Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/19/2010 (3) *PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops,Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. .',7p, Ilj I GLENDE MINUTES OF THE GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION Council Chambers—Workshop Room 5850 West Glendale Avenue October 19,2010 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Steven E. Frate and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, David M. Goulet, Yvonne J. Knaack, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez, ALSO PRESENT: Ed Beasley, City Manager; Horatio Skeete, Interim Assistant City Manager; Craig Tindall, City Attorney; and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk 1. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ZTA09-02: GLENDALE CENTERLINE OVERLAY DISTRICT CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director This is a request for City Council to provide guidance concerning the proposed Glendale Centerline Overlay District (overlay district). The proposed changes to the zoning ordinance, if adopted, would add an overlay district. The proposed overlay district is consistent with Council's goal of one community with a vibrant city center. The proposed changes could facilitate private business investment,job creation, and the development of shopping and recreation opportunities in the Centerline. The proposed overlay district is also consistent with the Council goal of one community with quality economic development, as it will provide more development options for businesses wanting to locate in the Centerline area. It was recognized that the city's existing pedestrian retail zoning district, which is the zoning district in Historic Downtown, east and south of Murphy Park and extending east along Glendale Avenue to 57th Avenue, could serve as the basis for an alternative set of development standards for the entire Centerline area. 1 The overlay district provides an alternative set of development standards to encourage development, redevelopment, and implementation of the Glendale Centerline initiative. Within the Centerline area, existing single-family neighborhoods will be preserved, and are proposed to be excluded from the overlay district. Character areas identified in the overlay district provide flexibility to implement unique development standards. The goal of the overlay district is to provide an alternative set of land uses and development standards in addition to the land uses and development standards within the existing zoning districts. The overlay district land use standards shall serve only as an alternative to the existing land uses and development standards and shall not be combined with any land use or development standard in an existing zoning district. The overlay district proposes to permit commercial development without setbacks, except when located next to residential, as the existing Historic Downtown along Glendale Avenue was developed. The overlay district will allow greater heights in commercial areas, more floor area, and mixed use development. On August 5, 2010, the request was initiated at the Planning Commission Workshop and was recommended for approval at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Council discussed the overlay district at their workshop on December 1, 2009. The overlay district was developed by staff with input from representatives of the following departments: Building Safety, City Attorney, City Manager, Code Compliance, Community Partnerships, Economic Development, Marketing & Communications, and Planning during April 2009. The overlay district will provide opportunities to revitalize and redevelop the city's main corridor and namesake street, Glendale Avenue. The overlay district will create flexible development standards to support development or redevelopment of small and irregular parcels of land. The existing zoning within the overlay district will remain in effect, and development can take place either utilizing the standards of the overlay district, or the standards of the existing zoning district. New and existing property owners will have new zoning options available to them, providing for more flexibility during the development process. These new zoning opportunities will provide the necessary redevelopment tools to attract new business, revitalize existing businesses, and create housing options. 2 On August 5, 2010, the request was initiated at the Planning Commission Workshop and was recommended for approval at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Staff has made several presentations to introduce the overlay district to the community: o On July 15, 2010, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Glendale Star for the August 5, 2010, Planning Commission Public Hearing. Additionally, on July 16, 2010, notification postcards of the public hearing were mailed to 59 property owners on the Interested Parties List in the Cactus and Ocotillo Districts as well as the Interested Parties on the City-Wide Additional Notification List. o On July 1, 2010, staff, as the applicant, mailed 59 notification letters to property owners listed as Interested Parties in the Cactus and Ocotillo Districts and all other individuals on the City-Wide Additional Notification List. o On June 24, 2010, staff presented the overlay district to the Board of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce. o On March 17, 2010, staff presented the overlay district to the Glendale Centerline Business Alliance Board. The Alliance Board requested that the integrity of the existing Catlin Court Planned Area Development (PAD) be preserved. As a result of this meeting, the Catlin Court and adjacent PADs were removed from the proposed overlay district. o On January 20, 2010, staff met with representatives from the Glendale Centerline Business Alliance to seek their input with the overlay district. o On January 14, 2010 and January 28, 2010, staff met with Irwin Pasternak Associates and Butler Design Group Architects who have recently developed and/or designed buildings in Glendale. Both design firms support the overlay district. Staff is seeking guidance from Council to continue with the zoning text amendment process for the Glendale Centerline Overlay District and bring this item forward for a public hearing and possible adoption as an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance. Mr. Jon Froke, AICP, Planning Director, presented the item. Mr. Froke provided a slide presentation of the Overlay District as well as an aerial map of the area. The Glendale Centerline Overlay District provides an alternate set of development requirements to encourage development and redevelopment within the Glendale Centerline area. This new overlay zoning district will implement the Glendale Centerline initiative. The intent is to facilitate private business investment, job creation and the development of shopping and recreational opportunities in the Centerline area. Within the Glendale Centerline Overlay District area, there are four character districts proposed: Midtown District (43rd to 51St Avenues), Beet Sugar District (515t to 55th Avenues), Historic Downtown (55th to 59th Avenues) and Market District (59th to 3 67th Avenues). He listed several other overlay districts that have been used in Glendale for over 25 years. Councilmember Lieberman asked for clarification on whether the Overlay District boundary actually starts on 43rd Avenue instead of 57th Avenue as stated on page 1. Mr. Froke replied the boundary is 43rd Avenue. He explained the document only showed the geographic boundary of the existing pedestrian retail zoning district. The Overlay District will go all the way east to 43rd Avenue and all the way west to 67th Avenue. Councilmember Goulet thanked Mr. Froke and staff for their work on this project. He noted many people were excited and greatly anticipated moving forward on this. He referred to the Performance Standards specifically to displaying products outside and inquired about handicap requirements. Mr. Froke stated staff always requires that pedestrian ways be accessible. Councilmember Goulet commented that he wanted to discuss the theory behind the demolition of older buildings. He noted that when a developer wants to move forward, a cleared lot can be an impetus. Economics precludes the city from initiating this, so do we need to look for other funding. Councilmember Goulet asked if not having cleared lots was an impediment to development. Mr. Froke responded he didn't believe this would be an impediment to redevelopment or development moving forward. He added we can create super blocks. He explained that there are properties that could be consolidated at the intersections of Grand Avenue and along Glendale Avenue. Mayor Scruggs said continuing on demolition, she saw the prospects as limited because you need someone ready to build and they need to get a building permit. She continued yet, the removal of some buildings along Glendale Avenue would improve the appearance of the area. If the city were to remove the building with the owner's permission, then we would have to provide landscaping and maintenance. Any city funding of landscaping and maintenance of such a lot would be in direct competition with the development and redevelopment of parks. Mayor Scruggs commented on three paragraphs in the document that appeared to be in conflict with each other on the process of demolishing buildings. Mr. Froke stated the bullet points listed were from the international building code. Staff will go back and work on this before they bring it back for adoption. Mayor Scruggs asked to have another workshop before bringing this back for an evening meeting. She explained there were additional questions and explanations that needed to be answered before adoption. Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, agreed and he asked that Council to continue with their questions and comments. Councilmember Clark noted that in her view, both a vacant lot and a vacant building were unsightly. Therefore, she supports item three, to demolish unsightly buildings as well as the landscaping of the vacant lot. Mayor Scruggs agreed, however, reiterated her concerns with the city maintaining the landscaping and how it might affect the city's budget. Councilmember Martinez commented there are areas in the city near downtown with lots that have been vacant for 30 or 40 years. He asked if anything could be done to strengthen code compliance to help alleviate that problem. He remarked that something had to be done about the vacate lots because they were purely eyesores. 4 Vice Mayor Frate noted how the city works with property owners to determine the correct action for demolishing a building. Mr. Froke explained that building safety determines the safety of the building and typically works with the owner on the required action. He noted they will continue to work on this item and bring it back to Council at workshop. Councilmember Goulet explained that many developers would be more inclined to redevelop an area, if they did not have to go through the expense of clearing it first. Mayor Scruggs agreed. However, she believed as written now the overlay did not allow that; it needed to be clarified. Councilmember Knaack remarked she had a problem with this project only being for newly demolished buildings and those vacant lots, when they had so many vacant lots available now. She stated it was not fair to put the entire burden on new buyers when there were property owners on the Centerline that had been there for years. She noted that as far as having a dilapidated building instead of a vacant lot, she would rather have a vacant lot. Mayor Scruggs commented that this item still needs a lot of thought. She explained the Centerline project was all about flexibility and appealing to new development; however, it seems to be doing the opposite in the way the document was worded. Councilmember Goulet asked what the city's role was in requiring property owners to develop vacant buildings. Mr. Froke stated that was part of the Business, Retention and Expansion program through the Economic Development Department consists of working with local building owners on filling vacant store fronts. Councilmember Goulet stated his concerns on mandating too much on a property owner when they are trying to lease the property. Mayor Scruggs commented that none of this applied to existing vacant lots and buildings since they are not eligible for the Overlay District zoning. Mr. Froke stated she was correct. Councilmember Clark commented on parking structures in the Overlay District. She stated as the document reads, someone interested in developing a parking garage would have to provide ground level retail. She explained one of the great concepts brought back from their Discovery Tours of other cities, was the idea of flexibility. She believes they were getting to specific and losing the flexibility which drives new development. Mayor Scruggs agreed and added that the development in the Overlay District did not have to be only retail but could be law offices, etc. She reiterated they were being too specific and believes it may not work. She would like to discuss this further at the next workshop. Vice Mayor Frate explained that many of the decisions regarding having retail or office space developments associated with parking structures were because parking developments were on a main street. He explained this was much of what was seen on their tours of other cities. He also inquired if parties can negotiate any of the 75% of ground floor parking garage frontage consisting of retail space on public streets. Mr. Froke explained that their objective was to not see blank facades on parking structures. He indicated they will look into the 75% a bit closer. Additionally, there were some administrative processes in the Overlay District zoning ordinance that allow the Planning Director or Board of Adjustment to examine the issue. 5 Mayor Scruggs interjected, stating the process calls for no administrative relief on an overlay. She read from the document which confirmed the overlay district acts as the administrative relief for the geographic area and cannot be modified. Councilmember Clark agreed and stated there were other options to the material currently in the document. Therefore, they needed to be very careful and insure flexibility is incorporated in this document. Councilmember Lieberman also stated his concerns with the wording on the zoning overlay district. In addition, he questioned the fairness of restricting the small merchant who wants to use part of what he already owns and still buy into part of the overlay district. Councilmember Clark disagreed. She stated that part of the concept of the overlay district was to create incentives in terms of density and lot coverage. She believes you have to give something to get something, which means you cannot have the best of both worlds. Councilmember Lieberman explained as a merchant, he does not agree with that concept. He stated he finds it difficult to believe that a business investing their money, not city money, was not allowed to invest. Mayor Scruggs remarked that businesses do have a choice to do what they want to do with existing C-2 or C-3 zoning. However, as a city, they were looking ahead with developments that progress productively into the future. She explained a merchant has a choice to stay with their present zoning or choose to develop under the Overlay District. Councilmember Knaack agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Mr. Froke explained that the zoning exists whether or not the overlay district is in place. He stated they will work closely with the developer at the time of the pre-application meeting to decide if the overlay district will work for them. He added it might depend on the type of project and property. Mayor Scruggs explained the city was simply offering the businesses the opportunity to utilize the provisions of the Overlay District, if they so choose. She inquired as to the Catlin Court Overlay District and the business owner's options. Mr. Froke explained that in the case of the Catlin Court Overlay, some business owners choose to be excluded from the boundaries, as was their right. Councilmember Martinez asked if this overlay was adopted, could a business owner still go to the Board of Adjustment for a modification on their property with the present zoning. Mr. Froke replied yes, if they were not utilizing the overlay district. Mayor Scruggs explained that everything remains the same except for those who choose to have the benefits of the Overlay District. Mr. Froke stated she was correct. Vice Mayor Frate remarked this was simply an opportunity for a land owner to do things they could never do before, as far as setbacks, building heights and density. He noted most business owners were embracing it and believed it was a great opportunity. Mr. Froke stated they have had very positive meetings with architects, developers and the Chamber of Commerce. He indicated a lot of the downtown business owners and property owners have been very receptive. Councilmember Goulet agreed there was much enthusiasm with this project on behalf of developers and downtown businesses alike. He reiterated that the Overlay District's flexibility is what will encourage developers to invest in the Centerline area. Mayor Scruggs stated her concern that the zoning code will permit car, boat and RV lots in this area which will disrupt neighborhoods. She asked if every C-2 and C-3 property could be used for sales of car, boat and RV's without a conditional use permit. Mr. Froke explained the 6 paragraph referenced by the Mayor was misplaced and shouldn't be in the Overlay District. He noted that car, boat, and RV sales would continue to be permitted in C-2 and C-3. They will examine the document further and bring it back for Council's review. Mayor Scruggs expressed her concern with this being written in the zoning ordinance. Councilmember Clark suggested it made sense for staff to bring this back with zoning code changes before the Overlay District is adopted. Mayor Scruggs expressed concerns with the eating and amplified live entertainment establishments coming into the Orchid Glen community or any other neighborhood. She questioned why that was permitted by right within 300 feet of a residential neighborhood. Councilmember Clark remarked that a conditional use permit was required for live entertainment. She commented 500' was preferable to 300'. Mayor Scruggs would like staff to look further into the matter. Mayor Scruggs also inquired about the right to permit Hookah Lounges all along Centerline without a conditional use permit. Mr. Froke explained a Hookah Lounge was a smoking establishment that utilizes large pipes located on the ground to smoke tobacco through a device. Councilmember Lieberman explained the concept further. Mayor Scruggs asked why these establishments didn't require a conditional use permit. Mr. Froke explained the impact of these establishments was minimal with no live music. Mayor Scruggs disagreed and believed there should be some control. She noted that these are gathering places and bring people from outside into neighborhoods. Councilmember Clark remarked that these establishments might be a fad; however, would like staff to consider spacing requirements. Mayor Scruggs voiced her concerns with permitting Hookah Lounges by right in the Centerline area with no conditional use permits. She noted this was all very permissive in terms of entertainment uses around neighborhoods. Councilmember Knaack remarked staff should not have singled out Hookah Lounges since there were very few in the area. She noted these establishments were very small and she didn't consider them the next fad since they have been around forever. Mayor Scruggs asked everyone to consider their comfort level with the uses permitted by right in the Overlay District. Councilmember Martinez agreed some kind of conditional use permit for eating, live entertainment and establishments like Hookah Lounges should be required. He remarked on the possible legalization of marijuana and the possible connection to Hookah Lounges. He agrees with 500 feet of spacing or other similar requirements from residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Clark noted that the intent and objective is to create a vibrant downtown with restaurants, bars and night clubs. However, Centerline is different in that it is directly adjacent to neighborhoods; therefore, they have to provide a certain level of sensitivity. As a result, the document before them needs to be modified since it does not address the conflicts between existing neighborhoods and the intent of Centerline. Mr. Beasley stated these were all excellent comments and suggestions. He reminded the Council this was only the first draft. He explained they will probably have many different discussions and workshops to address the opportunities, vision, and flexibility as well as neighborhood protection measures that need to be in place. He indicated they would bring this item back, dealing with the issues addressed today, until the Council was comfortable with the outcome. He 7 agreed this was a long term document and they did not want to miss anything in the process. Mayor Scruggs inquired as to the process if someone decides to apply for the Overlay District zoning. She asked if it was approved by the Planning Department, Administration or Council. Mr. Froke explained if the Overlay District was adopted by Council as an ordinance, it would be an administrative function. Mayor Scruggs asked how they would preclude behavioral health facilities or schools from applying for the Centerline Overlay District. Mr. Froke agreed to look into it. Councilmember Goulet commented that because of the Centerline area being so linear in its design, anything done will have significant impacts on neighborhoods north and south. He agrees that having additional control was appropriate. Mayor Scruggs suggested a business might want to pay for a buffer so as not to go up against a residential property. Mayor Scruggs and Councilmember Clark reiterated that property owners had a choice whether to be included in the Centerline Overlay District or stay the way they are and remodel. The rights of the property owners do not change, as they stand now, unless they choose to be included. Councilmember Knaack expressed her appreciation of the work done by staff on the signage issue. She believes the additional options will help businesses. She asked if they had considered any paint requirements or color palates in the Centerline Overlay. Mr. Froke explained the issue was being addressed through design review. However, they will look into it as well. Mayor Scruggs suggested they do not use the palate method since tastes change over time. Mayor Scruggs stated the color scheme should be subject to design review. Councilmember Knaack agreed. Mayor Scruggs thanked staff for all the work done on this project. She hoped the great work continues. Councilmember Clark also thanked staff for all their hard work. She believes that about 90% of this project was ready to go exactly as proposed. However, there were some areas that needed addressing and appreciated staff listening to their comments. As there was no further business, Mayor Scruggs adjourned the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. 8