Extracted text (via pymupdf)
10104 characters
City of Glendale Unified Development Code To: Tabitha Perry Planning Manager City of Glendale Date: March 3, 2023 From: Matt Klyszeiko, AICP Michael Baker International matthewk@mbakerintl.com 602.798.7513 Project: City of Glendale - UDC Subject: UDC Council Workshop #3 - Memo Purpose On November 8, 2022, staff and our consultant (Michael Baker International) conducted a work session with City Council to obtain additional input on select portions of the proposed Glendale Unified Development Code (UDC). The following provides a concise summary of the topics that were reviewed, the general feedback provided on those topics, as well as an update on the status of specific areas where Council requested additional information. Summary Neighborhood Notification Requirements: Within this discussion item, staff reviewed a comparison of the City’s “existing” vs. “proposed” property owner notification distance requirements for all application types. Currently, the City utilizes a fixed, universal 300’ notification requirement for all application types. To align with best practices and recognize the greater impact that applications for larger projects can have on adjacent neighborhoods, staff outlined a proposed tiered approach to property owner notifications for General Plan Amendment and UDC (i.e. Zoning Code) Amendment requests. This approach would set notification boundaries for GPA and Rezone requests as follows (all other application types; CUP, Variance, and Administrative Review would continue to utilize the 300’ baseline distance) : • Properties of ≤40 acres at 500’, • Properties > 40 acres to ≤ 120 acres at 700’, and • Properties > 120 acres at 900’ Council discussion generally supported this approach, however, further discussion requested staff to examine how this change might account for smaller parcels that have larger impacts, such as drive throughs, as well as how even greater notification (by direct mail or other means of notification) can be provided for large scale projects. Staff/Consultant Update: In review of benchmark communities across the Valley to identify an enhanced notification process, no common trend or best practice was identified. However, staff and the City’s consultant have identified the following options for consideration: • Research identified that some communities do require notification distances up to 1,320’ for select application sizes and/or types, however, most communities were found to require a distance between 300’ – 900’. Consequently, rather than applying a universal maximum Page 2 of 4 distance, consideration may be given to increasing required notification distances by 30%, due to the potential impact of the project that may extend beyond the required notification boundary, if at least one of the following conditions exist: o A zoning or land use request would result in conversion of a single-family residential designation to a multi-family residential designation or non-residential designation (and vice versa). o A zoning or land use request may result in the need to change an existing roadway classification, revise an existing roadway alignment, or warrant the installation of a traffic signal. • Currently, the City requires posting on or near the property in at least one (1) location. This minimum requirement could be revised to specify for any of the following: larger sites (>40 acres) with street frontage(s), shall install a sign along each street frontage so as to insure at least one posting for each quarter mile (1,320’). For applicable sites with no street frontage, postings shall be installed on the property in locations clearly visible to abutting residents so as to insure at least one posting for each quarter mile (1,320’). All signs shall set forth the purpose, time, date, and place of the public hearing. • Currently, the City only requires direct mailers to inform residents of neighborhood meetings. To enhance notification at this preliminary stage of the application process, consideration may be given to requiring applicants to further install a sign on the property in locations clearly visible to abutting residents so as to insure at least one posting for each quarter mile (1,320’). All signs shall set forth the purpose, time, date, and place of the neighborhood meeting. • In response to direct requests to review notification requirements associated with drive through’s, staff examined all drive through applications that required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application dating back to 2014. A total of 10 applications were filed over this period. Combined, a total of 593 notifications was mailed to surrounding property owners. Staff received one formal comment as a result of these notifications. This finding suggests that further notification requirements may not assist in mitigating negative impacts from drive throughs. However, it should be noted, as part of this Code update effort, staff is recommending revisions to the City’s drive through regulations to further mitigate nuisance impacts on adjacent residential uses. Recreational Marijuana: Within this discussion item, staff reviewed with Council the consideration of prohibiting standalone Marijuana Establishments (i.e. Adult-Use/Recreational Marijuana Establishments) and permitting only Dual Licensee Establishments (i.e. Medical Marijuana and Adult-Use Establishments) within the City of Glendale. In response, Council requested staff to provide further information on the Arizona Department of Health Services’ (“AZDHS”) licensing process and examine the potential impact of removing the prohibition on standalone Marijuana Establishments. Staff/Consultant Update: The following provides a high-level analysis of AZDHS procedures and the results of evaluating potential impacts from allowing standalone Marijuana Establishments within the City of Glendale: • Arizona Department of Health Service licenses all marijuana retail, cultivation, manufacturing facilities. Page 3 of 4 • An Adult Use Marijuana Establishment is defined by A.R.S. as including a single retail location, a single off-site cultivation location, or single off-site product manufacturing location. • The State holds an annual certificate lottery where applications are accepted (in 2022, applications were accepted in December for about 2 weeks) – application review period is about 60-days • The number of awarded facility certificates depends on number of State-licensed pharmacies o Certificates are awarded for medical marijuana dispensaries at a ratio of 1 per every 10 registered pharmacies in the State o Certificates are awarded for adult use marijuana establishments at a ratio of 1 per every 10 registered pharmacies in the State • No more than 5 operating certificates issued per licensed agent • 1,347 open pharmacies in the State as of January 26, 2023 (50+ in Glendale AZ, approximately 1 per square mile) o 131 active non-profit medical dispensary certificates State-wide o 169 approved adult use marijuana establishments State-wide (Under their Social Equity Program, AZDHS also grants up to 26 additional Marijuana Establishment licenses) ▪ 7 uses in Glendale (5301 W Glendale Avenue; 8160 W Union Hills; 6840 W Grand Avenue; 6676 W Bell Road; 13631 N 59th Avenue; 5558 W Bell Road and 153rd Ave/Luke Ave) ▪ Based on appropriate zoning and required distance separation from residentially zoned properties, schools and other existing medical or recreational marijuana facilities, Glendale could potentially permit up to 5 additional establishments. Good Neighbor Policy: Within this discussion item, staff reviewed with Council the proposed “Good Neighbor Policy” for Wireless Communication Facilities located on City owned property. While Council was generally supportive of the proposed Good Neighbor Policy as presented, through discussion it was requested to provide further guidance to city staff on how to process any land use or improvement requests on all other city owned property, exclusive of right-of-ways or public utility easements. Staff/Consultant Update: To universally apply this “Good Neighbor Policy” to all City Owned Property, the following footnote was added to the “Application Type” column within Table 6.200-1: “Any proposed public or private use or improvement on City Owned Property, exclusive of right-of-ways or public utility easements, that is located within three hundred feet (300’) of the boundary of any existing residential development shall be subject to the Administrative Review process pursuant to Section 35.6.211 of this UDC, unless otherwise stated herein.” Requests not subject to a legislative process as required by the provisions of this Code (i.e. Table 6.200-1) or state law may be processed administratively. As currently proposed, when required, the administrative review process shall be provided by the City as follows: a. Notice of application within fourteen (14) days of the determination of completeness; b. The applicant shall post notice on or near the property as specified by section 35.6.204; c. Mailing notice to owners of property located within three hundred feet (300’) of the subject property; and Page 4 of 4 d. A public comment period not less than thirty (30) days following the date of notice of application shall be provided. Planned Residential Development (PRD): Within this discussion item, staff reviewed proposed modifications to the existing PRD development standards. While Council was generally accepting of expanding the applicability of PRD’s from single residence districts to both single residence and multiple residence districts, Council did request keeping approval of PRD’s through a Council action rather than the Administrative Review Process. Staff/Consultant Update: The proposed UDC has been revised to be consistent with current PRD approval conditions, which require Planning Commission recommendation and Council final action.