Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 7/16/2002 * 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 July 16, 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. Phillip 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 1. REZONING APPLICATION Z-01-23: 9301 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director; Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Ms. Molly Hood, Project Planning Manager - Economic Development Department. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Steve Ellman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Ellman Companies. This was a request by The Ellman Companies to rezone approximately 233 acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to PAD (Planned Area Development). The applicant has requested the PAD zoning in order to develop a high-quality, innovative, and unique mixed-use center anchored by the new multi-purpose arena facility, for the National Hockey League Coyotes. The mixed-use center would also contain a variety of commercial, entertainment, employment, and residential developments, all united by a common design theme, bringing to Glendale a major destination point. The applicant's proposed PAD is intended to promote flexibility variations in building design, circulation patterns, signage, and land uses. Furthermore, it is the applicant's intent to encourage innovative development concepts for all land use types to provide a greater variety and intensity of uses in the PAD. The proposed PAD consists of five main districts: (1) Village Retail District; (2) Sports/Entertainment District; (3) Destination Retail District; (4) Residential District; and (5) the Garden Office District. In keeping with the applicant's project intent, each district has its own list of permitted uses and development standards. The proposed PAD also includes architectural and landscaping design standards, as well as an aggressive sign program. No previous action has been taken on this item. 1 The applicant held a series of five neighborhood meetings with property owners and residents in the area in accordance with the City's Citizen Participation ordinance. Numerous indivicuals were involved in the Citizen Participation process. Issues that arose during the process included the amount of traffic and circulation patterns generated by the multi-purpose arena, inclusion of a multi-family component in the project, and the project phasing. Several of the issues were resolved to the satisfaction of the residents in the area. The Planning Commission conducted a workshop session on July 11, 2002 and will hold a public hearing on July 18, 2002. This application has been publicly advertised for a City Council hearing on July 23, 2002. No budget implications have been identified. The recommendation was to review the proposal in preparation for a public hearing. Mr. Ellman said they had been working on the project for the past 15 months and hoped to begin development soon. He said his staff, the consultants and City staff have worked well together and have listened to public comments. He stated that, while there will always be elements of a development that people would like to be different, the overall project is spectacular. He thanked everyone involved in the process for their support and comments. He said they had commenced working with a consultant on the final name for the project and welcomed the Council's input. Ms. Hood reviewed a brief history of the application, which was originally submitted October 18, 200` and has been the subject of numerous citizen participation and Planning Commission meetings. She explained that the General Plan designates the property for Sport and Entertainment Mixed-Use and the property is currently being prepared for construction of the new multi-purpose arena. She stated that the applicant was requesting the PAD zoning in order to develop the property with a mixed-use center, anchored by the multi-purpose arena and consisting of a variety of retail, office, and residential uses. Ms. Hood stated that two intense days were spent with each of the four nationally recognized design firms that were invited to participate in the Master Plan process. This resulted in four site designs being presented for review. She said the chosen design is based on a town center concept and is flanked by a Destination Retail center on the west and Village Retail and residential components on the east. She explained that their vision was for a critical mass leisure time destination; a lifestyle center, featuring open-air pedestrian streetscapes. She said the team had visited several developments throughout the country, including Irvine Spectrum in Irvine, California; Block at Orange in Orange, California; and Easton Town Center in Columbus, Ohio. She described key features and displayed photos of each of the three developments. She attributed their success to their mix of land uses, pedestrian connectivity, and stimulating streetscapes. She said they had returned from the other developments and decided that the project should be a destination urban entertainment center featuring: (1) pedestrian and vehicular access throughout; (2) stimulating urban streetscapes; (3) plazas and gathering areas; (4) large, colorful and uniquely shaped signage; (5) bold architecture; and (6) a unifying landscaping theme. 2 Ms. Hood said the PAD consists of five districts, Village Retail District (16.7 acres), Sports/Entertainment District (102.1 acres), Destination Retail District (55.6 acres), Residential District (19.2 acres), and Garden Office District (8.13 acres). She stated that the Village Retail District will be located at the southwest corner of 91st and Glendale Avenues and will focus on satisfying daily commercial and business needs that require exposure to an arterial thoroughfare and serve adjacent neighborhoods. She said the Village Retail District will have a maximum 40 foot building height and 0.50 floor area ratio. She said thg. Sports/Entertainment District is located between Glendale, Maryland, 93rd, and 95" Avenues and will be anchored by the multi-purpose arena, containing a dynamic mix of retail, employment, and residential uses. She said the District will have a maximum 150 foot building height and 1.0 floor area ratio. With regard to tpe Destination Retail District, Ms. Hood said it would be located on the west side of 95Avenue, between Glendale and Maryland Avenues. She stated that the District will serve the West Valley region with community shopping center uses, with maximum building heights of 40 feet for retail and 150 feet for conference hotel. She said all uses in the District will have a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0. She stated that the Residential District is located in the southeast corner of the site on both sides of 93rd Avenue and will allow multi-family units, as well as some commercial uses, including office and retail. She said the Residential District will have a 60 foot maximum building height and a 22 dwelling units per acre maximum density. She explained that the Garden Office District, located at the northwest corner of 91st and Maryland Avenues, will provide professional and financial service offices and will serve as a buffer between the existing single-family homes on the east side of 91st Avenue and the proposed multi-family residential. She said the maximum building height for this district is 40 feet and the maximum floor area ration is 0.30. Ms. Hood reported that the overall project density is 0.62 at build out, with the Sports/Entertainment District being the most intense district with a floor area ratio of 0.92. She identified the floor area ratios at build out for the Village Retail, Destination Retail and Garden Office districts as .22, .30 and .50, respectively. Ms. Hood stated that parking for the Village Retail, Destination Retail, Garden Office and Residential Districts is equivalent to the current Zoning Ordinance parking requirements. She said parking for Phase One of the Sports/Entertainment District is based on Zoning Ordinance parking requirements. She noted, however, that subsequent phases assume shared parking between office and retail uses, thereby reducing the required number of spaces by 1,365 spaces. She stated that all parking during Phase One of the Sports/Entertainment District will be in surface lots, with parking structures provided as the project matures and development expands into the surface parking lot areas. Ms. Hood discussed landscaping for the project. She stated that a lake feature will be provided on Glendale Avenue. She said a primary entry monument will be located at 91st and Glendale Avenues, with secondary entry monuments placed at all other access points into the project. She stated that 40-foot wide buffer will be located on 91st Avenue, between Maryland Avenue and Coyote Drive. She reported that the applicant is preparing an addendum to the PAD application, requesting specific percentages of the net site area be landscaped for each of the five districts. Ms. Hood stated that the applicant has proposed an "Arizona Deco" architectural theme, incorporatin9 expressive contemporary architecture, distinct building masses, strong vertical and horizontal lines, variations in roof heights and profiles, emphasis on floor lines and rhythm/pattern of openings, and contemporary building materials. She noted four-sided architecture design will be required throughout the development. 3 With regard to signage, Ms. Hood explained that the Village Retail, Garden Office and Residential Districts comply with current Zoning Ordinance signage requirements for the Neighborhood Shopping Center, General Office and Multi-Family Residential/ Neighborhood Ccmmercial districts, respectively. She noted, however, that the Village Retail District has one exception, big-box retailers. She explained that the maximum aggregate sign area has been increased in the Village Retail District from 200 square feet to 450 square feet and is allowed on the back of the buildings. She stated that tenant signage and monument signage for the Destination Retail District is generally based on the City's signage requirements for the Heavy Commercial zoning district with several deviations, including an increase in the maximum aggregate sign area for big box retailers, the ability for tenant identification signage to be placed on the back of buildings facing the freeway and four 5,300 square foot "Spectaculars" permitted on the back of buildings facing the freeway. She said Destination Retail would also allow five 80-foot high light towers in parking fields, including up to 6,000 square feet of on and off-site signage and an urban scale sound system and a 100-foot media tower at the northwest corner of the district. She explained that the lower 80 feet of the media tower would include animated signage and the top 20 feet would include static illuminated signage. She said one electronic reader board and two major site identity signs would also be allowed in the District. Ms. Hood reported that the Sports/Entertainment District would allow 50% of the building facades in the central entertainment core to be covered with signage, including tenant identification signs, festival site signs, a reader board on the façade of the multi-purpose arena, pedestrian scale directional signs, project directories, district maps, sponsored murals, and eight 6,500 square feet building mounted "Spectaculars." She stated that the Sports/Entertainment District sign program also includes a 100-foot media tower located in front of the multi-purpose facility, with the lower 80 feet being animated signage and the upper 20 feet being static illuminated signage. She said the Sports/Entertainment District's perimeter mixed-use buildings are permitted signage ranging from 20% coverage of office tower facades facing Glendale Avenue to 50% coverage of parking structure facades. She noted that both on and off-site advertising would be permitted. With regard to street improvements, Ms. [pod stated that the applicant proposes full- street improvements on Glendale, 91st, 93tu and 95 Avenues, as well as Coyote Drive. She said half-street improvements are proposed for Maryland Avenue. In response to neighborhood concerns about cut-through traffic on Maryland Avenue, Ms. Hood stated that the applicant 's proposing custom medians at the intersection of 91st and Maryland Avenues, prohibiting east and westbound traffic movements across Maryland Avenue. She stated that, based on the applicant's Transportation Demand Management Plan, the number of vehicle trips for office uses will be reduced by 10%. She said the measures taken to achieve the 10% reduction include carpooling, flexible and staggered work hours, alternate work shifts, cycling, telecommuting, and discounted bus passes. She said future traffic impact assessments will be required upon reaching certain square footage thresholds to ensure that the trip reduction assumptions are being met. Ms. Hood stated that the PAD includes a conceptual Event Management Plan to deal with traffic associated with events in the multi-purpose arena. She said the applicant will submit a detailed Event Management Plan to the City by June of 2003. This Plan must be approved before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the multi-purpose arena. Ms. Hood explained that pedestdan linkages would be provided via detached sidewalks on Glendale, 915`, 93rd and 951" Avenues. She stated that a pedestrian path of decomposed granite is proposed around the lake feature on Glendale Avenue. 4 Ms. Hood reported that Phase One of the project will consist of the 604,000 square foot multi-purpose arena, 733,000 square feet of development in the Sports/Entertainment District, and 520,000 square feet of development in the Village and Destination Retail Districts. She said the applicant is also proposing that the multi-family residential development be constructed after 10% of other uses are completed. She stated that Phase Two of the project is anticipated to be completed in 2006 and includes 1,051,500 square feet of development, including 200 loft-style dwelling units in the Entertainment district and the possible development of a hotel. She explained that Phase Three has an anticipated completion date of 2008 and includes 1,148,500 square feet of development in Commercial Office and Retail, including an additional 200 loft-style dwelling units. She said the Final Phase will be completed in 2009 and includes the Conference Center and Hotel. Ms. Hood said the applicant is proposing that any PAD amendments go through the established amendment criteria in the Zoning Ordinance if the mix of programmed uses is adjusted by more than 50% or if the residential units allocated in the Entertainment District are relocated to a stand-alone facility. Ms. Hood announced that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed project on Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. and the City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Goulet thanked Mr. Ellman for his comments. He asked Ms. Hood to describe the "Spectaculars". Ms. Hood stated that the proposed "Spectaculars" would be mounted to the back of buildings in the Destination Retail District and to the sides of buildings in the Entertainment District. She said they range from 5,300 square feet in the Destination Retail District to 6,500 square feet in the Entertainment District and allow both on and off-site advertising. She noted that the Spectaculars would be allowed to extend beyond the height of the building parapet between 10 and 20 feet in the Entertainment District. She explained that off-site advertising refers to advertising for businesses or services not located on the premises. Councilmember Goulet asked if the reader boards would display activities happening on-site. Ms. Hood responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Goulet asked if tenants would be able to advertise on the reader boards. One of the applicant's attorneys indicated that they would. Councilmember Martinez expressed concern about the height of the media towers, as well as the increased amount of signage allowed in the various districts. He pointed out that, in the past, Glendale has not allowed freeway signage and asked if approving it for this project would set any type of precedence. Ms. Hood agreed that the City has not previously allowed identification signs on the back of buildings for other retailers. She explained that the applicant, through its PAD application, has the ability to ask for more than what the sign ordinance currently allows. Mayor Scruggs asked if the media towers would be the tallest structures on the property. Ms. Hood stated that the Entertainment District and the conference hotel in the Destination Retail District have a maximum building height of 150 feet. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he did not object to the entire plan and believed the build-out dates are reasonable. He said, however, he was concerned that the rooftop billboards would cheapen the project. He pointed out Sam's Club and Costco both have signs on the back of their buildings, facing 1-17. He said, while he does not necessarily find those signs objectionable, he does not approve of the proposed 450 foot signs. He noted that the City has a strict ordinance prohibiting the use of new billboards. He said he could not agree to the garish billboards being proposed by the 5 applicant. He expressed concern about the project taking on a "Las Vegas" characteristic. He asked about the Maricopa Association of Governments' (MAG) policy on freeway signage. Ms. Hood stated that MAG has a policy prohibiting the location of new billboards within 660 feet of an existing or planned freeway. She said the City adopted the MAG policy by ordinance in 1989. Councilmember Lieberman said he had no objection to the 150 square foot height limitation because that was what the City agreed to when it was negotiating with ICON Studios. Ms. Hood clarified that the 450 square feet of signage allowed for big-box retailers would be the total allowed for the entire building, not for each façade. Mr. Froke pointed out the fact that the Western Area General Plan does not speak to signage. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that this was an exciting, vital project that would become the gateway for the Northwest Valley. She noted, however, that she disagreed with some of the applicant's requests. She said she was also concerned about certain aspects of the signage. She said, while a PAD allows the City to offer special provisions to an applicant, she had a problem with the Spectaculars. She explained that the City's Zoning Ordinance states no new billboards will be erected, except in the C-3, M-1 and M-2 Districts. She expressed her opinion that billboards along the freeway would be inappropriate. She stated that it violates a policy that MAG established throughout the Valley. She said she believed the billboard signage at the center of the Entertainment District was more appropriate. She asked if the maximum building height would include the billboard signage on top of the building. Ms. Hood said the Spectaculars in the Destination Retail District extend beyond the maximum building height of 40 feet. She said the billboards would have to fall within the 150 foot maximum building height in the Entertainment Retail District. Councilmember Clark stated that the amount of signage on the media towers is egregious. She asked what effect the towers and their associated signage would have on the City's Dark Skies ordinance. Ms. Hood said the applicant was proposing that lighting in the parking lot comply with the Dark Skies ordinance, but that signage lighting and building lighting not comply. Councilrnember Clark said it is essential that the applicant comply with the Dark Skies ordinance. Councilmember Frate stated that had no objection to the billboards or freeway signs because they are placed in high-energy areas and will help build excitement in the project. Ms. Hood noted that the City Attorney is researching the MAG policy adopted by the City to determine if the proposed signage complies. Councilmember Goulet said the project, as proposed, will have a rhythm of varying building heights and the different elements will help add drama. He stated that the signage, if done well, will enhance the project and make it inviting. Councilmember Clark agreed that signage is intended to create vivacity and excitement. She stated, however, that at a certain point it becomes overwhelming. She said, while she does not object to the 450 square feet of signage allowed on big-box stores, she believes the amount of signage allowed in the Village Retail District is overwhelming. She stated that the applicant should be held to the current limitation of 200 square feet in the Village Retail District. Mayor Scruggs asked about the proposed text amendment that would change the 200 square foot limitation to 450 square feet. Mr. Froke said numerous big-box stores have been constructed throughout the City since the adoption of the Big-Box ordinance. He said one of the big-box clients started discussions with the City related to the text 6 amendment; however, an application has not yet been received. He explained that the text amendment would increase the permitted signage allowed per big-box retailer. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that grocery stores larger than 75,000 square feet are considered big-box stores. She asked if the text amendment would apply to those as well. Mr. Froke responded in the affirmative. He explained that all individual signs identifying the store would be added together and required to fall within the permitted square footage. He said there is some general agreement among staff that more square footage should be allowed for big-box stores. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to research the policies in other cities throughout the Valley to see how Glendale's policy compares. Vice Mayor Eggleston stated that he had no problem with signage being placed on the front and back of buildings. He pointed out that a number of exceptions were made along "automobile row" to accommodate the different types and sizes of signs used in that industry. Councilmember Martinez said he was not aware of the proposed text amendment. He asked if Home Depot could come back if the text amendment was approved to ask for additional signage. Mr. Froke responded in the affirmative. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that Home Depot came into an existing master planned residential community that in no way compares to the subject project. She said, however, Costco, Wal-Mart and Sam's Club are in a similar situation in that they back up to the Loop 101, but are not in a residential community. She said, therefore, the City should have differentiating policies for retail developments in residential and commercial areas. Mr. Froke stated that the Council is trying to address issues on a text amendment that does not yet exist. Mayor Scruggs asked if businesses would find similar limitations in other cities in the Valley. Councilmember Clark said she would like to know if the media towers fall within the Dark Skies ordinance. Mayor Scruggs asked if the City's Transportation Department had looked at the lighting issues in the PAD. Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director, responded that it had not. Mr. Flaaen offered to provide a copy of the City's Light Pollution ordinance to the Mayor and Council. He confirmed that the State Statutes require all cities to have Light Pollution ordinances. Mayor Scruggs asked to have all the requested information provided immediately so that the Planning Commission will have it prior to its meeting on Thursday, July 18'h. Mayor Scruggs asked about the signage facing the freeway. Mr. Froke said they have had preliminary discussions with one applicant and have suggested that they file an application for an official text amendment. He said the text amendment would increase the amount of signage to 450 square feet and apply to all big-box retailers, Citywide. Councilmember Clark stated that she had no problem with big-box retailers placing signs in the back of their buildings. She explained that the billboard issue was of greater importanceto her. Mayor Scruggs said the Council was comfortable with freeway facing signage. She asked staff to differentiate between big-box stores located in residential versus commercial areas. 7 Councilmember Clark stated that MAG's policy prohibits the erection of billboards within 660 feet of the freeway. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that MAG can only make policy, not law. She asked for clarification on MAG's policy concerning billboards along the freeway and if it had been adopted. Mr. Flaaen said the Highway Beautification Act passed by the legislature in 1995 also addresses outdoor advertising along a freeway. Councilmember Lieberman said the City would have to allow billboards all along the freeway if the applicant's request was approved, unless the City creates a special district. Mayor Scruggs said it is unreasonable to limit building signage to 200 square feet, and, therefore, they can expect it to be increased. Councilmember Martinez suggested that they direct staff to research what other cities are doing in terms of signage and proceed with the text amendment without waiting for an application to be filed. Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion that they should approve the applicant's request for 450 square feet of signage. He pointed out that all requests are handled on an individual basis. Councilmember Clark noted that it was mentioned at a Planning Commission workshop that a text amendment would likely be coming forward. She expressed her opinion that 450 square feet of signage for Village Retail is too intense for a neighborhood shopping center. She cautioned that other developers will follow, asking for the same rights being granted to this applicant. She stated that it would be hard to deny their requests. Mayor Scruggs said the Council had determined it reasonable to allow the 100 foot media towers, assuming they meet the Dark Skies ordinance. She said they had also determined that signs on buildings fronting the freeway and the 450 square foot signage were acceptable. She stated they would await a legal opinion on the Highway Beautification Act and the MAG policy on billboards. Councilmember Martinez voiced his opposition to the 450 square foot signage. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the Council would set a precedence if it grants the 450 square foot signage. Mr. Flaaen explained that the PAD creates specific zoning for a particular area and, therefore, the Council would not be setting a precedence. Councilmember Goulet asked how the murals would relate to signage. Ms. Hood explained that the murals could be painted or draped over a building and could be used for on-site or off-site advertising or to display public artwork. She said the murals would be considered signage, but separate from the other types of signage the Council had been discussing. She clarified that the murals would only be allowed in the Entertainment District. Councilmember Clark asked how much of the façade of the parking structure which faces Glendale Avenue could be used to display signage. Ms. Hood stated that the parking structures which are not visible from the street would be allowed up to 50% coverage. She said 25% coverage would be allowed on parking structures visible from Glendale or 91st Avenues. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion that the requested signage is excessive. 8 With regard to the list of permitted uses, Councilmember Martinez stated that he was concerned that up to 20 convenience uses could be located at the site without going through the Conditional Use Permit process. Ms. Hood clarified that the Village Retail and Entertainment Districts would allow up to five convenience uses by right, but an unlimited number of convenience uses are proposed for the Destination Retail District. Councilmember Clark agreed with Councilmember Martinez. She stated that the applicant's proposal was too general. She said she was concerned about the City's loss of control. She stated that the Planning Commission should have the authority to review all Conditional Use Permits. She pointed out the fact that the City has always prided itself on its citizen participation process. She noted that explaining the Conditional Use Permit process allows citizens an opportunity to react to proposed uses. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmembers Martinez and Clark. He said it would not be right or fair to exclude citizens from the process. He pointed out the fact that the City never even considered giving other developers unlimited convenience uses and, in fact, unanimously approved an ordinance requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Goulet disagreed. He stated that he did not want to limit the project, based on what the City has or has not done previously. He said the subject development is considerably larger than any other development previously considered by the Council and the kinds of uses will be desired by most people in the area. He cautioned that additional hurdles could hinder the applicant's ability to bring the square footage online in the time frames provided. Mayor Scruggs stated that the Council had agreed to intensive uses by its adoption of the Western Area General Plan and, therefore, citizen participation was the issue. She explained that a Conditional Use Permit hearing is triggered when a proposed use may be offensive or detrimental to a neighborhood. She pointed out that, except in the Village Retail District, the nearest neighborhood is one-half mile away. She noted that it takes a minimum of three months to process a Conditional Use Permit application. She expressed her opinion that it would be counter-productive to require the applicant to obtain a Conditional Use Permit every time it wanted to build a convenience use. She said, however, that she did not believe any of the normal conditional uses should be permitted by right in the Village Retail District. Councilmember Clark said it would be inappropriate to grant conditional uses by right. She explained that the Conditional Use Permit process provides oversight by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She noted that they often recognize issues not previously identified. Councilmember Clark asked if the applicant was still required to submit a final plan for each district. Ms. Hood explained that the applicant would be required to come back for Design Review. Councilmember Clark stated that the Design Review process can be lengthy. She said the two processes could occur concurrently. She stated that the applicant was requesting carte blanche in terms of the number and type of convenience uses built in the Destination Retail District. In response to Mayor Scruggs's question, Ms. Hood explained that Design Review is done at the administrative level. She said the PAD currently before the Council, and not the individual District plans, would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Mayor Scruggs asked, in what situation, would they not approve a convenience use. Ms. Hood explained that they would ensure the conditional uses permitted by right comply with the City's design and performance standards, but they would not look at the five criteria typically considered for Conditional Use Permit approval. Mr. Froke said 9 the citizen participation process gives residents in the area an opportunity to comment publicly on the application. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Planning Department would retain the authority to deny a use if unlimited Conditional Uses are permitted. Mr. Froke said the Planning Department could, perhaps, deny an application for technical reasons, but otherwise it could not. Mr. Flaaen stated that Planning Department staff would have limited authority to deny a Conditional Use Permit application. He noted, however, that it would not be able to deny a use as long as it meets all of the requirements of the ordinance. Mayor Scruggs referred to a previous request for a drive-thru window at the Arrowhead Community Bank. She noted that it was denied because it would not work on the site. She asked if the Planning Department would retain the authority to deny any proposed use if it feels it would not work on the site. Mr. Flaaen stated that Planning Department staff could address accessory uses, such as drive-thru windows; however, the actual use would be permitted. Mayor Scruggs stated that uses which require use permits in a non-residential area are not "bad" uses. She noted, however, that associated factors, such as increased traffic or extended business hours, could be bothersome to the neighborhoods. Councilmember i_ieberman asked for clarification that an unlimited number of convenience uses would be permitted, as long as the physical aspects of the building meet Building Safety requirements. Ms. Hood agreed with Councilmember Lieberman. Councilmember L.ieberman pointed out the fact that a loft residential area will be located in the center of the Destination Retail District. He stated that this would affect the distance factor. Councilmember Martinez noted that the citizen participation process requires business owners be notified of intended uses. He stated that it would not take three months to go through the process if no one objected to the use. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why the applicant was requesting an unlimited number of convenience uses. Ms. Hood said the applicant was requesting, that the convenience uses be given by right to make the project more marketable and because there are no immediately adjacent neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that other retailers would know what they were getting into when they leased their space. Ms. Hood noted that other cities do not require Conditional Use Permits unless safety factors are a concern. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked why the applicant had requested five convenience uses in the Village Retail District. Ms. Hood explained that the number is consistent with the number of convenience uses allowed in the Community Shopping Center District. She noted that the Community Shopping Center District requires Conditional Use Permits. Mayor Scruggs reiterated that the City's Zoning Ordinance allows five convenience uses. She said the City's strict requirements are an effort to protect neighborhoods, not to discourage business. Mayor Scruggs stated that the following uses would be permitted in the Destination Retail District: general merchandising, including food stores, apparel, and accessory stores; indoor motion picture theaters, excluding adult theaters; personal services, such as barber and beauty shops, tailors and shoe repair; minor auto repair and maintenance when enclosed in a building, such as a tire store; repair services for small appliances, bicycles, watches and similar items; childcare centers; restaurants and restaurants with drive-thru's; cocktail lounges associated with hotels or restaurants; financial institutions; professional medical offices; laundry and dry-cleaning; nightclubs associated with hotels or restaurants; home improvement stores; hotels and motels; warehouse stores; and indoor recreational facilities. She stated that convenience uses with drive-thru's and gasoline sales would not be permitted on the corner of 95th and Glendale Avenues. 10 With regard to the list of uses in the Entertainment District, Councilmember Clark asked if the applicant would be granted the uses listed under the Subject To Conditions, Subject To Use Permit, and Accessory columns by right. Ms. Hood stated that the uses listed under Subject To Use Permit would require a Conditional Use Permit. She explained that the uses listed under Subject To Conditions would be permitted only if they comply with certain performance standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance text. Councilmember Clark asked for confirmation that the applicant could double the number of convenience uses shown in their Destination Retail plan if it could meet all technical and safety requirements. Ms. Hood stated that Councilmember Clark was correct. Councilmember Clark restated her position that the Planning and Zoning Commission should retain some oversight. She said the Conditional Use Permit process can be folded into the same timeframe that Design Review occurs. Mr. Froke stated that the project team tried to do everything to meet the City's objectives, but administrative review authority has been retained in terms of particular land uses. Mr. Flaaen noted That the Council or Planning Commission could stipulate that a more intense administrative review be done by staff at the time of PAD approval. He said, while it would not provide for citizen participation, it would provide another level of review without the inherent delays found in the Conditional Use Permit process. Councilmember Martinez asked if staff would be making recommendations to the Planning Commission at its July 18th meeting. Ms. Hood said the Planning Commission had received staff's report, including their analysis, recommendations, and recommended stipulations. She noted that the Council's packet for the following week would not include the Commission's recommended stipulations. She said they would be distributed in a separate memo. The meeting recessed for a short break. In response to Councilmember Martinez' question, Ms. Hood explained that the applicant would be required to go back through the Citizen Participation Process and to the Planning Commission and the Council for approval if the mix of programmed uses was changed by more than 50%. Councilmember Clark asked if the 50% change in the mix of programmed uses referred to the entire project or each district. Ms. Hood stated that it would be for the entire project. She confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the loft apartments do not count towards the 15% housing or in the 30% employment generating uses. Councilmember Clark asked if they would be included in the housing or employment generating uses if the loft apartments were changed into freestanding facilities. Ms. Hood responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Lieberman asked how many employees they anticipated having at the development. He pointed out that these employees will affect the amount of parking needed. Mr. Colson said the parking studies which were conducted anticipated all of the facility's needs, including residential, office, employees, entertainment, and retail. He said they believed the project, as proposed, meets the requirements. He clarified that the parking garages would intensify, not necessarily increase, the amount of parking, allowing for more development to take place. He offered to provide Councilmember Lieberman with the number of employees they anticipated having in the retail and residential zones. 11 Councilmember Frate pointed out the fact that employees do not all work at the same time. Councilmember Clark noted that Exhibit 4 states there will be shared parking only between Office and Retail in the Entertainment District. She asked if the applicant had agreed to provide dedicated parking for the loft residential. Ms. Hood explained that the number of required parking spaces for residential has been included in the overall parking calculations, but the PAD does not state where the parking should be provided. She said, since then, the applicant has stated they would be willing to provide parking for residential units in the same building. Councilmember Clark asked what would trigger the construction of parking structures. Ms. Hood said the applicant would start building parking structures when they exceed the number of parking spaces provided in Phase I. Councilmember Clark asked if the applicant intended to seek additional surface parking in lands surrounding the project. Ms. Hood said she was not aware of any intent on the applicant's part. She noted that the PAD lists the number of required parking spaces per use. Councilmember Lieberman expressed concern about Glendale Avenue's ability to handle the increased traffic. He stated that they already encounter problems during special events at Luke Air Force Base. He stated that the Loop 101 already carries more traffic than was anticipated in its fifth year and is expected to carry more traffic in its fifth year than was originally projected in the year 2020. He said he would like to see at least one other dedicated lane. Mr. Froke stated that the consultant had reviewed the Transportation Department's trip generation assumptions, background traffic assumptions and growth assumptions for Glendale Avenue and surrounding areas. He said the consultants had recommended a substantial number of transportation improvement in the area, but felt three lanes in each direction on Glendale Avenue between 91S and 95th Avenues, along with left and right turn lanes at major intersections, would be sufficient to handle the traffic demands associated with the development and growth anticipated in the Western Area General Plan. He said they had also recommend four lanes in each direction in the area between 95th Avenue and the Loop 101 to provide extra capacity. He said the Bethany Home Road extension is a critical component of the traffic plan. He stated that it would not be possible to direct all traffic through the Glendale Avenue/Loop 101 interchange. He noted that additional access and capacity on Northern Avenue will likely be necessary. Councilmember Lieberman statnd that he would like to see four lanes, plus bus stops and turn lanes, from 99th to 91 S Avenues. Mr. Froke said the analysis performed does not substantiate the need for a fourth lane. He noted, however, that bus bays are included in the PAD. He said a fourth lane could also further detract from the pedestrian environment along Glendale Avenue. Ms. Hood stressed that they want traffic to disperse and be carried by all of the streets in the area, not just Glendale Avenue. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that the main entrance will be off of Glendale Avenue. He said future development in the area will preclude the City from being able to add a fourth lane if necessary. Ms. Hood said the traffic study shows that a portion of traffic will exit at the Camelback Road or Northern Avenue interchanges and come down 91st Avenue to access the development. Councilmember Lieberman asked if a new traffic study was conducted for the project. Ms. Hood responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Clark said there is a great deal of reliance on the West Glendale Avenue Design Plan approved in 1991. She said the 1991 plan anticipated Limited Office, a substantial amount of single family, some business park and general commercial along the freeway at 91st Avenue. She said, based on those anticipated uses, the plan proposed three lanes. She said she found it difficult to reconcile the plan's recommendation for three lanes of traffic with the traffic demands projected for 12 the proposed project. She pointed out that Bell Road is three lanes. She stated that it is a mess, especially during the holiday season. She agreed that Glendale Avenue needs to be four lanes between the Loop 101 and 91st Avenue. She stated that the project at build out is expected to generate approximately 123,000 daily trips. She said bad traffic experiences could cause people to lose interest in visiting the site. Mr. Froke reported that the traffic study was prepared in accordance with established engineering guidelines for traffic engineering analysis. He acknowledged that the assumptions made in the report are open to judgment. He stated, however, that he believed the analysis to be sound engineering. He stated that the Bethany Home interchange will be the most critical differentiation between Glendale Avenue and what currently exists or Bell Road. Mr. Froke confirmed for Councilmember Martinez that the traffic study figures reflect build out of the project and development in the western area and concludes that three lanes will be sufficient to handle the projected traffic. He stated that he and Pat Gibson, a consultant with over 40 years of experience in the development of traffic mitigation plans for similar developments, both reviewed the applicant's study. Councilmember Martinez referred to a previous situation wherein the applicant's study was found unacceptable and the Council had to ask for a second study. Councilmember Clark noted the traffic study does not recommend Maryland Avenue for completion until the property south of the applicant's develops. She asked if there was a mechanism that would allow Maryland Avenue to be fully improved by the time the arena opens. Mr. Froke said he was not aware of any mechanism that would allow the city to request or require improvement to the remaining right-of-way. Councilmember Clark asked if the City had a mechanism to acquire the future additional right-of-way needed on certain streets. Mr. Froke said he was unable to answer without knowing the specific areas referenced. Mr. Beasley said they had been careful not to talk about property acquisiticn or condemnation actions on properties that are not required at this time. Councilmember Clark asked what the level of service criteria was for unsignalized intersections. Mr, Froke stated that no set criteria was established for unsignalized intersections. He noted, however, that he would like to achieve the highest level of service possible. He said it is not unusual for unsignalized locations entering arterial streets to perform poorly and for the City to accept a Level of Service F for those movements. He explained that the resulting traffic back ups, while problematic for the development, do rot have significant impact on the operation of the street system. Mayor Scruggs asked if technical questions not related to changing the PAD could be discussed. Councilmember Clark said this was the only opportunity the Council has to consider these issues. She asked when neighborhood access and mitigation strategies would be implemented. Mr. Froke said the mitigation measures identified on Page 51 of the traffic analysis are intended for Phase One and those identified on Page 86 are required during Phase Two. Mayor Scruggs asked if the mitigation measures identified on Page 86 of the traffic analysis were the same as those identified on Page 52 of the PAD. Mr. Froke responded in the affirmative. Mr. Froke clarified for Councilmember Clark that full neighborhood traffic mitigation will be provided as part of Phase One and Phase Two development. Mayor Scruggs stated that the traffic mitigation measures identified to date will be constructed as part of 13 Phase One; however, additional measures could be identified in response to future traffic demand studies. Councilmember Lieberman questioned whether the 83rd Avenue and Bethany Home Road police and fire substation would be able to provide adequate protection to a development of this size. He suggested that they consider building the next fire station either on the subject property or at the Glendale Municipal Airport. He asked if the City still had a police station at Arrowhead Towne Center. Mr. Beasley stated that they had looked at the comprehensive area and would bring a new analysis to the Council in the future, taking into account projected development and growth within the area. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that a police and fire substation would be an asset to the development. Councilmember Clark quoted from Section 6.5. She stated that she would like the term "substantially" removed because it is subjective and can be interpreted a number of ways. Ms. Hood agreed to strike the word "substantially". Councilmember Clark asked to have the phrase "whenever possible" deleted from Section 6.7.2. She stated that it is also subjective. Councilmember Lieberman said he agreed with Councilmember Clark. Mayor Scruggs referred to a Neiman Marcus store that has no relation to pedestrian pathways or parking areas. She asked if Councilmember Clark's intention was to avoid a similar situation. With regard to Section 5.4.4E, Councilmember Clark asked what penalty would be assessed for non-compliance. Ms. Hood said a store front that is in non-compliance would be referred to the Code Enforcement Department. Councilmember Clark asked if Section F prohibits an applicant from covering their glass fronts with signage. Mayor Scruggs responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Clark said Section 5.4.5 refers to strings of bare bulbs. She noted, however, that the applicant states in Section 16.1 that annoying glare created by exposed bulbs must be avoided. Ms. Hood explained that Exhibit 16 refers to lighting for signage. Councilmember Clark asked about the urban sound system. Ms. Hood explained that the sound system would play music and announcements. She said the PAD requires that the boosters comply with minimum decibels at the property line. Councilmember Clark asked how the sound system would impact residents who are located within the proposed development. Ms. Hood said the sound system would be on the first level of retail and should not impact residents living above that level. Councilmember Clark suggested that they include a means of measuring the decibels. Ms. Hood said the sound system will be limited to 80 decibels in the Destination Retail District and 55 decibels in the Entertainment District. Councilmember Clark asked if Certificates of Adequate School Facilities had been received from the Pendergast, Peoria Union and Tolleson High School Districts. Ms. Hood said the Peoria and Pendergast School Districts indicated that they had adequate facilities. She noted, however, that the Tolleson High School District sent its form back, indicating inadequate facilities. She stated that the applicant had contacted the Tolleson High School District to explain the nature of the development. She said the applicant received a verbal response from the Tolleson High School District, stating that 14 they were comfortable with the development and the potential increase in the number of students. She noted that a written response had not as yet been received. Councilmember Clark asked if the residential component would be impacted if written confirmation of adequate facilities was not received. Ms. Hood said the Planning Commission and the City Council would determine whether the certification was significant enough to warrant reconsideration of the residential component. She clarified that the development is located in the Pendergast and Tolleson High School Districts. Councilmember Clark asked where children who live in the loft apartments would play. Ms. Hood said the Sports/Entertainment District is an urban environment and, therefore, the applicant is not proposing open space to accommodate children. She noted that the Bethany Home Linear Park is located to the south. With regard to the free-standing apartments, Councilmember Clark stated that the applicant uses all of the zoning standards for an R-5 zoning district, with the exception of building height. She said, while she appreciated the applicant's offer to buffer the apartments with garden offices, there is no guarantee as to when the garden offices will be built. She asked to have the garden offices and apartments built at the same time or, in the alterative, that the apartment height be limited to the R-5 standard of 48 feet. She stated that one of the corner stones of the Western Area General Plans is to require that 30% of the employment-generating uses be constructed before residential development begins. She said she was not comfortable granting the applicant the right to begin residential development at 10% of the total project build out. Ms. Hood said the Planning Commission had also raised concern on this issue and the applicant had informed her that they would be submitting a proposal to the City the following day to address this issue. Councilmember Frate asked how far the apartments would be from the property line and other homes. Ms. Hood estimated the distance to be 630 feet. She noted that the apartments are approximately 187 feet from 91st Avenue. She stated that the applicant prepared a site line study from a second story window on the east side of 95th Avenue, looking west. Councilmember Clark asked what the City's standard was for landscaping islands in parking areas. Ms. Hood said the City typically requires one landscaping island for every 10 parking spaces. She noted that the applicant was requesting one island for every 12 spaces. Mr. Beasley said staff had been given direction on items the Council would like addressed and will provide the requested information to the Planning Commission prior to its meeting on July 18, 2002. Mr. Ellman said people on the second floor will not be able to see into the residential neighborhood. He said he was very concerned with the number of lanes on Glendale Avenue. He said this was the reason they had hired outside experts. He stated that the signage is spectacular and they want the project to be unlike anything else ever built. Councilmember Martinez thanked Mr. Ellman for his presentation. He said his concerns were based on his previous experiences on the Council. The meeting recessed for a short break. 15 2. CITY CENTER MASTER PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Jim Colson, Economic Development Director; and Mr. James Mason, Redevelopment Manager. This was a request for the City Council to review and discuss the City Center Master Plan (CCMP), including eight recommendations from the Planning Commission and to provide staff with direction. Council initiated the CCMP project as a policy goal in 2000, directing that the 1994 downtown master plan be updated as a component of the City's General Plan, Glendale 2025. The CCMP is a long-range specific area plan, which will be incorporated into Glendale 2025. To complete this project, the City assembled 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). The CCMP is the result of the combined input of several months of work by City staff, consultants, and the Citizens Advisory Committee. The document outlines a revitalization strategy for the study area, including land use and design recommendations, a redevelopment area plan, a marketing analysis, and a financial analysis. The CCMP, when adopted, will function as a policy document and provide guidelines for the -evitalization of the study area. Planning Commission forwarded the CCMP with eight recommendations to Council on March 21, 2002. Their recommendations involved a change of boundaries, proactive code enforcement:, the Velma Teague Library building, discussion of plans for a new downtown library and transit facility, and some rephrasing suggestions. The Council and the Planning Commission held a joint workshop session on April 14, 2002. Direction was provided to bring CCMP to the Council for discussion and adoption. The Economic Development Department hosted more than a dozen public informational meetings at various locations throughout the City, at least once in each Council District and several at the Civic Center. Other opportunities for public input were provided through an informational booth at Glendale Glitters and a web-site (on- line) questionnaire. Input was received from nearly 1,000 citizens and stakeholders. The Citizens Advisory Committee held more than twenty meetings to develop and review concepts, study specific issues, conduct focus groups on various topics, and act as a "sounding board" for the concepts being developed. The City hosted a real estate practitioner's panel and invited twenty-five developers actively working in the Glendale area to review the initial concepts and provide their input. The public hearing before the Council was scheduled for May 14, 2002, but was tabled until the July 23, 2002 Council meeting. 16 In Fiscal Year 2000-2001, RNL Design was awarded a contract in the amount of $216,000 for development of the City Center Master Plan. Funds were carried over into Fiscal Year 2001-2002. The recommendation was to review and discuss the City Center Master Plan and direct staff to move forward with the public hearing on July 23, 2002. Mr. Colson said the major purpose of the CCMP is to determine the most appropriate location for approved public works projects, to identify where public funds can be best spent to generate the maximum community benefit, and to leverage optimal investment from private sector investors. He identified the following as project priorities: (1) 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) enhance parking facilities in the City Center core; (4) develop quality restaurants and evening entertainment facilities; (5) enhance public facilities; (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 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. Mr. Colson reported that, on March 21, 2002, the Planning Commission reconsidered its previous recommendations and voted 7-0 for approval of the plan, with eight recommendations for changes. Mr. Mason stated that the Planning Commission's first recommendation was that the proposed location for the library needs to be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan indicates that branch libraries will be located adjacent to parks. He pointed out the fact that the requirement to locate libraries next to parks was a policy in the 1989 General Plan, but not in the Glendale 2025 plan. Councilmember Goulet said it appeared the Planning Commission's first and eighth recommendations were diametrically opposed. Mr. Mason explained that the Commission's intention was to create a more open park and visible connection between City Hall and the Civic Center. He said the Commission agreed that a library was needed in the downtown area, but felt another location may better fit the need. He said staff feels having a central focus and a draw to the community is key to the park and fears that may not be accomplished by a large open space. Mayor Scruggs clarified that staff's recommendation with regard to the Planning Commission's first recommendation is that, while a library that better meets the needs of the residents and has easier access is needed, it should not be required to be adjacent to a park. Mr. Mason agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Councilmember Martinez pointed out that the dictionary defines "adjacent" as "not distant" or "nearby''. He said, in his opinion, the library does not have to be located right next to a park. Mr. Colson said the Planning Commission's recommendation focused on a technical return to the General Plan, which no longer exists. He said staff does not believe locating the library next to a park is necessary based on the General Plan and does not want to commit the City to having to build next to a park. He said staff also disagreed with the Planning Commission's eighth recommendation because they 17 will not know if it is in the City's best interest to tear down the Velma Teague Library until alternatives are identified in a development plan. Mr. Colson confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the Planning Commission's statement with regard to its first recommendation was no longer accurate. Mayor Scruggs suggested that they remove the Planning Commission's first recommendation, since the statement no longer exists in the General Plan. The Council voiced no objection. Councilmember Martinez asked for confirmation that a library would be located in the downtown area. Mr. Colson responded in the affirmative. He noted that certain recommendations had been made within the City Center Master PIgn with regard to the location. Mr. Mason stated that the library is currently shown at 53' Avenue and Grand Avenue in the City Center Master Plan; however, the ultimate location of all public facilities will be revisited. Mayor Scruggs asked if a stipulation could be added requiring that, as the Capital Improvement Plan and budget allow, the Velma Teague library will be relocated so as to better serve residents in the area. Mr. Colson offered to craft language that states the library will continue in its present location until a new location is identified. With regard to the Planning Commission's eighth recommendation, Mr. Colson suggested that they craft language that states the future of the Velma Teague facility will be determined at such time as the library is moved to another location. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion the Velma Teague Library should remain where it is. He said the park is an ideal location. Mayor Scruggs said staff's recommendation leaves open the possibility of keeping the library in the park or moving it elsewhere. She asked staff to craft language that allows for a new library which better serves the citizens, but that a decision regarding the fate of the Velma Teague facility not be made until the new library location is available. Mr. Mason reviewed the Planning Commission's second recommendation, to remove the downtown park-n-ride facility. He said its was staff's position that a downtown transit facility may not be an immediate necessity, but the location and feasibility should be reviewed as more direction is provided from the City's long-term transit plan. Councilmember Martinez asked if a park-n-ride facility could be developed in the future, given the language of the recommendation. Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager, said the language provides adequate flexibility should the City Council want to consider a park-n-ride facility as part of the Transit Center. Mr. Mason reviewed the Planning Commissions third recommendation, which is to change the plan area to a total of two-square miles, with 51st Avenue as the eastern boundary rather than 43rd Avenue. He said it was staff's opinion that there have been sinificant City efforts to encourage investments gnd redevelopment in the area east of 51' Avenue and that the plan should include 43tu to 51st Avenues to protect the area's future. He noted that the redevelopment area was expanded on May 14, 2002 to include 43rd Avenue. The Council supported staff's recommendation. Mr. Mason stated that the Planning Commission's fourth recommendation was to rename Neighborhood Conservation Areas as Neighborhood Improvement Areas. He said staff concurred with this recommendation. The Council agreed with Mr. Mason. 18 Mr. Mason reviewed semantic changes to Page 14 which were recommended by the Planning Commission. He said staff concurred with their recommended changes. The Council concurred with Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason said saff concurred with the Planning Commission's sixth recommendation to strike any reference to shingle siding on pages 57 and 67. The Council agreed with Mr. Mason. With regard to the Planning Commission's seventh recommendation, Mr. Mason said staff believed the future location of a performing arts center should not be removed as an option. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the Performing Arts Center is shown as having immediate potential. She stated that it does not correlate with staff's insinuation that it is an option for the future. Mr. Mason agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He offered to change the language to reflect that the Performing Arts Center is a future option. Mr. Mason reviewed additional recommendations suggested by staff. He said they wanted to provide language that is consistent with the Glendale 2025 plan, provide more definitive direction for the area east of 51st Avenue, and include in the plan a periodic review process to provide updates to the plan. Mr. Colson stated they would bring the City Center Master Plan back to the Council's next meeting. 3. ANNEXATION REQUEST - PEORIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT The Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) has submitted a formal request for annexation of approximately 60 acres of land located south of the southeast corner of 91st and Northern Avenues. Two parcels are included in the annexation request. Both of these parcels are owned by PUSD. Approximately 40 acres are intended for a high school and the remaining 20 acres is intended for an elementary school. The high school site is located at the northeast corner of 91st Avenue and the Orangewood Avenue alignment. The elementary school site is located at the northeast corner of the 89t Avenue alignment and the Orangewcod Avenue alignment. PUSD is currently developing plans for the construction of a new high school on the 40- acre parcel. The PUSD request has been presented to the City's Property Acquisition Team and no concerns were noted. All those involved with the development of the schools have been notified of this meeting. There are no direct costs associated with the annexation of these parcels. The costs of infrastructure will be borne by the property owner during the planning, design, and construction of the school facilities. 19 The recommendation was to direct staff to initiate the formal annexation process with the recording of the blank annexation petition. Mr. Flaaen suggested that this matter be brought forward at the next available Council meeting, at which time staff would receive direction. Council had no objection to removing this item from the agenda. 4. COUNCIL REDISTRICTING On June 18, 2002, National Demographics Corporation (NDC) provided the Council an overview of their proposed Glendale redistricting criteria and timeline for the 2002 Redistricting Process. The Council directed staff to use NDC's proposed Redistricting Criteria throughout the redistricting process as a guideline for seeking Department of Justice pre-cleara Ice approval. Today, NDC will be discussing the proposed citizen information kits, which will be distributed at public meetings and available to citizens throughout the redistricting process. The kits include information regarding redistricting and will allow citizens to actively participate throughout the entire process. In addition, NDC will also be presenting three alternative boundary concepts that will be included in the redistricting kit. On February 9, 1988, Glendale voters approved the creation of six Council election districts for the City of Glendale. The City must redistrict its boundaries at least every ten years according to the Glendale City Code, Section 15-2 (Redistricting). The purpose of redistricting is to ensure that Glendale has approximately the same number of persons in each Council election district. The City updated its six Council boundaries in 1992 and 1996. Due to the growth in Glendale, as reported in the 2000 Census, election district boundaries need to be adjusted to bring them into population balance. NDC provided their first update on the City of Glendale's 2002 Redistricting Plan to the Council on June 13, 2002. On April 17, 2001 a presentation was made to the Council, asking for their direction to fund NDC's proposal, retain legal services by Mr. Greg Jernigan, and fund a public information campaign. The purpose of the public information campaign is to ensure that residents and other community stakeholders are included in the redistricting process and provided adequate notice of the new boundaries. The public information campaign, which will include community meetings, will utilize the City's cable channel, newsletters, website, meeting hotline, news release, and media advisories, as well as newspaper advertising to publicize the Council redistricting process and opportunities for citizen participation. The City of Glendale 2002 Redistricting Plan is budgeted as a one-time appropriation of $94,500 to cover the costs of hiring professional consultants to complete this task. 20 The recommendation was to review National Demographics Corporation's proposed citizen information kits and the three alternative boundary concepts and provide staff with direction. Mayor Scruggs removed this item from the agenda. She explained that the Council had met individually with the redistricting consultants and City staff regarding the citizen redistricting kit. The Council had no objection to removing this item from the agenda. 5. DRAFT ANNEXATION POLICY CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; and Ms. Kate Langford, Senior Planner. The purpose of this workshop item was to provide background information on annexation in general, Glendale's annexation activity since incorporation in 1910, and to begin developing an Annexation Policy for the City. Annexation is a mechanism by which many positive things can be accomplished: 1. Effective growth management; 2. Allowing for efficient planning and provision of services; 3. Ensuring high-quality development in accordance with City adopted standards; 4. Creation of a stronger community; 5. Social and economic benefits for the City; and 6. Management and implementation of the City's long-range planning efforts, such as the Transportation Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and the Glendale 2025 (General Plan). The opening of the Loop 101 in the western portion of Glendale, the announcement of the 228 acre mixed-use development at the southeast corner of the Loop 101 and Glendale Avenue, and the Rovey Farm Estates Planned Residential Development are examples of the magnitude of increased development interest that is now occurring in the western area of Glendale. There are approximately 1500+ acres within the western area that have not been annexed into the City. These 1500+ acres are currently in Maricopa County's jurisdiction. Any development that occurs on these County parcels is constructed to meet County requirements. Land use is determined by the County's Comprehensive Plan, not the City's General Plan. Therefore, it is important that land in the City's western area comply with City ordinances and meet City's infrastructure requirements. Annexation is important to current citizens to ensure efficient and economic facilities and services that do not overburden the City resources. This is anticipated to be the first of three workshops addressing the development of an Annexation Policy. The basic framework for this discussion about an annexation policy was taken from City Council comments over the last two years during various discussions on specific annexations or on annexation requests. 21 In the future, additional workshops will be held with the City Council to develop the Annexation Policy. After conclusion of the Annexation Policy workshops, staff will hold a public meeting for public input. The draft annexation policy will be placed on the City web site, with the ability for residents and other interested parties to contact staff. There are no direct costs associated with the development of the annexation policy. The recommendation was to provide direction to staff regarding the development of Glendale's Annexation Policy and identify additional issues to be addressed at the second workshop where a draft policy will be presented for discussion. Ms. Langford explained that annexation is the action by which cities increase their geographical area. She said annexation authority comes from Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 9 — Cities and Towns. She reviewed maps showing the areas incorporated into the City of Glendale in 1910,1970, 1980, 1990, and 1999, as well as three annexations that were acted upon last month. She discussed the reasons why cities choose to annex: (1) to realize a municipality's goals; (2) to enhance the community; (3) growth management; (4) to implement a city's long range plans; (5) to strengthen a city's economic base; and (5) to ensure that development meets municipal standards. With regard to the reasons why the City of Glendale should annex, Ms. Langford stated that annexation will help the City manage the development of the Western Glendale/Loop 101 area, protect the community's investment in the Western Area, and ensure that new development meets the community's land use expectations and construction standards. She stated that an annexation policy provides a consistent methodology for making annexation decisions, assists with growth management, helps the City achieve reasonable and responsible urban development; ensures that the big picture is considered; and allows for efficient planning and provision of services. She said, in order to provide a consistent methodology for making annexation decisions, annexation requests will be approached in two distinct ways: (1) annexation of the remaining unincorporated areas east of 115th Avenue will be addressed proactively by the City; and (2) annexation west of 115th Avenue, with the exception of Luke Air Force Base, will not actively be pursued at this time. Ms. Langford noted that the Council could review suggested annexation categories, clarify provision of services, and evaluate options to address infrastructure deficiencies at the next Workshop. She said the following Workshop would focus on the review and discussion of the Draft Annexation Policy, incorporating and addressing Council comments. She said staff will ask for direction for preparation of the final policy at that time. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Ms. Langford explained that they had not included the entire municipal planning area because staff felt it would be most prudent to discuss it in an annexation policy, with the understanding there would be different conditions throughout the City. Vice Mayor Eggleston pointed out that the City has predominantly annexed undeveloped land over the past 20 years. Mr. Ernster agreed. He stated that they would be suggesting different policies for developed and non-developed areas. Councilmember Lieberman said the City will need to annex land if it hopes to manage growth. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. 22