Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/7/2002 * 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 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP May 7, 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, and Manuel D. Martinez ABSENT: H. Phillip Lieberman ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Terry Zerkle, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk 1. GLENDALE 2025 CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jon Froke, Director of Planning & Zoning; Mr. Ron Short, Long Range Planning Manager; and Ms. Kate Langford, Long Range Senior Planner. OTHER PRESENTERS: Mr. David Williams, AICP, with WLB Group; and Mr. Rick Counts, Vice President of Community Sciences Corp., consultants. The purpose of this workshop item was to present the Glendale 2025 General Plan and Implementation Program, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for review and discussion. The 1998 Growing Smarter and 2000 Growing Smarter Plus legislation requires the update of the General Plan every ten years and adds new elements such as open space, growth areas, cost of development, environmental planning, and water resources. The legislation also requires voter ratification of the General Plan. The current General Plan was adopted on January 24, 1989. On May 8, 2001, the City Council approved the contract with Community Sciences Corporation, which initiated the Glendale 2025 process. The presentation draft of the General Plan and Implementation Program is the result of a "grass-roots" planning process. The documents are strongly based on the input from citizens, Board and Commission members, web page input, the Public Focus Group, and the Technical Committee. The unique citizen involvement method of "gaming" was used with citizen participants to determine desired levels and distribution of growth. A series of four community-wide workshops and gaming sessions were conducted in June, July, September, and October of 2001 to gather citizen input. 1 The Public Focus Group met with Planning Department staff and the consultants on a regular basis. Preliminary General Plan, Implementation Program, and Technical Appendices documents were submitted to the City in November of 2001. These draft documents received extensive review from citizens, staff, and the Planning Commission. The presentation draft was delivered to the City on February 1, 2002. The Planning Commission held three public hearings in various geographic areas of the City. • February 21, 2002 - Midwestern University • March 7, 2002 - Independence High School • March 21, 2002 - City Council Chambers The citizen comments at the public hearings were generally supportive and complimentary of the planning process and planning documents. White papers were prepared by Planning Department staff on analysis of eleven requested changes to the Glendale 2025 Land Use Map. The Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council on each requested Land Use Map change. Planning consultants and Planning Department staff met one-on-one with City Councilmembers for input on the preliminary draft and again for the presentation draft. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Glendale-2025 at its meeting of March 21, 2002, by a vote of 7 to 0, with the following General Plan Land Use Map and text recommendations: White Paper 1: West of Loop 303 ❑ Amend the area bounded by Peoria Avenue, Perryville Road, Northern Avenue, and Citrus Road from 2.5-3.5 dwelling units per acre(du/ac) residential to 1.0-2.5 du/ac residential ❑ Amend the area bounded by Olive Avenue, Citrus Road, Loop 303, and Northern Avenue from 8-12 du/ac residential and 2.5-3.5 du/ac residential to 0-1.0 du/ac residential. ❑ Amend the area bounded by Northern Avenue, Cotton Lane, Loop 303, and a line parallel to and 1/2 mile south of Northern Avenue from 2.5-3.5 du/ac residential to 0-1 .0 du/ac residential. White Paper 2: West of Luke Air Force Base ❑ Keep the 640-acre area between Peoria Avenue, Olive Avenue, Cotton Lane, and Sarival Avenue at the proposed 0-1.0 du/ac residential category. 2 White Paper 3: Northeast Corner of 91st and Glendale Avenues ❑ Amend the 20 acres at the northeast corner from 5-8 du/ac residential to Office (0). White Paper 4: Southwest Corner of 71St and Glendale Avenues ❑ Amend the 40-acre parcel at the southwest corner of 71St Avenue and Glendale Avenue from Office (0), 5-8 du/ac residential and 12-20 du/ac residential to 3.5-5.0 du/ac residential. White Paper 5: 76th Lane and Camelback Road ❑ Amend the 19-acre area of 76th Lane and Camelback Road from 3.5 - 5.0 du/ac residential to 1.0-2.5 du/ac residential. White Paper 6: Southeast Corner of 67th Avenue and Cactus Road ❑ Amend the immediate 2-acre corner from Planned Commercial (PC) to General Commercial, the adjacent 12-acre parcel from Planned Commercial (PC) to 5-8 du/ac residential and the adjacent 6-acre parcel from Planned Commercial (PC) to 12-20 du/ac residential. White Paper 7: 59th Avenue and Bell Road ❑ Amend the 5-acre parcel on the west side of 59th Avenue from 0-1 du/ac residential to 1.0-2.5 du/ac residential. White Paper 8: 59th to 63rd Avenues and South of Greenbriar Drive ❑ Amend the 15-acre area from 0-1 .0 du/ac residential to 1.0-2.5 du/ac residential. White Paper 9: 51st Avenue and Union Hills Drive ❑ Amend the 62-acre area from 3.5 -5.0 du/ac residential to 1.0-2.5 du/ac residential. White Paper 10: East Side of 63rd Avenue, 403 Feet North of Bell Road ❑ Keep the 6.2-acre area as shown on the proposed land use map as 0-1 du/ac residential and Office (0). White Paper 11: Northwest Corner of 51st Avenue and Union Hills Drive ❑ Amend the 13-acre area from 3.5-5.0 du/ac to 1.0-2.5 du/ac residential. 3 The Planning Commission recommended approval of the General Plan and Implementation Program text amendments as listed in the May 15, 2002 memo from Messrs. Rick Counts and David Williams to the Planning Commission. The General Plan resolution adopts the General Plan and incorporates by reference into the City of Glendale General Plan the North Valley Specific Area Plan, the Arrowhead Ranch Specific Plan, the Glendale City Center Master Plan, and the Glendale Western Area General Plan Update. Public notifications for the three Planning Commission public hearings held on January 24, 2002, February 14, 2002, and February 28, 2002 were advertised in the Glendale Star newspaper One hundred thirty-nine letters were sent to property owners within geographic areas considered by the Planning Commission for possible amendment to the proposed General Plan Land Use Map. The letter informed the property owners of the March 14, 2002 Planning Commission Workshop and the March 21, 2002 Planning Commission public hearing. A presentation draft of the proposed General Plan and Implementation Program was sent on March 22, 2002 to adjacent cities, Maricopa County, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the State Department of Commerce, and others as required by State legislation for the sixty-day review period, which ended on May 6, 2002. Copies of the Glendale 2025 documents were: • Distributed to Boards and Commissions, with subsequent presentations at their meetings. • Sent to the registered neighborhood and homeowners associations. • Sent to other citizen groups. • Posted on the Glendale web site. • Delivered and placed in each of the three public libraries in Glendale for review. The Glendale 2025 project is included in the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Planning Department budget in the amount of $250,000 for planning consultant services and $70,000 for printing, meetings, publications, and advertisements. The funding is a one-time expense for the Glendale 2025 Project. There are no additional staff requirements. The recommendation was to direct staff to proceed with a public hearing for Glendale 2025 on May 28, 2002. Mr. Williams stated that the Glendale 2025 Plan looks at a 56 square mile planning areab within the City and an additional 40 square mile area outside City limits, west of 1151 Avenue. He reviewed the planning principals of the document, including quality development for the City, a focus on high-paying jobs within the City, neighborhoods as the City's foundation, prudent water resource management, and downtown revitalization. He discussed the assumptions used when developing the plan. He stated that the plan will function as an official policy statement of the City of Glendale, used by the Council as a guide for private and public decisions. He said the plan will be 4 adopted by the City Council and ratified by the voters. He explained that the document has three components: the General Plan, the Implementation Program, and the Technical Appendices, all of which are available for public review and comment at the Planning Department. He said the plan was citizen-driven and would help coordinate all of the other City plans and provide unified direction. He stated that they would come before the Council on May 28, 2002 for another public hearing and possible adoption of the plan. He said they would also summarize comments made by various outside agencies reviewing the plan. Mr. Short reviewed eleven proposed changes to the Land Use Map set forth in the White Papers. With regard to White Paper 4, Councilmember Clark asked if the parcel located east of the 40-acre parcel at the southwest corner of 71st and Glendale Avenues was hard- zoned. Mr. Short said they could consider changing the designation of that parcel to be more reflective of the surrounding area. He said the change would be incorporated as part of the General Plan. Councilmember Clark asked the Council if they would support reducing the designation from 12-20 to 3.5-5. Councilmember Martinez asked if any other parcels in that area have a similar density. Mr. Froke stated that the nearest apartment complex is located on the northeast corner 75th and Glendale Avenues. Councilmember Martinez asked if residents at the neighborhood meetings expressed concern about the 40-acre parcel's designation. Mr. Short explained that an applicant had requested 12-20 for the entire tract; however, staff found 3.5-5 would be the most consistent land use category. Mr. Short confirmed for Vice Mayor Eggleston that staff's recommendation on White Paper 9, is to go from 3.5 units per acre to 1-2.5 units per acre. He stated that a petition submitted by Mr. Robert A. Knoff, a citizen of the City of Glendale Cholla District, indicates that a number of people agree with staff's recommendation. With regard to White Paper 11, Councilmember Martinez agreed with staff's recommendation. He said landowners could come back and request a change at a later date. Councilmember Goulet noted that this is the only recommendation that goes against the desires of the property owner. Mr. Short agreed with Councilmember Goulet. Councilmember Goulet questioned whether it would be cost prohibitive to build homes in that area. He suggested that another use, such as office, would be more appropriate. He said a commercial development would also create a buffer to the other residential areas. Mr. Short explained that the Planning Commission was concerned about the amount of commercial in the area. He said they could not recommend commercial without conducting additional in-depth studies of the corner. Councilmember Goulet asked why the Planning Commission was concerned with the amount of commercial. Mr. Froke stated that the commercial referenced in the property owner's letter is actually in the City of Phoenix. He noted that White Paper 3 is in the midst of the new growth area near the Coyotes mixed-use project and White Paper 6 pertains to vested zoned properties. Councilmember Martinez noted that neighbors objected to an earlier proposal for a commercial project on the northwest corner. 5 Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that the General Plan does not change existing zoning. He asked how major and minor changes differ. Mr. Short explained that State Statutes define a major amendment as any substantial alteration of land use mixtures. He said major changes are made once a year, upon a two-thirds vote of Council, while minor changes can be made at any time. Councilmember Clark asked if General Plans have a greater effect on the City because of the Growing Smarter legislation. Mr. Flaaen said the legislation places more emphasis on General Plans. He explained that once properties have been planned in a certain fashion, zoning eventually has to match. Councilmember Clark asked if they match the General Plan to hard zoning in all cases. Mr. Short said they try to avoid designating lower density land use categories than what is already allowed by existing zoning. Councilmember Clark asked if the General Plan is reflective of the hard zoning currently on the lands included in the plan. Mr. Short replied that it is, except in growth areas. Councilmember Clark asked if the General Plan and zoning have to match within a certain time frame. Mr. Flaaen stated that the General Plan designation does not change the underlying zoning. He said a zoning amendment would have to be done to make a change and the change would have to be consistent with the General Plan. Councilmember Clark asked if a property owner could request a lower density zoning than depicted in the General Plan. Mr. Flaaen said the General Plan and zoning would have to be amended. He pointed out the fact that a change which is deemed a major amendment could only be done once a year. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Mr. Flaaen provided an example of the conditions under which the City would initiate the rezoning of a property. He said amending a zoning to a lower density does not amount to a compensatory taking for the property owner if the hard-zoning has not yet vested. Councilmember Clark asked if the City would consider initiating a rezoning if it was deemed in the interest of compatibility with the surrounding area. Mr. Flaaen clarified that the City could consider rezoning a property if it has not yet vested and the City wants to bring the property in with existing conditions. Mr. Short noted that several staff members had met with Colonel Dennis A. Rea, Commander, 56th Fighter Wing, Luke Air Force Base, regarding Glendale 2025. He said Colonel Rea and his staff had two concerns: the medium density west of Luke Air Force Base and the Northern Avenue Superstreet traversing their clear zone area. He said they indicated to Colonel Rae that the Planning Commission would be recommending low density residential west of Luke Air Force Base. He said he also suggested that the functional classification map include the following statement: "The Northern Avenue Superstreet location and design concept is to be determined in cooperation with Luke Air Force Base and other entities." He said Colonel Rea was pleased with the recommended changes and was expected to send a letter to the Council, stating that Luke Air Force Base had no objection to the plan. Councilmember Clark asked the Council to consider directing staff to work on the issue of reducing the designation for the parcel located east of the 40-acre parcel at the southwest corner of 71st and Glendale Avenues from 12-20 to 3.5-5. She asked staff to bring information to Council for possible future action. Mr. Froke said one of the steps in implementing the General Plan is to update the West Glendale Avenue Design Plan. He said they would look at Councilmember Clark's suggestion as part of that corridor study. 6 Councilmember Frate asked if the parcel referenced by Councilmember Clark was ever brought up as a concern at the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Short responded that it had not been. Ms. Langford said, while they have not had any comments from participants in the 2025 General Plan meetings, a number of people expressed a variety of concerns about higher densities at the Western Area amendment meetings held last year. Councilmember Goulet noted that two new subdivisions have gone in north of Glendale Avenue, with a third being discussed. Mr. Williams said the issues addressed in the text amendment include: (1) the integration of the recently adopted Western Area Plan; (2) the not yet adopted City Center Master Plan; and (3) two objectives related to historic preservation. He said there is also an array of other text amendments suggested from a variety of other sources. Mr. Jon Paladini, Deputy City Attorney, reviewed the resolutions scheduled to be addressed at the May 28 Council meeting. He explained that the first resolution adopts the General Plan, while the second adopts the Implementation Program. He noted that the Implementation Plan would not go before the voters. The meeting recessed for a short break. 2. DEVELOPMENT TRACKING SYSTEM CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Deborah Mazoyer, Building Safety Director; and Mr. Michael Munroe, Senior Management Assistant - Deputy City Manager's Office, Community Development Group. The Community Development department currently uses software applications developed "in-house" to track planning and permitting information and files. These systems are inadequate for current and future needs. In addition, the systems are not relational and information is not shared between various City departments, resulting in manual tracking of information and additional work for staff. Staff recommended that the City take a new fully integrated approach to the management of development-related information and services. The Development Tracking System will create a shared database which will store all development review and permit data with the ability to track the full life cycle of a project from initial planning through project completion. The system will improve customer service and the management of development review and permit information, promote departmental integration, and provide easier data access for customers and staff. In preparation for the development of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Development Tracking System, staff met with numerous software vendors, visited many local cities to compare and evaluate their systems, and attended several software users conferences. A project team, consisting of staff from Information Technology, Building Safety, Planning, Budget, and the Deputy City Manager's Office developed the RFP for procurement of the Development Tracking System. Careful consideration was given to developing the RFP to identify City departments with a current need and departments with a potential future of an integrated system. The RFP required that the new system 7 would meet all technical specifications, fully integrate with current City software applications, and offer an integrated "Enterprise" or Citywide software solution. Five proposals were received in response to the RFP. The proposals were evaluated on the basis of compliance with specific evaluation criteria, including system specifications, project team qualifications, cost, and references. After intense evaluation, three vendors accepted invitations to meet with staff and provide onsite demonstrations of their software. The proposal that scored the highest evaluation and was the recommendation of the panel was submitted by Hansen Information Technologies (Hansen). Hansen offers an enterprise solution of multiple modules. The modules recommended by staff for immediate purchase include Construction and Use Permits, Code Enforcement, Dynamic Portal, Cashiering, Mobile Permit Inspections, Mobile Work Management, and Work Notice. The Hansen proposal and system was reviewed with Information Technology staff and is consistent with the City's Information Technology Strategic Plan and E-government strategy. As part of the Development Tracking System staff recommended the purchase of the Hansen Dynamic Portal and Mobile Solutions. The Dynamic Portal service will electronically manage communications with customers/citizens over the Internet by securely linking with the City's Web site. The Mobile Solutions component utilizes technology which allows a remote users hand-held unit to streamline work in the field. The Hansen system will enhance greatly the ability to manage development-related services, operations and customer services. As presented at the April 16, 2002 City Council Workshop, the system will allow the tracking of data for calculation of cost of service for community development fees. With the full integration provided by the system, many manual processes and paper will be eliminated. Customers and citizens will also benefit by having the most current and accurate information available and the ability to access the Internet for information and services. The RFP and proposal contain an option clause that allows the City, at the discretion of the City Manager, to purchase additional modules. The City has an option to purchase additional current and future Hansen modules including Municipal Billing, GIS, Parks Management, Plant/Fleet Management, Pavement/Street Management, Asset Valuation, and Contract Management. The City Attorney's office reviewed and approved the necessary license agreements to execute an agreement between the City and Hansen. The City Council authorized $199,500 in funds and directed staff to procure the Development Tracking System. Staff discussed the Development Tracking System conceptually with the Homebuilders Advisory Group. As the system is implemented, staff will market and advertise the new services provided to customers and citizens. The bid amount from Hansen for all the necessary software applications and services to purchase and implement the Development Tracking System is $509,595. Of the $509,595 total purchase price, $467,025 is a one-time expense and $42,570 is an 8 ongoing expense for annual service and maintenance. Funds have been budgeted for the purchase of the system in the budgets of the Building Safety, Planning, and Utilities Departments. No additional staff positions were being requested for implementation of the system. A project team, consisting of staff from the Community Development and Information Technology Departments, will manage the implementation of the system. The recommendation was to direct staff to proceed with the necessary steps to prepare an award of bid to contract with Hansen Information Technologies. Mr. Munroe noted that the Finance and Utilities Departments are also interested in the Municipal Billing and Asset Valuation modules and anticipate coming forward with a recommendation to purchase those modules. Councilmember Goulet asked if the City has the infrastructure in place to support the system's wireless technology. Mr. Chuck Murphy, Information Technology Director, said, although Cellular Data packets are available, there is a possibility for dead spots around the City. He noted that Hansen demonstrated Cellular Data Packet Technology (CDP) during its presentation. Councilmember Goulet asked if implementation would be done on a department-by-department basis. He asked how data would be tracked while implementation was being done. Mr. Murphy explained that they would likely run the implementation concurrently with the existing system. He said the Permitting, Code Compliance, and Planning Departments would be treated as a unit, with the system being implemented in all three departments simultaneously. Mr. Munroe stated that Permitting in Building Safety would probably be the first module implemented, with the Planning Permit and Code Enforcement modules coming next. Councilmember Martinez asked when the system would be fully operational. Mr. Munroe stated that it would take six months to one year to fully implement the system; therefore, they would run the systems concurrently for an unspecified period of time. He said they would be discussing an accelerated implementation schedule with Hansen. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked how the new system was expected to improve the concerns or complaints associated with the current system. Ms. Mazoyer explained that it requires a great deal of time to find out the status of a project using the current system, whereas information will be immediately available using the new system. Councilmember Clark asked for additional information about the Mobile Work Management module. Mr. Munroe explained that the Mobile Work Management software allows field personnel to use hand-held units to access and update information from the field. Councilmember Clark pointed out that there are a number of dead spots beyond 83' Avenue. Ms. Mazoyer stated that information contained on the hand-held units could be downloaded at the end of the day if it could not be done onsite. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about the cost of the system and how it would be divided between the Building Safety, Planning and Utilities Departments. Mr. Munroe said the initial $199,500 budgeted for the system was very conservative and the scope of the project has since increased. He said the increased scope of the project and inflationary factors have increased the cost of the project. He said $109,500 will come from the 9 Planning Department, $90,000 from the Building Safety Department, $80,000 from revenue generated by the Coyotes Arena, and $230,095 from the Utilities Department. He confirmed that the money is designated in the current year's budget. Councilmember Clark said the Utilities Department seems to be absorbing a disproportionately high share of the cost. She said the system seems to be directed primarily towards Planning and Building Safety. She questioned what information a utility customer would access online. Mr. Reedy said customers could access information about their meter and valve locations, meter readings and billing information. He said, however, the link would also allow the Utilities Department to access Building Safety and Planning information it needs during a development. Councilmember Clark asked if they would be coordinating their efforts with the GIS Technician previously approved. Mr. Munroe said the Geographic Information System (GIS) Technician position will be filled and integrated with the modules. Councilmember Clark asked if other departments had been made aware of the modules available to track their specific information. Mr. Munroe said it was their intent to structure a City-wide solution. Mr. Murphy said they brought several departments into the process to ensure the solution could be utilized throughout the City and to ensure data integration. Councilmember Goulet asked if the system includes a video component. Mr. Murphy responded in the affirmative. He clarified that the hand-held devices constantly look for the ability to transmit information back to the system and do so once a signal is found. In response to a question posed by Vice Mayor Eggleston, Ms. Mazoyer stated that the Coyotes arena fees will be available by the time the system is implemented. Mayor Scruggs stated that reductions in the City's revenue were being discussed at the State and the food sales tax initiative had resurfaced. She asked Mr. Beasley if it was wise to proceed, given the impacts those possible reductions could have on the City's budget. Mr. Beasley stated that it would be appropriate to proceed because the item was budgeted and the system will offer great benefits in terms of customer service. She cautioned the Council to keep the proposed decreases to the City's revenues in mind when considering new expenditures. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. 10