Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 4/6/2004 (5) * 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 April 6, 2004 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; Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1 . PUBLIC ART FOR FIELD OPERATIONS CENTER CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Dr. Kathleen Goeppinger, Arts Commission Chair; Mr. Rex Gulbranson, Deputy Director, and Ms. Cyndi Coon, Public Art Coordinator This is a request for the City Council to review and provide direction for the public art project for the new Field Operations Center. By ordinance the Glendale Arts Commission makes recommendations to the City Council on public art acquisitions for buildings, parks and other capital projects. The Field Operations Center project meets the standards established by the public art ordinance. This project came about initially through a request made by the Field Operations Department to partner with the Glendale Arts Commission to enhance the public face of the new Field Operations Center along Grand Avenue. The concept approved by the Arts Commission on July 16, 2003 was to utilize a 700- foot cinder block perimeter wall for the art feature. The theme for this project is to celebrate the contributions of the Field Operations employees to the Glendale community. The Arts Commission approved Steven Wietzman as the project artist on February 18, 2004. Weitzman is from Brentwood, Maryland. He has an extensive background in the 1 public art field nationally and has particular expertise in the area of transportation enhancements. The wall includes four curved sections and three straight sections each 100-feet long. Steven Weitzman's art feature incorporates four corten steel silhouettes of Field Services employees on the curved sections of the wall, each approximately eight feet tall. To break up the space on the wall, he also will incorporate glass block in geometric patterns. Other materials in the wall are not the responsibility of the artist. This project impacts the City of Glendale and our residents by placing public art along Grand Avenue. It will enhance and beautify the Field Operations Center, currently under construction. This project will further enhance the historic downtown area as a gateway attraction for tourists and residents alike. The Arts Commission approved a budget of $110,500 with a contingency of $16,575 or $127,075 for this project. Funding for the project comes from the Art Levy. Grants ' Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total Expense Cost $127,075 $127,075 Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number: 70-9700-8320 The Public Art Program solicited applications from artists nationally. Forty-eight applications were received from artists from 20 states. A selection panel comprised of the architect and representatives from the Arts Commission and Field Operations was convened to review applications. The panel narrowed the field to five artists for interviews before selecting Steven Weitzman as the recommended artist. The recommendation was that the City Council review the artist concept and direct staff to bring the contract forward for formal approval with Artist Steven Weitzman. Councilmember Goulet asked if the wall would be retrofit with glass blocks. Dr. Goeppinger said the glass blocks would be placed into the wall as the wall is constructed. She clarified the art pieces will be permanently attached to the wall, but not lit for budgetary reasons. Councilmember Martinez asked about the headless worker. Dr. Goeppinger explained it is the artist's interpretation and is intended to focus people's attention on the long shadow cast by the arizona sun. Councilmember Frate asked if the silhouette would be attached to the wall. Dr. Goeppinger responded yes. Councilmember Frate asked with which other cities has the artist worked. Dr. Goeppinger assured the Council Mr. Weitzman is a very 2 accomplished artist, offering to make his resume available for review if so desired. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion the project will be wonderful, stating the headless worker shows the artist's creativity. She expressed concern about the dark brown color of the designs, stating they will be placed on a dark brown wall. She asked if more contrast could be created between the designs and the wall. She said, while she really likes the idea of the glass blocks, she is concerned the opaque glass will not show up very well. She asked if the artist has given any consideration to using colored glass. Dr. Goeppinger said the artist has assured the Commission that the silhouette will stand out. She stated the artist is confident the opaque glass will be noticeable because the light will pass through. She explained the opaque glass was specifically chosen because it will be easier to clean and not as easily vandalized with graffiti. Councilmember Martinez stated he likes the earth tones. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion the artwork is beautiful. He suggested they remove the Moose Lodge sign. Mayor Scruggs directed the Commission to bring the contract forward for approval at the Council's next regular meeting. She thanked the members of the Commission for their hard work and dedication. 2. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT EXPECTATIONS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernester, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director, and Ms. Tracy Stevens, Senior Planner Mayor Scruggs was called away from the meeting. This is a request for City Council to review and provide direction on a portion of the draft Residential Design and Development Expectations. Staff will review the multi-family residential component of the document. The single-family residential component was most recently presented at the February 17, 2004, City Council workshop. The updated document will provide a tool for City Council, Planning Commission, staff, and the development community to use during the design review process. The document will guide quality development and ensure diverse multiple residence housing is developed throughout the city. The multi-family component of the document clearly outlines the city's expectations for all new multi-family developments during the rezoning, platting, and design review processes. The intent of the multi-family component of the document is to enhance the appearance of all future multi-family developments, provide enhanced amenities for future residents, respect the scale and character of future projects as they relate to adjacent residential neighborhoods, create multiple residence projects that are compatible with adjacent uses, and provide enhanced landscape and buffering. 3 The document updates and combines the 1996 Multiple-Residence Housing Design Guidelines with the single-family components, which were discussed at previous City Council workshops. The Multi-Family section of the document encourages a greater variety of architectural style, upgraded building materials, and open space and amenities for multi-family developments. The Council received a preliminary draft of the expectations in June 2003. On May 8, June 12, July 10, August 14, September 11 and 24, 2003 staff discussed the draft expectations at Planning Commission workshops. The expectations were also presented at two formal Planning Commission meetings held August 21 and November 6, 2003. At its November 6, 2003 public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft document to the Council with amendments and a change in title to Residential Design and Development Expectations. The title change reflects an effort to be consistent with the approved Commercial Design Expectations. The Residential Design and Development Expectations were presented and discussed at the Council workshop on November 18, 2003. Topics of discussion included: • The name of the document, • The specific use of the document and how the document is perceived by the development community, • The flexibility of some of the expectations vs. definitive requirements, • Giving a higher value to some expectations rather than others, • Small lot development and traffic calming devices, • Diverse housing products, • The effect the proposed document may have on redevelopment and infill projects. Since the City Council workshop, staff has incorporated the commission's amendments and recommendation into a revised draft copy dated December 16, 2003. The Single-Family, Open Space and Amenities, House Products, and Architectural Design Review components of the document were presented and discussed at the February 17, 2004 City Council Workshop. Topics of discussion included: • The overall intent of the document as it relates to compliance with the expectations. • Whether a change in the name of the document is needed. Two suggestions were provided to staff to change the name of the document to either Residential Design and Development Manual or Residential Design and Development Standards. 4 • The number of inf ill properties remaining in the city where future Medium to High Density Residential 5-8 du/ac may develop. In order to stay current with the changing trends in development it is important to view each proposal separately taking into account unique circumstances for each subdivision or multi-family development and assessing the needs of the development and the community at the time of review. The intent of the document should be perceived as a living document that upholds key design concepts while taking into account unique circumstances that may apply to individual subdivisions or multi-family projects. The document is not intended to be the minimum standards that apply to all applications. As the city continues to grow it is important to provide key components to new residential developments that may not be applicable in all developments but serve as key design concepts in others. After previous discussion with City Council, the Planning Department recommends the name of the document be changed to Residential Design and Development Manual. The intent of the document is for staff and developers to examine all elements of the document when designing new communities and incorporates certain or all design elements outlined when pertinent to a specific project. There are currently 7,951 acres of vacant land in the city. Approximately 268 acres of the vacant land is designated for Medium-High Density Residential 5-8 du/ac. The remaining acres would allow for 1,340 to 2,144 total dwelling units. With the growth of the city and eventual build-out, there is a need to ensure greater quality in residential development citywide, and allow for creative design and diversity in the city's housing stock. The revised document will provide guidance for diverse residential development. The Planning Department has been advising developers and homebuilders of the proposed changes to the document during pre-application and post-application review meetings. The Planning Department held three meetings with the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona to discuss the updated draft and provided their representative with a copy of the draft document. A letter received from the Home Builders Association requesting a revision to the document is included with this report. The Planning Department has met with the Arizona Multi-Housing Association to discuss the minor changes made to the Multi-family section of the guidelines and the incorporation of the document into the Residential Design and Development Expectations. 5 Other interested parties notified of the proposed draft and the changes made to the existing Single Family Residential Design Guidelines and the Multiple Residence Housing Design Guidelines include: Fulton Homes; Earl, Curley and Lagarde; Beus Gilbert PLLC, and Gilstrap and Associates. The draft document has been placed on the city's website and is available at the Development Services Center. The document will be used as part of the standard city review process. With the exception of reproduction of the final document, no additional resources will be required once the expectations are adopted. In developing this manual, staff researched current development trends, other city ordinances and guidelines, and previous projects in the City of Glendale completed by various homebuilders. City Council to provide direction to staff on any additional changes needed to the draft document. The recommendation was to seek direction from the Council on the following: 1 . Revise document and present at future City Council workshops, or 2. Revise document and prepare for future City Council meeting. 3. Change the name of the document to Residential Design and Development Manual. Councilmember Clark stated she would like to see uniformity in the quality of multi- family projects throughout the city. Councilmember Frate commented the design guidelines set the minimum standard for developers, but does not preclude developers from exceeding the guidelines if they so desire. Councilmember Martinez asked if the open space requirement includes retention area. Ms. Stevens said it is similar to the single-family requirement in that retention areas can be included in the open space. She explained retention areas could be considered open space as long as they are usable when not inundated with storm water. Councilmember Clark stated she shares Councilmember Martinez's concern about counting retention as open space, expressing her opinion doing so is a disservice to residents who live in the area. Councilmember Frate asked how long does it take for retention areas to drain. Mr. Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, stated the retention areas have to be drained within three days. 6 In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Reedy explained the size of the retention area is a volume calculation based on the amount of runoff anticipated and related to the 100 year/2 hour storm. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked about dry wells. Mr. Reedy explained water in a dry well percolates out of the well within the allotted three days and returns to the groundwater table. He noted dry wells require a state permit. Councilmember Martinez read the definition of non-usable open space, pointing out it includes open space areas used for the sole purpose of storm water retention. Councilmember Clark asked what remedy is available should the water not drain from a retention area within the required three days. Mr. Reedy said the developer would be required to correct the deficiency or, if the developer were no longer available, a new dry well would be dug to resolve the problem. He said the cost of the dry well would be born by the Homeowners Association or the property owners. In response to Councilmember Martinez's comments concerning non-usable open space, Mr. Ernster explained retention areas become usable open space when there is an opportunity to design them for recreational purposes. Councilmember Martinez suggested they modify the definition of non-usable space to reflect that exception. Mr. Ernster clarified for Councilmember Lieberman that retention areas covered with river rock would not be considered usable open space. Councilmember Clark asked why the City of Glendale is encouraging rather than requiring certain amenities, such as garages, in its attempt to develop high quality multi- family projects. Ms. Stevens said such amenities could be required. Mr. Froke pointed out most of the new complexes built in the city in the last few years have included such amenities. Councilmember Clark asked why the city is not mandating the standards it expects to achieve in Glendale, stating the city needs to force the quality to go up if it expects marginal properties to include such amenities. Councilmember Frate stated the quality of single family and multi-family development within the city has increased over the last 10 to 15 years. Councilmember Clark expressed her opinion they have improved the outer facades of the developments, but the quality of life amenities continue to remain the same. Mr. Froke disagreed, stating the multi-family developments of today differ greatly from those of the 1980's, especially in terms of density. Councilmember Clark agreed the developments have much lower densities, stating, however, there is a lot more to quality of life. Councilmember Martinez pointed out amenities is market driven, expressing his opinion the city's standards have been raised over the years. Councilmember Goulet agreed with Mr. Froke, stating the standards have been greatly enhanced during his tenure on the Council. He pointed out gated communities were uncommon ten years ago. He acknowledged not all developments will be equal in terms of amenities, stating, however, they will offer a lot of quality for their market. 7 Councilmember Clark explained she wants to raise the bar and push developers to achieve an even higher level of quality. Mr. Froke assured Councilmember Clark that, regardless of the location within the city, they strive for the best possible project. Mayor Scruggs returned to the meeting. Councilmember Goulet commented on the abruptness with which trends can change, asking if the guidelines will enable the city to deal with future trends that place residential above retail. Mr. Froke stated they had extensive discussions on the issue with the Arizona Multi-Family Housing Association who indicated they would like to work with the city through a PAD process on that type of housing product. Councilmember Clark expressed concern about creating walkways between subdivisions and apartment complexes. She also expressed concern about the minimum size of the landscape buffers, suggesting they should require the same setback as is required along Glendale Avenue. She questioned the advisability of allowing apartment complexes to provide street side parking. Ms. Stevens explained the intent of the walkways is to provide for safe movement between a multi-family development and schools or parks located within a subdivision development. She clarified parking adjacent to the street does not mean cars can park on the street, explaining they will be limited to within the confines of the development. She said a 25- foot landscape buffer and a screen wall would be used to screen vehicles parked along the perimeter of any property. Ms. Stevens said they could require a minimum setback of 30 feet on arterial streets and 15 feet on collector streets if Council so desires. Councilmember Clark said, while she had hoped the issues she brought forward would have been resolved differently, she likes 90 percent of the design guidelines. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to bring the Multi-Family Development component of the document forward to Council for adoption. 3. 2004 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Miryam Gutier, Intergovernmental Programs Director and Ms. Dana Tranberg, Intergovernmental Coordinator. This standing workshop item provides an opportunity to update the City Council on legislative bills and issues that may impact the city and that may also require immediate policy direction. Intergovernmental Programs staff will present an update of legislative bills, which have received policy direction from the Council. Staff will focus its presentation on four key bills: HB2400 — Vested Rights; HB2134 — Natural Gas Storage; HB2605/HB2140 — Military Preservation; and HB2141 —Aux. Fields 1. The first legislative agenda for 2004 was provided to Council during the January 20, 2004 workshop and included staff recommendations on general legislative policy 8 issues. Council provided policy direction on the Glendale legislative agenda. The second legislative update was provided at the February 17th workshop and included all of the bills, which staff determined would have significant impacts to the City of Glendale. Council provided policy direction on each legislative bill included in the report. The third legislative update, presented at the March 2nd workshop, included neighborhood related bills for consideration and direction by Council. Council provided policy direction on those bills. The key principles of Glendale's legislative agenda are to preserve and enhance the city's ability to deliver quality and cost-effective services to Glendale citizens and visitors, to address quality of life issues for Glendale citizens, and to enhance the City Council's ability to serve Glendale citizens by retaining local decision making authority and maintaining fiscally balanced revenue sources. The recommendation was to review the Legislative Update Report and provide staff with policy direction on the items presented. Ms. Gutier explained HB 2605 stated as the Military Task Force's recommendation, however, it has since gone through many amendments and stakeholder meetings to provide landowners with assurances there will be no further regulations on the land around the military airport. She said the latest version of the bill calls for a pre-review by the Attorney General's Office and requires political subdivisions or counties to put noise contours within their general plans if they have land in the high noise or accident potential zone. She said the amended bill also adds ancillary military facilities and applies the same noise contours that apply around Luke Air Force Base. She explained the bill is based on the appraised value of land for purchase, noting $27 million was approved by the federal government to purchase land for the protection of land or development rights around Luke Air Force Base in particular. She stated the Military Affairs Commission established by the Governor is supposed to determine what happens to the military installation funds. She said the bill changes the makeup of the Commission by allowing the Senate and House to each choose three members and the Governor to choose the remaining nine members. She stated funding for purchasing land surrounding military installations will total $3.5 million per year or five percent of the income tax derived from military personnel, whichever is greatest. Ms. Gutier recommended Council support the bill. It was the consensus of City Council to support the bill. Ms. Tranberg reported HB 2400 Vested Property Rights was scheduled to be heard in the Senate Committee last week, but was held on request of the bill's sponsor. She said it is now scheduled for a hearing tomorrow morning. Councilmember Clark requested an update on the El Paso Natural Gas bill. Ms. Gutier stated the bill passed out of Senate Natural Resources last week and out of Rules yesterday. She said a Rules Attorney in the Senate made some technical amendments to the bill, which means the bill, will return to the House. She explained the bill would next go to the committee as a whole on Thursday. She said they do not anticipate any issues with the bill, noting there is overwhelming support in the Senate. 9 In response to councilmember Martinez's question, Ms. Tranberg reported the Eminent Domain bill failed in the Senate Government Committee last week. She stated HB 2539 was amended today in the Senate Government Committee, removing the requirement for cities to pay attorney's fees in a condemnation case unless for an owner occupied residence. Councilmember Frate asked about HB2570. Ms. Tranberg stated HB 2570 passed the Senate and is on its way to the Governor. Ms. Gutier reported 27 of the 49 bills they brought to Council's attention are dead and they are nearing the end of Committee hearings, noting Conference Committee meetings are supposed to start on April 16. Councilmember Martinez asked about HB 2455. Ms. Tranberg said they were unable to address issues concerning federal fair housing, therefore, the bill is not moving forward. In response to Councilmember Frate's question, Ms. Gutier said they are doing well so far this session, however, they will continue to watch HB 2539. She said two additional bills will be brought forward at the next Council meeting, the first concerning cable licensing and the second regarding first responder. Councilmember Lieberman asked for an update on HB2400. Ms. Tranberg said they have been communicating with the Legislature and with neighborhoods through the Neighborhood Partnership Office to make them aware of the bill. Ms. Gutier stated the bill is expected to die because the sponsor of the bill has decided to hold it and it will not be heard in committee tomorrow. 4. COUNCIL ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Cathy Gorham, Director of City Manager Relations This is the quarterly opportunity for City Councilmembers to identify topics of interest they would like the City Manager to research and assess for placement on a future workshop agenda. In Fall 2002, Council approved a procedural guideline allowing for topics of special interest to be identified quarterly. The initial assessment of each item requires staff time. The recommendation was to identify items of special interest that Council wants the City Manager to assess. Councilmember Goulet asked staff to look into a site-specific anti-cruising ordinance. He also commented on health and safety issues concerning vendors selling food products from bicycles. He suggested staff also consider an ordinance that would limit the level of volume for vendors who play music. He said he would like to revisit the go- ped ordinance, noting he receives three to four complaints a month. He further 10 suggested they look at implementing an overlay in the downtown pedestrian retail area to deal with businesses that choose to come into the area to ensure quality is maintained. Councilmember Frate suggested something be done to address the location and poor condition of free newspaper stands. Councilmember Clark said, given that the city will be host to the Fiesta Bowl and the Super Bowl, she believes the Welcome to Glendale signs should be redesigned. Councilmember Lieberman asked if food vendors are required to obtain a health permit. He suggested the Welcome to Glendale signs include "Proud Home of Luke Air Force Base". ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. 11