Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Business Council Committee - Meeting Date: 2/18/2021MINUTES BUSINESS COUNCIL COMMITTEE GLENDALE CIVIC CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM B3 5850 W. GLENDALE AVE. GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18th, 2021 2:00 PM CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at approximately 2 PM. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Chairperson Joyce Clark, Councilmember Ray Malnar, Dale Adams, John Crow, Yvonne Knaack, and Ricardo Toris Committee members absent: Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff and Vice Chairperson Bart Shea were absent. City staff present: Jamsheed Mehta (Development Services Director), Shannon Beck (Council Assistant), and Sherry Crapser (Management Assistant) were present. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizen comments were made. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A motion to approve the meeting minutes was made by Ms. Knaack, and it was seconded by Mr. Crow. All were in favor, and none opposed. ITEMS Councilmember Clark thanked Ms. Recchia, Ms. King, and Mr. Carpentier for their efforts with their presentations, but since the committee hasn't had the opportunity to fully examine the content of their work, Councilmember Clark asked that these items were postponed until the next meeting. With that, the committee moved on to Item d. a. Presentation by Liz Recchia, Government Affairs Director, WeServ. b. Presentation by Patti King, Executive Director, Arizona Sign Association. c. Presentation by James Carpentier, Director of State & Local Government Affairs, International Sign Association. d. Discussion regarding grandfathering. Councilmember Clark had asked Mr. Mehta to develop or find a definition of grandfathering and the corresponding regulations. On page 2, there is discussion about non- conforming signs. Mr. Mehta noted the term "grandfathering" isn't referenced in this section. Mr. Pruett was introduced and added that from the older draft to the newer one, much of the language remains the same, but there is a section in blue in item c where it says, "non- conforming signs shall be removed or brought into compliance...," and "should the sign become inoperable for 180 days or more, the sign must be removed." Mr. Pruett noted there's an attempt to be respectful of non -conforming signs and attempting to be mindful of designing and moving forward with the current ordinance. Mr. Toris asked how this new ordinance is different from the older one, and Mr. Toris asked Mr. Pruett to explain the difference between "non -conforming" to "legal non -conforming." Mr. Pruett suggested updating the section 4.5.3 to identify he distinction between the two terms. Mr. Malnar inquired about the term "historic signs" and who would determine what would be considered a historic sign. Mr. Pruett noted the definition has not been drafted yet. Mr. Toris wondered how city staff would know if a sign hasn't been in use for a certain amount of time. Mr. Pruett noted it's difficult to discern when it comes to signs, but it would be more so the responsibility of the business owner. Ms. Knaack suggested a way to inform new businesses what would be considered conforming signs, and Ms. Knaack believes if a new business replaces an old one, they would have to bring the signage up to code. Councilmember Clark figured this would be taken care of upon a new business replacing an old one. Mr. Adams added that any new business should include a new sign in their planned business budget. Mr. Crow acknowledged that these issues are always complex, and not only is the business owner a factor in this, but the building owner, too. Councilmember Clark noted according to the current ordinance, the sign may remain in tact even with the exchange of a tenant. Mr. Crow noted how murky the signage situation can be based on the code as it is written. Mr. Pruett noted the language must be methodically and conservatively codified to make it business -friendly and aesthetically acceptable for the city. Councilmember Clark suggested reviewing the sign codes more often than every thirty years, and she asked for a motion to review signage codes every ten years. Ms. Knaack made a motion and Mr. Crow seconded. All were in favor, and none opposed. Councilmember Clark said this would go to council next for approval. Ms. Recchia added a few items to consider, and the first is that when a business sells, the signage is a part of the business. There are also complications when it comes to probate scenarios as well, and it's not unusual for issues such as this to extend to over year. Mr. Recchia suggested adding language that says, "unless a property is going through a legal process that has extended timelines." Councilmember Clark asked about page 2, section 4.5.3, letter c. It says, "may be performed" instead of "shall be performed," but prescriptive language would be preferred. Councilmember Clark asked if there was a specific process for someone to designate a sign as "historic" in an effort to preserve signage in the city. Mr. Mehta noted the zoning administrator is also the historic preservation officer, so the sign owner would approach them. Councilmember Clark suggested the Historic committee should be included in the historic signage decision-making. Mr. Toris asked how old something should be to be considered "historic." Mr. Pruett saw a range in local cities who had anywhere between twenty to fifty years as defined as historic, but the logic for Glendale's new ordinance being twenty years is that twenty years is a generation. Councilmember Clark suggested continuing to allow the signage to be considered "historic" at twenty years old, and there weren't any objections. e. Establishing a design review board. Mr. Klyszeiko said they first wanted to touch on was the potential of design review, what that would look like from a staff level, and how it would apply to the different aspects of the 2 code. Mr. Mehta was asked about his thoughts, and he said this could expedite processes, but he also noted that if there's adequate flexibility in the code to allow for dialogue with the citizens. Mr. Mehta posed the question of whether or not it is even necessary. Mr. Crow expressed apprehension about creating another layer of bureaucracy for businesses and signage, and thus, making it more complicated. Mr. Mehta suggested including the Board of Adjustment, and Councilmember Clark said there needs a third party, but she doesn't believe the Board of Adjustment shouldn't assume that role. With that, the committee moved on to the next item. f. Determining what constitutes acceptable building mural/artwork. Mr. Klyszeiko brought up page 4, section 4.5.4, item J, and Councilmember Clark read the definition of public art: "publicly -commissioned artwork ... with no advertising, no commercial messages or logos, and/or are not displayed in conjunction with a commercial enterprise." Mr. Klyszeiko made reference to a dog mural on a pet store business, and it was determined that due to the fact that the signage was in the shape of the business's logo, the mural was not in compliance. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Klyszeiko and Mr. Pruett to determine what ways it would be appropriate to allow businesses to make the argument that their advertisement is art. Ms. Recchia noted her packet discusses the "signage vs. art" and "free speech and expression" in federal and state laws. Mr. Adams noted whether it's a mural or commercial signage, it applies to overall signage in the rules and regulations that the signage should be no more than certain dimensions, and the mural cannot have any advertising; however, it's less expensive, so businesses may be more inclined to choose the murals. Mr. Klyszeiko noted the free speech aspect is what the committee must keep in mind. Councilmember Clark asked the committee if they should pursue the concept of art districts, and Mr. Klyszeiko suggested preparing additional material for consideration for the committee to ultimately have a more informed conversation. Councilmember Clark suggested if a geographic area wished to be considered an art district, they have a process to do so. g. Enforceability of these codes. Mr. St. John was supposed to lead this discussion but couldn't be present due to other commitments, so this will be discussed in the March meeting. h. Presentation by Adam Pruett and Matthew Klyszeiko from Michael Baker International regarding the signage code. This will be addressed during the March meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Clark asked if a new draft would be presented at the next meeting, and the committee decided to move forward with this draft prior to doing a re -draft. Councilmember Clark issued an executive summary of the Code Review Committee's summary of the Business Council Committee's work thus far. Most of the work provided to the Code Review Committee predominately included the work on signage from July 2020 onward. Councilmember Clark then suggested a renewal for one more year of the Business Council Committee (tentatively completing their work in March 2022). Councilmember Clark then asked the committee to consider what changes they would like the Business Council Committee to make for businesses in Glendale. These ideas should be presented at the June meeting. 3 STAFF REPORT There wasn't a staff report. COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Mr. Crow applauded Councilmember Clark for her suggestion above [in "other business"], and he suggested asking businesses what their needs are prior to the June meeting. Ms. Beck suggested ensuring everyone would like to be reappointed to the Business Council Committee, so Councilmember Clark asked if everyone would be willing to serve an additional year. Everyone present wishes to continue to participate in the committee. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Business Council Committee will be held on March 18th, 2021, at 2 PM, located at 5850 W. Glendale Avenue, Conference Room B3, Glendale, Arizona 85301, ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Clark adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:40 PM. Sherry Crapser, Recording Secretary 4