Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 2/28/2002 * 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 JOINT GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION FOOTHILLS LIBRARY -.HUMMINGBIRD ROOM 19055 N. 57 AVENUE February 28, 2002 4:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez PLANNING COMMISSION: Present: Albert Potocki, Chair; Paul Monaghan, Vice Chair; Paul Dolan, Member; and Michael N. Socaciu, Member Absent: Bob Bohart; Paul Mason; and Wesley Morgan, Members ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk 1 . CITY CENTER MASTER PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Chris Zapata, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jon Froke, Planning & Zoning Director; Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; Mr. James Mason, Redevelopment Manager; and Mr. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Manager. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Duane Blossom with Todd Associates The Glendale City Council and the Planning Commission met to discuss the draft City Center Master Plan. The purpose of this joint meeting was to review the overall process that resulted in the draft plan, its key recommendations, and to discuss any necessary steps required for its implementation. In October of 2000, the City Council initiated the City Center Master Plan project to update the General Plan for the central area of the City. The focus area of the planning process encompassed 431d to 67th Avenues, Orangewood to Maryland Avenues. 1. The City selected a team of consultants led by RNL Design (planning and architecture), Todd Associates (planning and landscape architecture), Elliott Pollack Associates (real estate market analysis), Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler (financial analysis), and Entranco (civil engineering), to assist with the planning process. A 36-member Citizens Advisory Committee, which was appointed by the City Council, conducted more than 20 meetings to develop and review concepts, study specific issues in great depth, hold focus groups on different topics, and act as a "sounding board" for the concepts being developed. More than a dozen public meetings were held to identify issues, concerns and goals and to identify key ideas and their priority. The notification efforts involved mailings to stakeholders, press releases, special KGLN coverage, and direct mailings to water bill recipients in the study area. A developers' "round table" meeting was also conducted on March 29, 2001, where 25 active developers were invited to review the initial concepts and provide their comments. Feedback was also received by more than 850 citizens who attended the public meetings and over 150 citizen survey responses sent in via mail and the City's web site. Presentations were made to the Planning Commission at three separate workshops and the Planning Commission also conducted additional public hearings on September 13, 2001 and December 6, 2001. The City Council approved a contract with RNL Design and provided $200,000 in the Fiscal Year 2001 budget to fund the project. The contract has extended into Fiscal Year 2002. Remaining funds for the balance of the contract are available in Account Number 7330-01-5410. This item was presented for review and to provide staff with direction. Mr. Colson explained that the City Center Master Plan was initiated by the Mayor and Council as a policy goal in 2000. He said they have since worked diligently to establish a process that was very open and provided for citizen participation. He noted that the study area includes portions of the Ocotillo and Cactus Council districts. He stated that the Council appointed a 36-member Citizens Advisory Committee in October of 2000. He said more than 1,000 citizens have chosen to participate in the planning process through the Citizens Advisory Council meetings, other public meetings, or by responding to surveys. Mr. Mason explained the four major components to the plan: (1) land use and design guidelines, (2) market analysis, (3) the redevelopment area plan, and (4) financial analysis. He read the Project Mission Statement and reviewed the project goals. He stated that the plan's major purpose is to determine the most appropriate location for approved public works projects, identify where public funds can be best spent to generate the maximum community benefit, and leverage maximum investment from private sector investors. Mr. Colson explained that the priorities were derived from a number of projects identified during the public participation process. Mr. Mason identified the project's priorities as being: (1) to preserve and enhance downtown Glendale's unique atmosphere, while providing a strong economic and social foundation for the community; (2) strengthen and protect residential neighborhoods from blight and incompatible land uses; (3) enhanced parking facilities in the city center core; (4) develop quality restaurants and evening entertainment facilities; (5) enhance public facilities such as cultural arts, library facilities, municipal facilities, parks and open spaces; (6) improve pedestrian and vehicle circulation; (7) stimulate investment west of Grand Avenue by development of public facilities, private redevelopment projects, pedestrian bridges, and other crossings; (8) develop business park facilities for businesses currently located in neighborhoods, and to provide job opportunities in the city center area; (9) assemble sites for high-quality retail, residential, office and mixed- use projects; and (10) encourage diversified and enhanced retail stores, such as a grocery store and other general merchandise stores. Mr. Mason explained that the joint meeting was requested following the last Planning Commission hearing which was held on December 6, 2001. He said they anticipated forwarding the City Center Master Plan to the City Council for review at a workshop session following this meeting. He stated that the workshop session would be followed by a City Council public hearing and adoption by the City Council. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission should have had more options than just to either approve or disapprove the plan. Chairperson Potocki said the Planning Commission felt that reviewing the plan was nothing more than a courtesy because they were not permitted to effect any changes. He said, because of their inability to make changes, they voted to forward the plan on to Council even though they did not agree with it as written. He pointed out that, although the plan covers 43rd to 67th Avenues, it addresses nothing between 43rd and 51St Avenues. He said his concern regarding the use of shingle siding for redevelopment housing was never addressed. He stated that the Planning Commission was also concerned about the placement of the Library, the extension of 57th Drive over the railroad tracks, and the location of the park and ride lot. 3 Vice Chairperson Monaghan expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission functioned as a citizens group rather than in its legally mandated role. He said a lot of people put in a great deal of effort on something they could not positively or negatively effect. Councilmember Goulet explained that the motivation behind the extensive citizen involvement was so that the citizens would feel they were being heard. He said he understood that the downtown corridor to go from 51st to 67th Avenues. He explained that 43rd Avenue was added, but whether or not it would remain an automotive area did not factor into the Council's discussions. He said other businesses are reluctant to locate in the area between 43rd and 51st Avenues because of its existing character. He asked if the Planning Commission was involved early in the citizen participation process. Mayor Scruggs said the very presence of elected officials at public hearings can, at times, influence the citizen participation process. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the Planning Commission's role should not be simply to understand, but to provide input. Councilmember Martinez stressed the importance of clearly defining the process. He noted that the Library's location, as identified in the plan, was not definite. Councilmember Lieberman stated that the study area did not include the Cactus District, as was claimed. He expressed his opinion that the plan should go back to the Planning Commission for its review. He said the Planning Commission could then make its recommendations and forward the plan on to Council workshop. Commissioner Dolan asked Chairperson Potocki to refrain from phrasing his comments in a way that indicates he speaks for the entire Planning Commission. He explained that he did not necessarily agree with all that Chairperson Potocki said. Chairperson Potocki said the Planning Commission should have been given the opportunity to discuss their concerns with the groups that made the decisions. He agreed that there are areas of opportunity in the Cactus District that were not addressed in the plan. He said he would like to have the plan back, if given the opportunity to make recommendations. Vice Chairperson Monaghan stated that he would also like to see the plan returned to the Planning Commission. He suggested, however, that it come back with the underlying zoning. He said the Planning Commission's unsuccessful attempts to discuss the Library's location and to have "shingle siding" removed from the document were indications of the Planning Commission's inability to influence the plan. He stated that he liked the majority of the plan, although he was disappointed that it did not include more of the area. 4 Commissioner Socaciu said the comments made by those who attended the Planning Commission's public meetings were, in effect, ignored because the Planning Commission had no opportunity to make changes. He said the Planning Commission was originally told by City staff that they could forward the plan on to the City Council without making a ruling and it upset him that no one told them that was no longer an option. Mayor Scruggs explained the hierarchy of meetings. She said the issue went through a series of public hearings where anyone, regardless of expertise, could comment on the plan. She said the plan then went before the Planning Commission, whose members have acquired a higher level of understanding. She stated that the plan then goes to the City Council, whose members have even more experience and bring different perspectives. Councilmember Clark said citizens need to understand that their comments are heard and given due consideration even if, in the end, they are not incorporated. Commissioner Dolan said they had asked to have the various committee heads attend a meeting to explain the reasoning behind their decisions. He stated that only ten people, at most, attended that meeting and they did not get very good feedback. He said he originally voted in favor of the plan, based on the fact that all of the citizens involved in the process supported the plan. He noted that the plan was brought to the Planning Commission long after the public meetings were held. He said the Planning Commission initially considered tabling the item to allow for further discussion, but they were quoted state law as to why the Planning Commission had to vote. Mayor Scruggs stated that they are often given voluminous reports at MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments) meetings and have the option to accept, rather than approve or disapprove, the report. She asked if a similar option was available to the Planning Commission. Mr. Flaaen explained that the State Statute says the Planning Commission has to forward the plan with a recommendation of approval or denial. He said the Planning Commission should have had the option of tabling the item and he was not sure why that option was not available. Mayor Scruggs said the State Statute speaks to the point that the Planning Commission is legally mandated to take action and cannot act in a passive manner. Councilmember Frate asked what would have happened if the Planning Commission had voted to deny the plan. He stated that the Planning Commission shares the Council's vision for the City Center Master Plan. He suggested that the problems are due to miscommunications. Mayor Scruggs disagreed with Councilmember Frate. She stated that the majority of the Planning Commission wanted to use their experience, knowledge, and expertise in land use planning to either approve or deny the plan or make recommendations with regard to certain areas. 5 In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Flaaen explained that the Commission could have recommended approval subject to stipulations for minor changes; however, that option was not given to them at that time. He said it was not possible for the Commission to forward the plan without any recommendation. Mr. Flaaen confirmed for Councilmember Lieberman that the Planning Commission could have voted to table the issue, brought it back at a workshop, and then approved and forwarded the plan on to the Council with their recommendations. He said he did not know why that option was not given to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Potocki admitted that he knew the item could have been tabled. He stated that staff had made it clear they wanted the Planning Commission to pass the plan on to the Council. He said, based on the Planing Commission's inability to affect any changes, it seemed futile to table the item. Commissioner Dolan stated that the Planning Commission has an obligation to effect the plan if it is required to either approve or disapprove of the plan. Commissioner Socaciu agreed that there seemed to be no point in tabling the item. Mr. Froke clarified that Mr. lain Vasey, Redevelopment Manager, had a definitive schedule for bringing the plan to the Council. Mayor Scruggs stressed the fact that the Council did not state they needed the plan back by a certain date. Mr. Froke agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Mr. Beasley said it is clear that there is a problem with the process. He noted, however, that he believed they could find a way to rectify the problem. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the Planning Commission would like to re-hear the issue. Chairperson Potocki responded yes, but only with the understanding that their suggestions and recommendations would be taken seriously. Mayor Scruggs expressed concern about the timing. She pointed out the fact that several experienced Commissioners will be leaving the Planning Commission. Councilmember Clark said she shared Mayor Scruggs' concern. She stated that she would prefer to see the current Planning Commission deal with the issue. She pointed out the fact that the election on the General Plan was not scheduled until November. She questioned why the Planning Commission was pushed for a decision. Mr. Froke said the Planning Commission was expected to take action on Glendale 2025 on March 21st, with a series of workshops scheduled to occur between now and then. Mayor Scruggs asked if it would require three weeks' posting notice. Mr. Flaaen said he would have to look at the posting requirements, but he did not believe it would require a full three weeks. 6 Chairperson Potocki stated he would like to have the citizen groups interact with the Commission at a workshop. Commissioner Dolan suggested that the meeting would be more productive if it was led by a trained facilitator. Councilmember Clark said the Library Board and Transportation Committees would be more accessible than trying to elicit feedback from the general populous involved in the plan. Councilmember Clark noted that funding does not match the long-term goals. She said she shared Councilmember Lieberman's concerns about the lack of attention paid to the area between 51St and 43rd Avenues. Vice Mayor Eggleston said it was regrettable the Planning Commission was given the impression that the Council was trying to rush the plan through. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's questions, Mr. Froke explained that the boundaries of the redevelopment area expanded in the late 1980's to include the area east to 47th Avenue. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the Planning Commission could place stipulations on the recommendations. Mr. Froke stated that they could. Mayor Scruggs stated that the General Plan is, by nature, very general in its direction, whereas master plans give more specific direction for a given area. Mr. Froke agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He stated that the General Plan does not change zoning. Councilmember Lieberman noted that he controls, through the Master Lease, the first two hundred feet of the proposed Library site off Grand Avenue. Chairperson Potocki stated that the Planning Commission indicated diversified housing, not multi-family housing, in the Western Area Plan. Councilmember Clark said the table on allocated land uses in the 2025 General Plan book lists 146 acres of the western area as multi-family. Ms. Mickey Lund, noted that she will be appointed to the Planning Commission on March 26. She said, as a citizen, she never thought anything in the master plan was etched in stone and always expected the Planning Commission to have an opinion on their recommendations. Mr. Colson agreed with Ms. Lund. He stated that it was emphasized at the beginning of the process that the recommendations would go through both a legal and planning process. He said they could work through with the Commission how certain decisions were reached. He stressed the fact that they tried to create a project that was inclusive of a lot of people. He said it was never their intention to rush it through. Mr. Beasley offered to look at dates when staff could bring the item back to a Planning Commission workshop to discuss how and why certain decisions were made. 7 Commissioner Monaghan stated that he would like to review the plan at the same time they are viewing Glendale 2025. Mr. Froke stated he was not sure it could be scheduled by March 21St Mr. Beasley confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the Growing Smarter Legislation does not assess a penalty if the plan is not adopted by the end of the year. He noted that the Growing Smarter Committee is talking about extending the deadline and should make a decision by July. Commissioner Dolan said he believed the timetable was established so that the plan would not be considered part of the 2025 plan. Mr. Flaaen stated that he had not heard of that before. He said, because the election is scheduled for November of 2002, they would bring a call of election resolution to the Council at the end of May and, when completed, the other plans will be rolled into the election. Mayor Scruggs asked for more information on the issue in the City of Phoenix. Mr. Beasley said the City of Phoenix is dealing with citizen participation issues. He explained that a number of groups are saying they have not been given adequate opportunity to provide input. Councilmember Lieberman left the meeting. Chairperson Potocki said the 2025 Plan will incorporate the Western Area Plan and the City Center Master Plan and therefore, they have to be completed before it goes for a vote. The meeting recessed for a short break. Mr. Flaaen said the General Plan, once adopted, cannot be changed for ten years. He said, therefore, the City Center Master Plan would have to be included now or in May of 2003 if the General Plan deadline is extended. Mayor Scruggs explained that the Growing Smarter Legislation allows minor changes, but does not specify what is considered a minor change. Chairperson Potocki said it was his understanding that the term "minor" was defined both by acreage and zoning change. Mr. Flaaen explained that an already zoned property would not have to be rezoned to bring it into conformance with the plan; however, it would have to be brought into conformance with the plan if a change was made to the zoning. He noted that some proposed legislation to extend the deadline would have also put penalties in place for non-compliance. Councilmember Clark questioned their chance of meeting a May deadline on this issue, given that staff will schedule another meeting for the Planning Commission. Chairperson Potocki stated the Planning Commission would be willing to make recommendations if the plan comes back before them. 8 Mr. Flaaen said he would research the posting requirement and make arrangements for the plan to go back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Clark said she supported the Planning Commission's desire to revisit the plan. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. 9