the average differential of 18.31%.
Councilmember Clark said the professional compensation practices take employee
performance into account. Ms. Parker-Diggs agreed with Councilmember Clark. She
stated that other factors, such as the size of the organization, are also taken into
consideration. Councilmember Clark stated that judges' salaries are based solely on a
percentage and other factors do not weigh into the decision. Ms. Parker-Diggs agreed.
Ms. Parker-Diggs suggested that other forms of compensation could be used to
recognize outstanding performance.
6
Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Patterson to review the recommendation discussed during
the December 18, 2001 Council Workshop. Mr. Patterson said their recommendation
was for a 15% separation between a presiding and city judge's salary. He explained
that the higher salary for a presiding judge reflects the added administrative duties and
responsibilities performed by the presiding judge. He said, after reviewing the salary
surveys, he now agreed with the percentages presented by Ms. Parker-Diggs. Mr.
Flaaen noted that, historically, the Council has set the salary for city judges at
approximately 85% of what the presiding judge is paid.
Councilmember Lieberman stated that he had no objection to a 15% recommended
differential.
Councilmember Martinez agreed that a 15% differential would be fair.
In response to Councilmember Goulet's question, Mr. Patterson confirmed that all city
judges would receive the same salary. Councilmember Goulet stated that he was
comfortable with the 15% differential.
Councilmember Lieberman noted that time served as a judge was not taken into
consideration. Mr. Patterson agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. He stated that a
newly-appointed magistrate would receive the same pay as sitting magistrates.
Councilmember Frate stated that it had previously been discussed that a 15%
differential would be adequate to provide a pool of qualified candidates. He noted that
city judge salaries would increase as the presiding judge's salary was increased. Mr.
Patterson agreed. He noted, however, that a bonus given to the presiding judge would
have no effect on the city judge's salary.
Councilmember Martinez asked if bonuses would also be available to city judges. Mr.
Patterson said bonuses are given at the Council's discretion. He explained that a
bonus would have to be given to all judges within a class, as opposed to one particular
judge.
Mayor Scruggs said it might be in a municipality's interest to reward a bonus in lieu of a
salary adjustment, which would affect all salaries. She asked if the City was required to
offer cost of living raises to judges if such raises were offered to other non-appointed
positions. Mr. Scorio said, while there is no language that precludes giving a bonus in
lieu of a permanent adjustment, there is language that requires judges be given the
same cost of living raise afforded all other city employees. Mr. Patterson read the
specific language. Mr. Patterson explained that, at the state level, they often receive
pay raises phased in over a period of time, typically a two-year cycle.
Councilmember Clark clarified that the Council's only decision is the percentage of pay
differential. She expressed concern about a pay policy that does not recognize a
judge's experience, length of service, or performance. Mr. Patterson stated that judges
accept the fact that all judges receive equal pay regardless of tenure. Councilmember
Clark asked what incentives there were to excel. Mr. Patterson said the work itself is
invigorating and rewarding and those people who are successful in getting on the bench
have already demonstrated their tenacity and ability.
Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's consensus for a 15% differential between the
salaries for the presiding judge and city judges.
7
1. WESTERN AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/APPLICATION NO.
GP-00-04
CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr.
Jon Froke, Planning Director; Mr. Ron Short, Long Range Planning Manager; and Ms.
Kate Langford, Senior Long Range Planner.
This was the second City Council Workshop on the Western Area Amendment.
Discussions were centered on the new land use categories and remaining areas of
emphasis.
At the City Council's Workshop held on December 11 , 2001, the Western Area
Amendment discussion was initiated. The discussion included the Amendment's
history, the four new land use categories, and the amount and distribution of
commercial opportunities within the study area.
The proposed Western Area Amendment's major features are: the continuation of the
employment reserve, a regional activity center, strengthening the area's image as the
western "Gateway to Glendale", and the introduction of four new land use designations.
The four new land use designations contained in the proposed amendment are
Neighborhood Shopping Center (NSC), Community Shopping Center (CSC), Corporate
. Commerce Center (CCC), and Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use (SEMU).
Neighborhood Shopping Center (NSC) - This is a planned commercial
development that meets the daily demand for retail shopping and business
services from residents in the surrounding neighborhood(s). A typical center
includes an anchor tenant, such as a grocery store, and several smaller retail
stores. The center is planned, built, and operated as a unit with shared access
and parking, as well as common architecture, landscaping, and signage. All
uses are compatible with each other and the adjoining neighborhood(s). Large
community scale retail and heavy retail uses are not appropriate. These centers
typically range in size from 50,000 to 150,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Community Shopping Center (CSC) - This is a planned commercial
development that meets the demand for comparison shopping and specialty
shopping within the community. A typical center includes one or more anchor
tenants, such as junior department stores, major discount stores, "big box
retailers", and entertainment uses, as well as a wide variety of smaller specialty
stores and restaurants. The center is planned, built, and operated as a unit with
shared access and parking, as well as common architecture, landscaping, and
signage. Preferred locations are near freeways and major arterial streets, away
from residential neighborhoods. These centers typically range in size from
150,000 to 500,000 square feet of gross floor area.
8
Corporate Commerce Center (CCC) - This is a major mixed-use employment
center that provides an attractive environment for corporate, business, and
professional offices. Complementary land uses include, but are not limited to,
community level retail, specialty retail, hotels, restaurants, major medical,
entertainment, and other destination uses serving the broader region. Carefully
integrated housing development may be permitted in limited quantities. The
desired mix of land use is 55% office; 30% retail, hotels, restaurants, major
medical and other destination uses; and no more than 15% housing. A variety of
housing products are to be provided. Desired land use acreages are calculated
from the total number of acres contained within any single area designated as
Corporate Commerce Center. Housing is restricted from starting until 30% of the
gross floor area of the employment generating land use(s) has been developed
in the area.
The Corporate Commerce Center is master planned and developed in orderly
phases under common design guidelines. Major amenities include common
open space, water features, and public art. Structured parking and mixed-use
buildings are encouraged. The intent is to create a high-quality development
environment, with a unique character not found in other parts of the City or the
West Valley.
Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use (SEMU) - This is a regional level sports,
entertainment, and employment center. The following uses are allowed in any
combination or quantity: multi-purpose arena, corporate/business/professional
office, restaurants, retail power center, entertainment, hotels, commercial,
cultural, and housing. Housing development is not allowed to exceed 15% of the
total acreage of the area designated SEMU. A variety of housing products are to
be provided. Housing is restricted from starting until 30% of the gross floor area
of the employment generating land use(s) have been developed in the area.
The mixed-use center is master planned and developed in orderly phases, with
common driveways, shared parking, unifying architecture, landscaping, plazas,
courtyards, open spaces, streetscape, public art, and lighting. The mixed-use
center will be developed in phases consistent with high quality, common design
standards. The intensity and height of mixed-use development is sensitive to
proximity of low-density residential development.
Employment-generating land uses are the emphasis of the Western Area Amendment.
Little change is proposed west of the Agua Fria Freeway (Loop 101). This area is
predominately designated as Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI).
Changes between 115th Avenue and the Loop 101 include the addition of the Western
Area Water Reclamation Facility, adjusting the location of the commercial opportunity at
Glen Harbor Boulevard and Glendale Avenue, adjustment of the New River corridor in
accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), correction of the
alignments of 99th Avenue and the Loop 101, and the adjustment of the commercial
opportunities at the intersection of 99th and Glendale Avenues.
East of the Loop 101 to 83rd Avenue can be characterized as a mixture of employment,
retail, entertainment, and residential development.
9
The corridor from the east side of the Loop 101 to 91St Avenue is the area of greatest
change. Three of the new land use designations occur within this area: Community
Shopping Center, Corporate Commerce Center, and Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use.
The corridor between 83rd and gist Avenues is predominately residential, with some
neighborhood commercial located at the intersection of arterials. The residential
density overall is slightly lower than that of the existing General Plan. The new
Neighborhood Shopping Center designation occurs within this area.
Two main issues have surfaced during the processing of this amendment: residential
densities, in particular the lack of higher densities for multiple-family housing; and the
amount of acreage being designated for business park and corporate commerce
center.
Concerns have been expressed, mainly by potential developers, that the residential
densities are too low and that there is no opportunity for the development of multiple-
family housing. It is correct that there are no "stand alone" high-density sites within the
study area. However, the Corporate Commerce Center and the Sports/Entertainment
Mixed Use designations include an opportunity for residential development. The
Corporate Commerce Center and Sports/Entertainment Mixed-Use designations
contain two criteria regarding residential development. The first criteria is that a
minimum of 30% of the employment or retail use be established prior to any residential
development. The second criteria is that a maximum of only 15% of the total acreage
within a single area designated either Corporate Commerce Center or
Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use is permitted to be residential.
The potential absorption rates for both the Business Park and Corporate Commerce
Center areas have been questioned. The concern has been that there is too much
acreage identified by these uses. The long-term development of the Western Area as
an employment center for the entire City is the overall goal of these two designations.
The Council may receive testimony during the public hearing regarding the following
locations: (1) the southeast corner of 91st and Northern Avenues; (2) the northeast
corner of 91st and Glendale Avenues; and (3) the area bounded by Camelback Road,
95th Avenue, Missouri Avenue, and 91st Avenue.
The 30 acres located at the southeast corner of 91st and Northern Avenues is owned by
two different parties. The 1.2 acres directly on the corner is owned by a family that
wishes to develop a convenience store with petroleum sales and a car wash. The
remaining 27.8 acres is owned by a developer wishing to develop a community
shopping center. The Planning Commission recommended that Neighborhood
Shopping Center wrapped by Limited Office be the land use designations for that
location.
10
A site of approximately 15 acres located at the northeast corner of 91st and Glendale
Avenues has a Commission recommendation to be designated as single-family
residential with 5-8 dwelling units per acre. The existing 1989 General Plan shows this
location as Shopping Center (SC) which would translate to Neighborhood Shopping
Center (NSC) included in the proposed amendment.
Approximately 150 + acres, bounded by Camelback Road, 95th Avenue, Missouri
Avenue, and 91st Avenue, are proposed to be a combination of Limited Office and
single-family residential densities of 1-2.5, 2.5-3.5 and 5-8 dwelling units per acre.
Since the Planning Commission recommendation in August of 2001, both the Tolleson
Union High School District and the Pendergast School District have indicated that a
new high school and elementary school are to be constructed within the 150 + acre
area. The potential of a high school being constructed in this location significantly
alters the way in which staff views the future development potential of this area.
The summary of the proposed amendments was provided to the Planning Commission
members prior to the first public hearing held on January 11, 2001. The first public
hearing on this proposed amendment was held at Independence High School on the
evening of January 11, 2001. The second public hearing was held on January 25,
2001 in the City Council Chambers. The Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to March 8, 2001 , to allow time for the Commission to conduct workshops to
discuss the proposed amendment and review background material. On March 8th the
Planning Commission was asked to extend the second public hearing to April 19, 2001.
A draft listing of issues to be discussed during upcoming Workshops on the Western
Area General Plan Update was provided to the Planning Commission members at their
April 5, 2001 meeting. A tentative schedule for completing the Commission's
consideration of Case No. GP-00-04 was also presented to the Commission at that
time. On April 19, 2001, the Planning Commission continued the second public
hearing to June 21, 2001.
A total of three workshops were conducted with the Planning Commission during the
month of May 2001. At the most recent workshop, held on May 31, 2001, the
Commission indicated that there was a desire to continue this case once more so that
two more workshops could be conducted.
On June 21, 2001, the Planning Commission continued the second public hearing to
July 19, 2001. Two additional workshops were conducted - on June 19, 2001 and July
12, 2001. Discussions of proposed amendments to the text and land use map occurred
at each of these workshops.
Testimony was taken at the continuation of the second public hearing on July 19, 2001.
A total of ten individuals or representatives spoke. The Commission continued this item
to the regular Commission meeting of August 16, 2001 .
11
A special workshop was conducted on July 26, 2001. This final workshop was intended
to address issues raised by speakers at the July 19th public hearing and to review
correspondence and suggested map changes.
On August 16, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of
Application No. GP-00-04 by a vote of 6-1.
The first City Council Workshop on this item was conducted on December 11, 2001.
The public hearing on this amendment application before the City Council is being
rescheduled from January 8, 2002 to January 22, 2002.
A Citizen Participation Plan was prepared and implemented to encourage community
involvement in this General Plan update. This included mailings to individual property
owners and other interested parties, two public open house meetings, a half-day
workshop with commercial brokers and developers, meetings with major property
owners, ongoing meetings with a marketing group sponsored by the City's Economic
Development Department, information on the City's web site, periodic news releases,
and a final public meeting in December of 2000. A detailed Citizen Participation report
is on file at the Planning Department.
Notices for the January 11, 2001 and January 25, 2001 public hearings were published
in the Glendale Star. Posters were placed at 30 locations within the study area and
letters were sent to 2,451 property owners and interested parties.
A public meeting was conducted at Desert Mirage Elementary School on the evening of
May 30, 2001. Approximately 80 to 90 people were in attendance. The purpose of this
public meeting was to discuss alterations to the draft land use map resulting from the
proposed arena and other recent developments and the issue of multiple-family
housing.
On August 8, 2001 , the Planning Department held a public meeting at Desert Mirage
Elementary School. Approximately 55 people attended. The goal of this meeting was
to provide an opportunity to view and discuss the August 6, 2001 draft that resulted
from numerous workshop discussions with the Planning Commission.
On August 24, 2001 the 60-day review, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes, was
initiated. A copy of the Western Area Amendment, as recommended by the Planning
Commission, was sent to a total of 16 local jurisdictions, state agencies, utility
companies, and school districts for review and comment. The 60-day review period
ended on October 23, 2001.
There are no additional budget or cost impacts resulting from this amendment process.
The recommendation was to review the Western Area Plan Amendment and move
forward to a public hearing on January 22, 2002.
12
Mr. Froke noted that this item was on the agenda for tonight's Council meeting, but a
recommendation to table the item until the January 22, 2002 meeting would be made
by staff.
Councilmember Clark referred to the CCC property located north of Glendale Avenue.
She asked what mechanism they could use to encourage the Ellman Companies to
develop a major water feature on their portion of the property. Mr. Froke said the City
has learned a lot about the availability of effluent and has identified a number of
opportunities to utilize effluent in the western area. He stated that a number of land use
applications had been filed in the western area and the City has advised the applicants
and developers that there would be a requirement to accommodate water features
and/or the use of effluent. Councilmember Clark asked how the City could ensure that
a water feature was also developed on the north side of Glendale Avenue. Mr. Froke
said, in the past, they had made graphic notations on the land use map. He noted that
the map currently does not indicate a water feature on Glendale Avenue. He stated
that, upon Council's direction, they could revise the map to include such an amenity.
Councilmember Clark asked the Council to provide such direction.
Mayor Scruggs said, while the Council supports the idea of a water feature on Glendale
Avenue, it seems unnecessary to require it be on the General Plan. She asked how
they indicate that the property owner would be required to pay for such amenity. She
also asked how the City could be assured that adequate effluent would be available for
the feature when it is developed. Mr. Reedy noted that the Arrowhead Ranch lakes
currently operate on approximately 2.9 million gallons of effluent per day. He said the
Western Area Water Reclamation Facility now produces about 4.3 million gallons per
day and will be expanded to 10 to 12 million gallons per day in the future. Mayor
Scruggs asked if they could guarantee an adequate supply of effluent when the feature
is developed, regardless of other uses the City may have found for effluent by that time.
Mr. Reedy responded by saying that , in his opinion, there would be such a guarantee.
Councilmember Lieberman asked if the two percolation ponds were in use. Mr. Reedy
stated that they operate every day, but are never full. He explained that, by design, the
water is supposed to percolate for at least 24 to 48 hours. Mr. Reedy stated that there
would be adequate effluent, both for lakes, as well as many other uses.
Mr. Beasley asked Mr. Flaaen if the City could mandate a lake feature north of the
planned Ellman property within the General Plan. Mr. Flaaen explained that the
General Plan is a tool for land use planning. He said amenities, such as a lake, would
be worked out in a development agreement, and not included in the General Plan.
Mayor Scruggs asked if a statement could be included in the policy section that states
the City would like to see a major amenity at that location. Mr. Flaaen said it could be
done as a footnote to the General Plan, but it would not be included in the General Plan
itself.
Councilmember Goulet stated that mandating amenities could be detrimental to
potential development. Mr. Froke said any notation included in the plan would be very
conceptual in nature.
Councilmember Martinez said he would like to see the Council's preferences for
particular areas denoted in the Plan.
13
•
Mr. Flaaen clarified that it would be appropriate to include public amenities, such as
parks and school designations, in the General Plan. He said onsite amenities, such as
lakes, would not be appropriate for inclusion in the General Plan.
In response to a question posed by Councilmember Martinez, Ms. Langford stated that,
due to new State Statutes, the City cannot scatter open space designations throughout
the land use map of the 2025 Plan because there is no public control of the property.
Councilmember Clark clarified that she was proposing some kind of major amenity be
developed along Glendale Avenue to reflect its importance. She asked that some type
of language be included in the Plan to reflect the Council's desire for such amenity. Mr.
Froke agreed on the importance of Glendale Avenue as a gateway corridor. He stated
that the amenities used to reflect its importance would be addressed with specific
applicants.
Mayor Scruggs voiced the Council's support of footnoting their preference for a major
amenity on Glendale Avenue. Mr. Froke stated that they would add policy statements
in the text covering the issue.
Councilmember Clark referred to the area bounded by 83rd and 91st Avenues, south of
Glendale Avenue. She noted that most of that area has been built out. Mr. Froke
confirmed for Councilmember Clark that a formal design review application for a
shopping center proposed on the southeast corner of 91st and Glendale Avenues had
been received. Councilmember Clark asked that the Council consider revising the area
between the La Buena/Desert Mirage neighborhood and Glendale Avenue to 2.5 to 3.5
dwelling units per acre. She expressed her opinion that the reduced density
designation would be more compatible with the larger homes and lots to the south.
Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if they had heard from the owner of that property.
Councilmember Clark stated she had not personally heard from the property owner.
Mr. Froke said the property is under multiple ownership. He explained that the rationale
behind the 3.5 to 5 designation was to encourage land assemblage versus piecemeal
development. He noted that a majority of the property has multi-family zoning or a
mobile home overlay. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if there would be any detriment to
reducing the designation. Mr. Froke stated that there would be no detriment. He noted,
however, that changing the land-use map would not change the underlying zoning.
Councilmember Frate agreed that the property would be more attractive and easier to
develop with the current 3.5 to 5 designation.
Mayor Scruggs noted that the Council had determined this Workshop would conclude
at 3:30 p.m. This item will be continued at the next Workshop.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
14