Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/28/2009 *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. 'i I III GLENDr Minutes of the GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL— SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP SESSION ASU Decision Theater 21 East 6th Street, Suite 126A Tempe,Arizona 85287 Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:00 p.m. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Manuel D. Martinez, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David Crummey M. Goulet, and Yvonne J. Knaack ABSENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs and H. Phillip Lieberman ALSO PRESENT: Pam Kavanaugh, Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. CENTERLINE PRESENTATION BY DR. NABIL KAMEL'S ASU DESIGN STUDIO PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Dr. Nabil Kamel, ASU Design Studio, Mr. Dick Bowers, R.A. Bowers & Associates and ASU Students. Pursuant to City Council direction, this is a presentation to the City Council regarding the City Council's efforts to enhance the vitality of the Glendale Avenue Corridor and create a vibrant city center. The Revitalization Strategy addresses several Council Strategic Goals, which include the following: o Strong neighborhoods o Quality economic development o Vibrant city center o A city that is fiscally sound At the Glendale City Council Goal Review and Strategic Planning Retreat held on November 26, 2007, the Council discussed key objectives and goals for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. The primary objective identified by the Council was a desire to create a clear vision for redevelopment and revitalization within the city. Aspects included in this objective are a focus on infill development throughout the city and creating a vision and action for downtown Glendale. Mr. Bowers introduced the item and provided an overview of the project. He explained how the presentation will show the students' mind bending and provocative ideas, as well as the customary designs. He indicated they will be shown a 20 minute slide presentation addressing several designs. He introduced Dr. Nabil Kamel and the ASU students who will be presenting the item followed by comments or questions. Dr. Kamel thanked the Council and staff for this great opportunity. He stated that the students have learned a lot and were glad for the opportunity to interact with staff to address issues that have real life implications not only specific to Glendale. He stated it had been a great pleasure working with everyone on the project. He discussed the issue of urban design and how it has become a significant topic of late. Dr. Kamel explained how he started one of the first studios for urban design and has done work for other cities such as Surprise, Phoenix and now Glendale. He indicated their goal was to develop an urban design concept that was practical in addition to fitting with the demographics and issues facing Arizona. He reported on survey feedback received from planning, residents and the business community. He explained these surveys had been very useful in assessing the need for more public space, evening activities, housing diversity and support from local businesses. He noted another important factor found was that most people cherish the character and personality of Glendale. He stated that because of this fact, they tried to offer ideas relating to the city's character and appeal. He indicated the types of projects seen today try to energize the strengths and reverse the weaker aspects. He stated they will accomplish this by emphasizing the idea of offering economic, culture, social and educational opportunities. He explained their plan was to move away from generic developments, since those are the one that suffer during down times as opposed to local ownership. He introduced the ASU students who will be presentation: Aaron Legendre, Edward Scheletsky, David Crummey, Michael Oconnor, and Pushkaraj Ram Parakar. Mr. Aaron Legendre provided a PowerPoint presentation on the assessment and research of the project. He explained the downtown area's history, culture, historic neighborhoods, agriculture and landmarks. He noted the three mile long site had presented a lot of challenges and opportunities for the students. He explained how their research of Glendale's history started to play into their design ideas. He remarked that they had studied the existing building heights, size, and open spaces. He discussed the street patterns and opportunities on Grand Avenue, downtown districts and multi-family homes. He presented ideas on low and high density and the conflict of some land uses. Mr. David Crummey continued discussing height density. He stated the places with the highest density were in the downtown area's historic core. They assessed the existing zoning ordinances in the area, which were very segregated. He remarked they had also assessed parking, which 2 was comprised of approximately 2,500 spaces. They also examined public and semi-public space. He stated the conclusion was a lack of general public space. The students made several site visits in the morning, afternoon and evening to assess people in the area on the weekdays and weekends. He stated most people were at bus stops and in the center of town on the weekdays. There was more activity on the weekends; however, it was mostly on the edges of the project area, especially around schools and parks. He noted there were not many people in the downtown area. He stated they had also analyzed all the existing events and almost all take place in the same quarter mile. Therefore, they were limited in space. He explained that over all, they had broken it down into three general categories. The west side being the most vibrant, the central area as being the most promising with great physical space and the east side as being a retracting area for opportunity for redevelopment. He noted the east area had the most lots for redevelopment. The goal for this project was to energize the center area where they have great spaces. In addition, they need to increase pedestrian friendly amenities to enhance the current community character and emphasize Glendale's identity. Other goals are to connect neighborhoods, create an east gateway to Phoenix and the western transition to Glendale, as well as increasing the educational economic development base. Mr. Crummey stated the students had assessed the center of Glendale and the small commercial hub within it. They were encouraged and wanted to add a mix-use element to bring people into where the commercial activity was happening. The objective is to have a twenty-four hour day where people were in the same space all day, and not disappear at night. They also want to encourage the development of civic spaces and find opportunities to relocate public space as was being done with the new court building. He discussed other opportunities in neighborhoods such as high tech industrial parks and educational centers. He stated they had also looked at general improvements to the area, such as general roadway improvements, street landscaping and widening sidewalks to transform Centerline Glendale. The alleyways in Glendale are unique features that present great opportunities. He discussed the large network of alleyways that can be transformed to more vibrant areas where commerce can take place instead of just having a public throughway. He noted they encourage alternative forms of transportation, other than cars, so people's experience can be more inviting. He stated they also recommend adding mediums to make it safer for pedestrians, specifically along the east and west side. Mr. Crummey discussed expanding cultural activities using sites such as Glendale High School. This takes advantage of the excellent performance of the school and attempts to improve other schools in the area. As a result, it creates a community education facility that not only looks at the "three R's" but also branches out to other areas. He stated they can also incorporate community organic farms where a community or individuals can grow food for many families. This could possibly be done through the Parks and Recreation Department. He also explained areas where they can bring back the arts using local galleries. He indicated the first phase would improve roads, parking lots, encourage development and increase density until the desired density is reached. Mr. Edward Scheletsky summarized their analysis on Glendale's potential. He indicated that the Sugar Beet Factory was a substantial piece with a rich historic value, as well as a promising potential that will help the city become revitalized in this area. The idea is to take the Sugar Beet Factory, revamp it and give it new life. Their idea is to turn the factory into a museum of 3 modern art, infusing modern art on the inside with the historic preservation aspect on the outside. This will embrace the past, present and the future. The idea is to allow the Sugar Beet Factory to be seen from the main street, while allowing it to have a new presence with new gallery spaces for local artists. He noted that the rear of the factory will be restored to incorporate a school for after school programs for the community or possibly collaborate with colleges to host programs. The front area will feature a commercial aspect that ties into the art facet, as well as using the space for a parking lot or gallery space. Mr. Michael Oconnor explained the area around the new court building and what they were trying to accomplish. He explained the major aspect of this project was to create a pedestrian friendly environment that serves a purpose for the whole site. He explained there were very few grocery markets in the area and they proposed utilizing buildings for that purpose. He added another major area was creating a centralized parking garage. This will help accomplish a center point for pedestrians and residents using the site. He explained the aspect of a Recreational Center that can also be used by communities outside this area. This will tie in with residential neighborhoods, mix-use developments and commercial properties to the north. He presented a side slide of what they have envisioned for the area. Mr. Scheletsky stated that the next area of study was the actual Centerline Project on the intersection of Glendale Avenue and Grand Avenue. He discussed the idea of making the area a more flexible space. He stated their analysis shows there was no activity outside the library area with most people being inside the buildings. They proposed removing the existing library and turning it into a new community library center that will invigorate the area and have it become more utilized. They proposed having the community and library center next to Glendale Avenue to help engage the street and create a public space that is also flexible for the amphitheater. The flexibility can be utilized by using shade structures and canopies that can be easily moved according to the needs of the public and the activities. Mr. Pushkaraj Ram Paradkar remarked on the landscaping that will help lead people in certain directions. He explained the utilization of public buildings and spaces. He also reported on the east side of 43rd Avenue and Glendale. They proposed increasing the density and creating a more walkable environment, as well as incorporating the educational element. He explained how there was more residential and mix-use developments to the west, which were already established. Mr. Scheletsky explained that by establishing a place which increases the opportunities for residents to enjoy some of the walkable environments, it creates a strong access and connection. It also increases retail development and helps revitalize the community back to the Centerline project itself. He stated the west transition involves the community and brings outlets for their needs. He indicated that another key element was to increase the multi-family and affordable housing which provides for a distinct favor, as opposed to the other districts geared toward education. This opportunity is geared toward urban farming and the Hispanic culture that is already alive in the area. It also will provide public spaces for events and retail. He ended the presentation and asked for any comments or questions. 4 Mr. Bowers asked for clarification on the development opportunities discussed pertaining to the south of Glendale Avenue and west of Grand Avenue. He asked if their proposal was to develop a library or a civic mall concept or both. Mr. Scheletsky explained that in his view, they may possibly develop two very specific use concepts that cater to the community's different needs. He added the two projects were created separately, although can be used together. Mr. Bowers asked if it was acceptable that these two ideas possibly contradicted each other. The students replied, yes. Mr. Scheletsky added the idea was to come away with the prospect that these were all very possible solutions. Councilmember Frate remarked he always believed that not having the current library there would open up a large green space for civic events. He stated the library was outdated and could be relocated. Mr. Bowers commented that the students were possibly in agreement with him since no one asked for it to remain there. He mentioned the possibility of closing the street to the east. Vice Mayor Martinez asked how they had arrived at the idea of multi-family housing to the west side. Mr. Schelesky stated the idea was to incorporate both the south and east, which was currently mobile housing, and to transition the space and to allow mix-uses. Councilmember Clark commented on Grand Avenue not being made more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Oconnor explained a better alternative on the design map. Additionally, another proposal was to remove a turning lane, which would slow things down and allow people to linger more. Councilmember Clark questioned the sidewalk widening when they have very little space to work with. Mr. Oconnor stated that in the historic district, it would be difficult; however, further along the street there were new opportunities. Councilmember Clark commented that increasing the density will bring additional families and children. She asked if they had envisioned any pockets for parks where kids can go for recreation. Mr. Schelesky replied that all their project developments mandate public space on new growth. He noted they had also envisioned bringing back splash parks into the area. Mr. Bowers thanked Dr. Kamel and students for a great presentation. The Council also thanked them for the presentation. As there was no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. 5