Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Planning Commission - Meeting Date: 5/18/2006 MEETING MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE PLANNING COMMISSION • GLENDALE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5850 WEST GLENDALE AVENUE GLENDALE,ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY,MAY 18,2006 7:00PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bonnie Barclay Daniel Drew Joy Gomez Natalie Stahl Michele Tennyson Doug Ward,Vice Chairperson Richard Schwartz,Chairperson CITY STAFF: Jon Froke,AICP, Planning Director Jim May,AICP, Deputy Director for Current Planning Jon Paladini, Deputy Cit,'Attorney Erin O'Neil,Senior Management Assistant Kate Langford, Senior Planner Maryann Pickering,AICP, Senior Planner Karen Stovall, Senior Planner Tabitha Perry, Planner Dr. Terry Johnson, AICP, Deputy Transportation Director Horatio Skeete,Deputy City Manager Bob Darr,Transportation Planning Manager Diana Figueroa, Recording Secretary Chairperson Schwartz stated the Planning Commission is a citizen body whose members arc appointed by the City Council. The Commission is empowered to make final decisions on certain matters, with those der'sions being appealable to the City Council. On other matters, the Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the Council,which makes the final decision. 1s the first order of business, Chairperson Schwartz took roll call and asked that the record reflect all C'onimissioncrs were present. '. y r '''.14'"'''" � ': '�,a 4k.''' '''-' 7,:::..r;';':',4':: sM r 4^d _4,r 3 "k` ''a :i [d ,.. '1,‘,,','" "'e,i r'.p A y4,:,:*q,.'' Cn`. y 45 ,, `j t kY'1tF {? �f, . SY€ T: 4` �'�4t i q6 1 eu i Yj/r'. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES y , ' $ `° May 18,2006 Chairperson Schwartz dispensed with the reading of the minutes of the April 6, 2006 workshop and April 20, 2006 Regular meeting. f Vice Chairperson Ward MADE a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes of the April 6,2006 workshop and April 20, 2006 regular meeting. Commissioner Stahl SECONDED the '. motion and the motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Schwartz asked staff if there were any requests for withdrawals or continuances. i z There were none. Chairperson Schwartz called for the Public Hearing Items APPLICATION NO.: GPA06-02 A, REQUEST: A request'by Earl, Curley and Lagarde, representing Opus West to ,, . 1amend the General Plan designation from BP (Business Park) to OFC (Office). This 22 acre site is located at 5251 North 99th Avenue. Staff contact: Maryann Pickering(Yucca District). APPLICATION NO.: ZON06-02 REQUEST: A request by Earl, Curley and Lagarde, representing Opus West to rezone the subject property from A-1 (Agricultural) to C-O (Commercial Office). This 22 acre site is located at 5251 North :i 99th Avenue. .Staff contact: Maryann Pickering(Yucca District). Ms. Maryann Pickering, AICP, Senior Planner, presented the staff reports. She said the Commission should recommend approval of"GPA06-02 and ZON06-02 subject to the stipulations outlined in staff's report with the exception of Stipulations 2 and 3 which have since a been deleted. Chairperson Schwartz asked if Stipulation 4 relates to half-street retention. Ms. Pickering z; answered yes. Commissioner Tennyson asked what the benefits are to not having access off Missouri. Ms. Pickering explained the Missouri Avenue alignment dead-ends at the Loop 101;therefore, it does not make sense to require the applicant to build a half-street that does not go anywhere. Mr. Mike Curley, Applicant, said there have been a number of attempts along the freeway corridor over the past 20 years to develop residential or multi-family uses; however, the city has remained steadfast in its vision for employment uses. He stated Opus is one of the most well knr-,vn office developers in the valie.y. 29 • e';'v PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESe May 18, 2006 ° { Chairperson Schwartz opened the meeting up for public comment on this item. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. Vice Chairperson Ward MADE a_MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Case No. GPA06-02 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Barclay SECONDED the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vice Chairperson Ward MADE a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Case No. ZON06-02 subject to the stipulations recommended by staff. Commissioner Tennyson SECONDED the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Paladini stated the Planning Commission's actions on these items are not final. He explained that the Commission's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for further action at a future City Council meeting. APPLICATION NO.: PP05-09 REQUEST: A request by Earl, Curley and Lagarde, representing New Sun Homes for preliminary plat approval for a subdivision titled Bethany Rose North. The property is located on approximately five acres at the southwest corner of 71 n Avenue and Claremont Street. This request would allow an 18-lot single-family subdivision on'an R1-6 (Single Residence) zoned site, at a gross density of 3.5 residential dwelling units per acre. Staff contact: Maryann Pickering(Ocotillo District). Ms. Maryann Pickering, AICP, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She said the request meets the requirements for preliminary plat approval and should be approved, subject to the 13 stipulations set forth in the staff report. Commissioner Drew asked if the eight foot wall will be the only view for the people who live in the house. Ms. Pickering said the wall was recommended by the church because they have a lot of outdoor youth activities. She stated they did not have any discussions concerning the view since the wall is just two feet higher than the standard six foot wall. Commissioner Drew asked if the land on both sides of the fence will be equal in grade. Mr. May said the minimum required back yard setback is 20 feet and the houses arc actually at least 30 feet north of the property line. Commissioner 'Tennyson asked if they considered a landscape buffer or using a backstop or netting to prevent balls from going over the fence. Ms. Pickering pointed out if the property were an infill lot an eight foot wall would typically be put around the entire project. She explained a landscape butler is not required since they are both considered residential uses. Mr. Ricardo '['oris, Applicant, said New Sun Howes has done several projects in Glendale,noting they are currently working on one at 91st Avenue and Glendale. He explained they originally 30 „.k * �� y +�e�"'vYr”, iy yL,.' `�+cx`k' ;. r * 1 ,�.p i v 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , 'f''` ' :' May 18, 2006 asked to do an R1-4 PRD development with a total of 23 lots and a density of about 4.6 dwelling ; units per acre. He said, however,after working closely with staff they toned back the number of . lots to 18 at a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. He stated the development will have a `' minimum lot size of 6,099 square feet with an average lot size of 6,431 square feet. He said they ':,:.„t ;; are providing about 15 percent open space and will be improving adjacent streets. He noted they } are providing seven different models each with three different elevations. He stated the product f" is the same product used at 67th Avenue and Cactus, noting that development has been very V successful. With regard to Commissioner Drew's concerns about the eight foot wall, he ;_ explained their original intention was to construct a six foot,wall, but the church requested an K_'' eight foot wall. He said they are in agreement with the proposed stipulations. , .;„:10 4,1 Commissioner Tennyson asked if the eight foot wall will be disclosed to buyers. Mr. Toris said yes. 4, W,, Chairperson Schwartz opened the meeting up for public comment on this item. As no comments ''' were made,he closed the public hearing. , Commissioner Stahl MADE a MOTION to APPROVE Case No. PP05-09, subject to the 13 stipulations recommended by staff. Commissioner Barclay SECONDED the motion. h Vice Chairperson Ward said the project will be anice addition to the area. a Upon a call for the question,the motion passed unanimously. `4 Mr. Paladini said the action taken by the Commission is final on behalf of the City of Glendale. He stated anyone wishing to appeal the action must do so by filing a written Notice of Appeal with the Planning Department within 15 days. APPLICATION NO.: ZON05-23 ` REQUEST: A request by Beus Gilbert PLLC, representing Shea Properties to rezone a 22-acre parcel from A-1 (Agricultural) to PAD (Planned a Area Development). The site is located on the northeast corner of ' Glendale and 91m Avenues (9050 West Glendale Avenue). Staff Contact: Tabitha Perry(Yucca District). Ms. Tabitha Perry, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the Commission should recommend approval,subject to the six stipulations set forth in the staff report. Commissioner Drew asked what will be located in the additional five feet of height. Ms. Perry clarified the additional five feet will he for architectural elements. Commissioner Drew asked if 1, thL 11VAC equipment will be hidden behind screening walls. Mr. May confirmed all rooftop mechanical equipment is required to be fully screened. 31 • • • '41•4*':A-Iff"VAIP Y 6 F PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 • ti May 18, 2006 kpfp Commissioner Gomez asked if the bus stop on 91' Avenue will be cut so as not to interfere :w with traffic flows. Ms. Perry responded yes. Mr. Paul Gilbert, Applicant, introduced members of their team. He said they are in agreement with all of staff's stipulation; however, while they agree not to have any fast food drive-thru °' • facilities on the site,they would like to place a coffee facility which could require a drive-thru. •,iw; He stated they agree with the comprehensive sign plan, but they may eventually request additional signage. He said the project complies with the General Plan and will provide several new jobs. Commissioner Drew asked Mr. Gilbert if he is asking the Commission to modify the stipulations as they relate to drive-thrus. Mr. Gilbert said they cat Iive;With the stipulations as they are currently worded, explaining he simply wanted to clarify that a coffee facility may require a drive-thru. He stated he believes staff concurs that.a'coffee facility would not be considered a fast-food restaurant. Commissioner brewasked,Mr. May if a drive-thru for a coffee,facility vh would come back before the Commission as a CUP, Mr. May said staff agrees with the drive- thru coffee facility, but if it is not approved by the Commission at this time the applicant would y, have to come back through the CUP process to get a drive-thru. ` Commissioner Drew asked`if the stipulations as they are written would allow a drive-thru for a coffee facility. Mr. Froke said the PAD, as requested by Mr. Gilbert,would allow the use without a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Gilbert suggested they add a drive-thru coffee restaurant to the list of permitted uses. Chairperson Schwartz opened the meeting up for public comment on this item. As no comments were made, he closed the public hearing. '_° Mr. Froke said staff would support a coffee-related facility without a Conditional Use Permit. k, Chairperson Schwartz asked if the drive-thru coffee facility would make it easier for a fast-food ' t` restaurant to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru at a future time. Mr. Froke suggested the applicant amend the PAD booklet prior to the City Council hearing to clarify his intent not to permit fast-food drive-thru restaurants. Commissioner Tennyson asked if the site would he limited to one such drive-thru coffee facility. Mr. Gilbert responded yes. Vice Chairperson Ward made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Case No. `LONn5-23, subject to the stiputathns recommended by staff. Commissioner Gomez SECONDED the motion. Upon a call for the question, the motion passed unanimously. 32 'WA ,.. u 'N"'1'x y .A°•K b a S r 4- •X*w X Y,"4 ,., yC t .,. d '-',4 93 v' r %.;'11',1-:' .r•. '�s 2•34 , r 9 •-1,',.,:,''''...- .ei ad;a +��"�,,�°a �x"x �� , � .� 7-' i � y" +'ei3"r 3,.ks s'. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �'� #a` ' `� x '' ' May 18 2006 �. p" �$ '� ,. :I, :,...t,,..:,..`; Y,Sti 1-. Y 11`4'. "1 g r.,. ;f y ,y • !`—,1 •` -p xt .,. ,-2,:,,,,,,,,z,4,....... �`B. �' 4i:� T 9 Mr, Paladini stated the Planning Commissions action on this item is not final He explained that d „ the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the Ci Council for further action at, _� A ,, ,, ", rt t ( «O i?It h � i 's em, ,,lye a future City Council meeting. ` ` f� fv.� ' '-,„.„0,;-, � _, ,��f ,x ,�� �rr� ;'t . APPLICATION NO.: ZONOS-20 -' r W.• REQUEST: A request by Earl Curley m.d I agarde,to rezone 738.3 acres from �'� ` A 1 (Agricultural), b ,(Planned i'Area Dccelopment),.for a., * • r •mixed-use developinen� `titt,e Woolf':Crossing wc,kto 'include f '}r;� ;k , residential, commercial rd industrial land uses. :' This site is � :� ` located`at the southeast.ornei.of the Loop 303 Freeway and Olive t71. ' Avenue(15551 West Olive venue); Staff contact: Karen Stovall ' (Yucca District). `'> APPLICATION NO.: PPOS-11 '•' i .;• �' .4t REQUEST: A request by Earl, Curley and Lagarde, preliminary plat approval :,..,,,I, for a 308.6-acre subdivision titled Woolf Crossing. The property is A. located at the southeast corner of Sarival and Olive Avenues (15551 West Olive Avenue).{,This request would allow a 656-lot, single-family'subdivision within`eight development parcels of the ' Woolf Crossing Planned Area Development (parcels C through J). Staff contact: Karen Stovall(Yucca District ). u. Ms. Karen Stovall, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She said staff recommends that ., both requests be approved, subject to the stipulati'ons as revised in a mem° to the Planning , ,,,,,;,,,)4:14,': Commission dated May 18,2006. ,4241,,f,1,,,..„4,:„,,, Commissioner Tennyson expressed concern about the railroad tracks as it relates to the houses and the school. Ms. Stovall explained the subdivision'will provide an average 30 foot landscape setback along the south side of Olive Avenue. She stated the applicant has provided enough wa- ri ht-of on Olive Avenue to accommodate the tracks completely on the north side of Olive. right-of-way She noted the School District has indicated the proposed location is appropriate. Commissioner Tennyson asked if 30 feet is an average buffer for something that could generate a high level of noise. Ms. Stovall clarified the applicant has agreed to a minimum 30 foot landscape setback , which is what is required along arterial streets for subdivisions, Commissioner Drew asked if the Transportation Department has approved the subdivision street locations. Ms. Stovall responded yes. Mr. Mike Curley, Applicant, explained the right-of-way on Olive had to be set further south , because of the railroad tracks; therefore, they arc providing more right-of-way than would .�y normally he required. I-lc confirmed a 30 foot landscape buffer will run along the south side of Olive and the homes will have noise attenuation:to°mitigate noise generated by the railroad. He tate l the project represents a collaborative effort berwcett`his client and various departments � r 33 3 i d .. •.x r }3 tK.-.. s. fs i•*,�s.vr, r"' '. _ 4W � rs a 5Y t� 5 " q�' '6 "aia Fps 5 " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' �f �� `�' May 18 2005ikt' t 5,� .Y 1 sem ' within the City of Glendale, particularly the Transportation'Department and the City Manager's ' Office. He noted they originally started the rezoning process in the1County,but were'approached ,., , by the City of Glendale about annexing into the city. H tated;thieyultimately abandoned'their:-1i county application and began the annexation process. e�9stated `Element Homes is very well � recognized within the industry, having been the project managers fora score of x Del Webb ' Projects. 0. 0p `< � Mr. Curley said the City of Glendale was very aggressive in,trying to capture some of the ,; 7 commercial development occurring up and down the freeway corridor. He stated, unlike any :„.0 other property in the corridor, they have the luxury of a parkway`to'freeway interchange which " they believe will give their site a competitive advantage. He said when looking at the Sarival alignment both city staff and the applicant concluded it would be in their advantage to have Sarival move off the north/south alignment as it would create a larger commercial environment and allow for a full-diamond interchange. He said they reviewed their project with Luke Air Force Base and a letter was submitted in the Commission's packet.indicating Luke's support of , • the project. He stated they also met with the School District and,-while the typical arrangement :_ • is to dedicate$1,000 per lot for the development of a school,the applicant has chosen to dedicate• `t a 20 acre site which has a value of about $1.5 million. He explained a landscape buffer along • Northern will be part of the right-of-way improvements that will come`about with Northern Parkway. He stated the parkway will not abut the school site, explaining an off-ramp will separate the properties. Mr. Curley said they-have agreed to dedicate a five acre site for a future public safety facility. He stated the overall density of the project is consistent with the graduated density concept. He stated the minimum lot size is 8,500 square feet, with the average lot size being 9,570. He said the homes will range between 2,300 and 4,700 square feet andthey anticipate the homes to cost $360,000 to $700,000. He stated the project includes a 5 acre neighborhood park, three pocket parks and multi-use trails that will connect the site to the project's 21 percent usable open space. He said the stipulation modifications represent clarifications of the city's process for making dedications. He explained Conditions 8 through 11 relate to Northern Parkway which is a concept at this point,stating those conditions may change slightly over time. Commissioner Drew asked Mr. Curley if he has any problems with the proposed modifications to Stipulations $ through 11. Mr. Curley answered no. Commissioner Drew asked about the buffer between the Commercial component and parcels K, L and M. Mr. Curley said the buffer will be installed with the residential component. Commissioner Drew pointed out the residential area will have a view of the backside of the commercial buildings. Mr. Curley said the landscape buffer will he part of the residential plat. Ccomrni ssioner `Tennyson thanked staff for the tremendous amount of information they provided. She asked about noise attenuation in terms of the railroad. Mr. Curley explained the railroad is limited in tears of the frequency of use, but, regardless, the applicant is dedicating additional rtt,ht-()I-tay and a huller on the south side of Olive. Ile noted construction of the homes will rlst� it corporate noise attenuation features, such as dual pane windows and foam core doors. Mr. 34 � iPFtit"' X �� ,. .1.1:44'':, a -.�s L am � y k . 'PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' Px ' j4 ,' �, s tr '.4. r � V, , May 18 2006 . . : xsf�,.# , $ ,- , 413 . . .,...1, , xti Froke pointed out the homes will have to comply with state statutes regarding noise afennation .:� , w:.:. for Luke. Commissioner Tennyson noted there is no''lands`cape buffer for a"series oflots in the northeast corner. Mr. May explained staff asked`the'applicant to'remove thel smal ,x landscape, , " ;.+ ti. buffer,pointing out a buffer will be located on the industrial side. . ^ st- Vice Chairperson Ward asked how people on the south side of Northern Parkway will be able to -x' It'' ' access the common area on the north side. Mr. Curley pointed out two pocket parks are located e , ,, on the south side of the property. He agreed residents would have to cross Northern to access the 4, neighborhood park. He noted Northern Parkway will be elevated at that point. i;. 3 , Commissioner Drew asked if the proposed stipulation 'modifications are acceptable to staff, ,kt including the Transportation Department. Mr. May responded yes. Chairperson Schwartz said he is also concerned about connectivity to the school and open space. '"' He asked if it might be possible to install a pedestrian crossing when they elevate Northern '" ';: Parkway. Mr. May said the concept for Northern Parkway is,currently under development,but "�' ., a staff can work with` ADOT to ensure a safe crossing for'school children. He assured the Commission there is sufficient open space on,the south side of the development to satisfy the .J recreational needs of those residents. Chairperson Schwartz opened the meeting up for public comment on this item. As no comments ';) were made,he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Drew MADE a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Case No. ZON05-20, subject to the 20 stipulations recommended by staff as modified in the memo to 4"`: the Commission dated May 18, 2006. Commissioner Stahl SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Ward said, although he expressed concern about the crossing, he believes the ; project will be good for the city. Chairperson Schwartz expressed his opinion it is time that the City of Glendale and the _. development community recognize west Glendale. The motion passed unanimously. • Commissioner Drew MADE a MOTION to APPROVE of Case No. PP0S-11,,subject to the ,, sixstipulations recommended by staff, as modified in the memo to the Commission dated May 18, 2006. Commissioner 136rclay SECONDED the motion. The motion passed u. unarimously. \1r. I'alaclini stated the Planning Commission's action on ZON05-20 is not final. He explained , that the Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for further action at a future City Council meeting. lie said the Commission's action on PP05-11 is final on behalf 35 ,»y.,,,,..'",,,„!,,11 ,&,'"..'' -•`' '''. -'''''',`,1-,.14414-%iit'''', ''',, •J'- --' �: '"its'+' s.'�='r 'acAs` +" , ,� „, ,,,,,!.41v11,.4:-'!?71.-.7-,r ar yv+"t$1 'rt ”.d+r'�{.Kpt'6''iit` x�,- °f Itt' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES � ' 3- .-, , ''',-",;,‘",.;11'',4 , . `b, � _ May 18, '12‘,�� � �.;,,# • �� n. 2006 .:ty >�ti�.,-., ..1,f'.7.‘,4':`-;''.,' •xer ,� . , y f s '',...,:: of the City of Glendale;however it will not take effect unless and until the City Council approves ,p� V ZONOS-20. He stated anyone wishing to appeal th' 8ctlon must do ao by filing a.written Notice .;`�. of Appeal with the Planning Department within 15 days, .,.‘4... , � k , - . rale ) , t, �' .+ J�'Yz :, z ro ' ` APPLICATION NO.. ZTA05-01 „ � ; `" a t r '�bA'^`. ,X. REQUEST: .,,,. -4 ° Q A request by the City of Glendale Planning Commission to amendf the text'of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the appeal process,for , M 1 Board of Adjustment decisions. ;If,approved,`appeals of'TBoard`of �,, , ' „..4 Adjustment decisions vl id ;di ectly to Superior;Court.. Staff ; r contact:Karen Stovayll City-Wide��' 411-1' x.14. all. °e •,.r T Si i' r, , i..�Ak.:. Ms. Karen Stovall, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She said staff recommends h1x& 6.. approval. �, �, Commissioner Drew asked if the text amendment was recommended because other cities send their appeals directly to Superior Court. Ms. Stovall responded no,'explaining the purpose of the text amendment is to clarify the appeals process and ensure it is quasi-judicial in nature. , ,,,,,,j. ,. Chairperson Schwartz opened the meeting up for public comment on this item." Mr. Mel Smith, P.O. Box 12572,Glendale, asked if a Council Member would be able to appeal a F Board of Adjustment decision under the proposed text amendment. Mr. Paladini said, if the text amendment is approved, an appeal initiated by the City Council of a Board of Adjustment decision would take a majority vote of the City Council. He said a Council Member in his or her official capacity would not be able to file an appeal on behalf of an applicant. Mr. Smith asked who initiated the text amendment. Mr. Froke said the City Council initiated the text amendment ,F; { on July 5,2005. Mr. Smith noted two previous appeals were his. He said he went through two years of torture fighting the city and he feels compelled to stop a text amendment he believes will prevent people from appealing the Board's decisions. He expressed his opinion the text amendment is not necessary and no legal or legislative reason warrants the'change.' He stated his sources tell him the Council is trying to insulate itself from having to make decisions that might go against a friend. He said someone who wishes to appeal a Board decision will have no option but to go to Superior Court, noting an average person will then have to hire an attorney. He stated the non= political nature of the pracess starts with the Board of Adjustment. He pointed out three of the Board members who heard his case were newly appointed to the Board and had no previous experience ortraining. He stated someone who chooses to appeal, but loses, will not only have to pay their attorney's fees,but the city's attorney fees as well. Chairperson Schwanz closed the public hearing. 36 • n. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, :IV May 18,2006 �� ,= ' t Chairperson Schwartz noted he was at one of the`meetings mentioned by Mr. Smith, stating Glendale is one of the only cities that does not follow the process' proposed in the text v amendment. He said during his time on the Board the Council overturned Board decisions, not { because the cases met the findings,but because it was politically expedient for than to do so. He stated he looks fovea rd to the proposed change and believes it will actually be cheaper for people ''''''14 } ; u.ho choose to appeal since the Superior Cowl ivitl not umsider any new evidence fi K;. Vice Chairperson Ward said he was also on the Board of Adjustment when Mr.Smith's case was heard, although he was not present at the meeting when his case was heard. He stated the City ,. :g Council is not an appropriate place to consider quasi-judicial decisions. He commented on the frustration the Board feels when decisions they make based on the required fundings are ;< overturned by the Council based political expediency. : -4 k , .: Mr. Smith stated the new process will limit an average person's ability to appeal a Board' decision by eliminating small claims court. He expressed his opinion the Board is often more political than the Council. .,iMr. Paladini noted a correction to the proposed text,stating Section 3.709(A)should be modified A to remove the words"OR ANY TAXPAYER". Ile explained case law in Arizona does not allow for a taxpayer lawsuit on a Board of Adjustment decision. • `. 4Commissioner Drew said he also sat on the Board of Adjustment for four years, noting he served .- ":. during the time Mr. Smith's cases were heard. He said the Board of Adjustment has to make ,; four findings when considering a case, three of which are very strict. He stated the Board is a political board, appointed by the Council; therefore politics will always be involved. He , ` expressed concern that the text amendment will`take away a resident's right to take their ° concerns to their public representative. He stated, while the Board's decisions have been overturned, so have the Commission's decisions because the Council looks at cases using a different thought process. He stated the cost of pursuing an appeal in Superior Court will cause 1 appellants to use up the money they had set aside to make an improvement paying for legal , counsel. He said they are not adding a layer of protection for citizens,but,instead,taking a layer , of protection away from citizens. He pointed out appellants who go to the City Council stili have the right to go to Superior Court. He said he is not comfortable taking the additional step of a Council hearing away from the citizens. Commissioner Tennyson MADE a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Case No. ZNA05-0l as modified by staff. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Tennyson asked why other cities made the decision to move appeals directly to Superior Court. Ms. Stovall said it was to ensure appeals of Board of Adjustment decisions rent:tin quasi-judicial in nature. Commissioner Tennyson expressed her opinion the text 40 amcndment is being done for the right reasons, 37 I/ z#, x `t 7 : PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,, May 18,2006 ii, d 3 y 'Y, it n, Commissioner Gomez said,having served in a volunteer capacity many times, she can empathize '0...t with the hard work the Board of Adjustment puts into considering cases. She stated,however,in -‘57,..,, service to citizens they should always error in their favor. She said she is adamantly opposed to .- �,`,C;•` taking away the right of any citizen to participate in the political process, especially when they , will be forced to combat a well-funded,well-represented city. g: Commissioner Ward said the Board of Adjustment's decision to deny a case is made in the best .,x interest of the community and citizens are hurt when that decision is overturned by the Council for political reasons. :, Commissioner Drew agreed with Commissioner Gomez that they should never take away a right ,' n i of the citizens. • ' Chairperson Schwartz said, while Commissioners Drew and Gomez make very valid points, he 44 i wants the decision placed back in the hands of the people who started the process. :•. Upon a call for the question, the motion passed by a vote of 4 to 3 (Commissioners Drew, t Barclay and Gomez voted nay). r 17 Mr. Paladini stated the Planning Commission's action on this item is not final, He explained that the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for further action at a future City Council meeting. APPLICATION NO.: GPAO6-05 REQUEST: A Glendale Planning Commission initiated request to amend the General Plan land use map from Low Density Residential, 1-2.5 dwelling units per acre to Office on a.2-acre parcel at the southeast corner of 83 and Northern Avenues (8257 West Northern Avenue). Staff contact: Kate Langford(Yucca District).'_ Ms. Kate Langford, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She said staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of GPA06-05: Commissioner Drew asked if staff has spoken with the owner of the property. Ms. Langford said they have been in discussions with the property owner as well as the property owner to the east for some time. She said they arc very much aware and supportive of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Ward asked what the Office designation means. Ms. Langford said it will provide an opportunity for service provider uses. She noted some of the zoning designations used to implement the Office category allow very limited retail activities. C'hairpei son Schwartz opened the meeting up for public comment on this item. As no comments , were made. he closed the public hearing. 38 • ,-,--,---44,----,,,,-,- ''"""'""rf.""4: ",, , 4 . 4 • 41." ''''. " 441‘,,44 4,',,......,,,'';', "`",..1',•,, ,' , ,,,'t'',4'.:.'' . '''. ''',: ..k;•,',..,::* 4. ' -4 l't''' ')..`'`,.'t-' s.,' * .., , z '4 il.47'0 A,k ,:' '' ' ' ,'„1"'' 4' .'„,1A',441;4„,4,.'):4.41, , ..,', 4.,, 444>" '""4 ,4z,,4 ,,. ; * . ',,. •,, , '",^4":.!1- 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -• , ,. ,,,., ,, .,, ,,i , , , May 18,2006 '!.....'.s ..,-. . , ..,. Commissioner Ward IVIAD E 'a`;MOTIOik1:"toc-RECOMMEND APPROVAL'of Case.No. GPA06-05 to City Council as recommended`' ti4..' staff..CommissionerIiarelay SECONDED , .',,,,,•k.,,, ,.., thetion The motion passed unani ..,,,f, -t, ,.....,,,t.,".1.,..,...,... '. • . -- , ' -,--, ,.-. - - 4,, ,-,, nteaslY. y,••',k14,-, 1 ,,r'44" ,4. , , ^ ".. -.", ^ •' "444.'`. ,,:'•".,•••,:. -Z4, - ',,t4 4'e . not final- He explained that Mr. Paladini stated the Planning Commission's,tieti on'otthis item is • . t recommendation ivollid b'e for‘viirded to the City Council for further actiol! a, • the Commission's i) , . „ • -40f,..,,v4,,,,,,-A.,,,,,4,,,,i,,,, t`"'''''• a future City Council meeting, . ' '..."- .,,,f-wi,,:„.„ --.,.. Chairperson Schwartz called for Other Businesa...Therewas none. „ .. Chairperson Schwartz called for the,Staffl !P ort. °.\-s.. Mr. May recommended the Commission vacate its June 8,2006 workshop. ''''''•44.t.''' Chairperson Schwartz asked if it would be possible to hold training for the new members that . . evening. Commissioner Drew asked why staff is recommending' . that they vacate the meeting. Mr. May explained they have already held some training sessions.and will have more training.on zoning ordinance basics in the near future. He said staff. felt it would be a good opportunity for the Commissioners to take a break,noting both public hearings in June will have full agendas, I Commissioner Gomez VLD...E a MOTION to VACATE the Conitnission's June 8, 2006 workshop. Commissioner Tennyson SECONDED the motion. The motion passed •,. ':,., unanimously. Chairperson Schwartz called for Commissioner Comments. No comments were made. 1 - '.',. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. ,., ., 1 af A .414:1,.1 /&.4" ,, .^... ••••••••4.- '4 A 4* Diana Figueroa, Recordar: Secretary ,.. .., ,., ,.., =,. .., ...„ . , , C . „,, _ . ,. ,