Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 1/9/2001 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 9, 2001 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, Acting City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. PROPOSED CITY CODE CHANGES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Ms. Pam Kavanaugh, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Dan Gunn, Code Compliance Manager At a Workshop held in October of 2000, staff presented a number of proposed City Code revisions to consolidate and clarify those that apply to Chapter 25 — "Nuisances". At the direction of the City Council, staff was asked to clarify, revise, and present the following seven code categories for further discussion: • Weeds or grass in excess of six inches in height • Sale of vehicles • Parking of semi-tractors and/or trailers • Use of a cover on an abandoned vehicle • Storage of abandoned or inoperable vehicles • Reference to the loose trash ordinance • Signing of vacant property to prevent dumping At the same October Workshop meeting, the City Council also requested that staff review the City's current codes as they relate to loud music emitted from vehicles, i.e. "boom boxes". Staff determined that they do not regulate this type of noise nuisance. As a result, a revised code has been drafted in collaboration with the Police Department, the Community Services Deputy City Manager, the Code Compliance Manager, and the City Prosecutor. The proposed new code would also regulate noise created from "engine braking". The Police Department would enforce the provisions of the proposed new code. 1 Staff recommended further clarification of the palm tree maintenance code and the code dealing with trees, shrubs, and other plant growth that obstructs traffic visibility. Staff did this, based on the number of calls received by the Code Compliance staff from citizens who were unsure about how to interpret the new codes, and requested further clarification following the October Council Workshop. At a previous Workshop session, staff presented proposed code revisions to Chapter 25 "Nuisances" to the Council. Council directed staff to clarify some of the proposed code revisions and also directed staff to review existing codes as they relate to "boom boxes". The proposed code revisions were presented at previous Workshops that have aired several times on the City's cable channel. Staff received calls and e-mails from citizens supporting the proposed code changes. Following adoption of the proposed code revisions, a City-wide notification program would be initiated through the Marketing Department, using the water bill newsletter, the cable channel, etc. There are no budget or cost impacts that would result from the proposed revisions. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman noted that revision number 3 does not include a definition of "trailers" and suggested that it be defined as "commercial trailers". Mr. Gunn explained that the application refers to semi-tractors. He stated that he would add commercial trailers to this item. Councilmember Goulet suggested that revision number 3 also include construction- type equipment. Mr. Gunn said the Zoning Ordinance controls a lot of the parking surface requirements. He stated that this code would primarily apply to large semi- trailers left in vacant lots. He said, although they could add additional language restricting construction equipment, a lot of that is already controlled through the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Goulet explained that a lot of the complaints he receives are with regard to large commercial vehicles used for construction. Mr. Gunn clarified that the Zoning Ordinance would control the types of trailers allowed, based on weight and not length. Councilmember Goulet stated that the citizens do not view the Zoning Ordinance as adequate to keep construction trailers out of their neighborhoods on a regular basis. Councilmember Frate clarified that it is illegal to park a semi-tractor in a driveway. Mr. Gunn agreed. Councilmember Martinez asked if revision number 3 would preclude limousines from being parked in the street. Mr. Gunn stated that this was not the intent of the code; however, it could apply based on the language included in the code. Councilmember Martinez recommended that the parked in the street language clearly include limousines. Mayor Scruggs asked if that would include parking on City property. Mr. Gunn explained that the Code Compliance Department controls vehicles parked on private property, while the Police Department controls vehicles parked on the street. Mayor Scruggs stated that the police would have a hard time enforcing the code. She asked what would happen if the business was being run from that location. Councilmember Martinez stated that the owners would then have to come to the City to obtain a license. Councilmember Lieberman suggested using the term "commercial vehicles" in the language. Mayor Scruggs noted that this would preclude people with regular-sized commercial vehicles from being able to park on their property. Mr. Harold Brady, Police Department Lieutenant and Assistant City Attorney suggested that they craft the definition for a commercial vehicle, based on something other than its license and provide examples. He explained that police officers would have to determine lawful use of a property before being able to enforce such a code on the street. Mr. Gunn stated that they could add limousines to the code. Mayor Scruggs asked if the police officers would then cite any limousines parked on the street. Mr. Brady stated that the police officers would probably do so in residential areas, but not in commercial or mixed-use areas. Mr. Gunn asked for confirmation from Mr. Flaaen that the definition of "property" includes "public property". Mr. Flaaen stated that both public and private property would be included. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if there would be an exception with regard to limousines that are temporarily parked on private property. Mr. Gunn stated that the current application would not apply to loading and unloading. Councilmember Clark said revision numbers 4 and 5 require inoperable and/or abandoned vehicles to be parked in a carport or garage. She pointed out that some people do not have either. She asked whether it would be sufficient to have a car covered and parked in the driveway if a carport or garage did not exist. Mr. Gunn said the language could be modified at the Council's discretion. He stated that those people who have a carport would then also be allowed to park in their driveways. Councilmember Clark noted that the vehicle would be visible, even if it was parked under a carport. Councilmember Frate suggested that they require cars to be parked in the carport if one exists. Mr. Gunn noted that the current code limits the parking of abandoned and/or inoperable vehicles to the carport. He explained that a common complaint is that vehicles are being covered with old tarps or sheets that look worse than the vehicle itself. He stated that they were in the process of attempting to require that the vehicles be covered with a commercial car cover. He said the code could be limited in whatever manner the Council deems appropriate. He noted that revision numbers 4 and 5 were originally one code and then separated into two distinct codes to avoid confusion. 3 •Indui to ads(} }ay1 peniaoaa jou pay Aayll pajels uuno aW •diyspaay swasead apoo luesaad ayj }ay} 6upoipu! `pan!aoaa uaaq pay lndui uez! io ivaoipu6is I! pajsa ays •ls!xe jou saop 96aaa6 JO iodaao }i aigaideooa Aannanup aqi ui aao a 6u! p d ajaw o� aben6uai eqj /Wow o} snsuesuoo sane aaayl I! Iiounoo eqj mise s66naoS aoIEW •lsixa lou saop a6aaa6 JO laodaao a I! aiga}deooa aq pInonn Aannanup aye ui aao a 6ui){aad aayjaynn .0.! `uoi}senb Iau!6uo aaq pawnlaa >aan aagwewiiounoo •asnoq ei.11 puiyaq panow JO paaaliays aq paau pInonn sago au} awi1 yo!gm aaw `sAap 5 j ao)L sago aiay1 uo laonn o1 pannolla aq pInonn Aayl pias uuno 'ALAI 'sago anbi1ua uo 6UINJOM aaa oqm aidoed apnioui pInonn apoo au} I! wise uo}seI663 aoi e j ao!A •aouas!nu o!Ignd e paaapap s! A1aadoad alanud Aue uo ship wow JO g. ao} °poiyan a }o a6aaojs paaallaysun iegi pomp uuno a ui paaois aq saioiyan ampuaw fou saop apoo an }aye palou )1aa10 aagwewiiounoo •saIo!gan aigaaadoui ao/pua pauopuaga o� saa}aa 1! se a6an6uai apoo }uaaano an peal uuno •aW •6uiwann 1sai; aye aa44a uaiai 6uiaq uoi1oa tam `aloipa apynn aye aanoo papualu! s! 1! }ay1 pomp uuno •J •eJoijaa owads e Apo JO aouauipao alogm aye o} siejaa (g)z uoi}oas I! wise j1a10 aagwawiiounoo •saallaw asap ui uoilnoesoad sesaa 1[ asnaoaq i.aaajs ay} ui saloiyan of samaa Apo uoi}ou}saa aye pias Apaig •aW •sep!gen saalaa Apo uo!Toia}saa aqj I! pa>isa zaup ry aegwaw flounoo •(o) 6 uoi1oaS ui paaano° s! 1! leg]. 'no paiuiod uolseI663 aoi(eW eau\ •papnpu! sane saxoq wooq uo uoi1oiarsaa aye mon paNsa zaugJ AJ aagwewiiounoo •awi} squa se6uayo Aua eNeW }ou Iiounoo papuewwooaa gels Tau} pavals egg •}ua6uuls aaow aaa appualo to Apo ayo ;o sapoo ay} Iay} pajou aH •xiueoyd Io pue appualo au} y}oq sapoo eqj sisAjaua an!sualxe ua pip aim `aolaalsiu!wpy anuanaa `ajaaa pagoa aW ylinn Taw pay /call pias egg •saopuen 6u!paa6aa weld ui sapoo Jo aegwnu a anay `Tori Li! `saop alapuaio to lay} pale's `aa6auBW Alio Aindea `y6nauanay1 aIawad •s j •saopuan leans 01 paa6aa yiinn peg Iiounoo aye suoi}asaanuoo snoinaad Inoga pajsa s66naog aoAe j •uo!jelo!A salnlilsuoo sunnaad 6uin!I woad paannunnop }aa; ano; ueqi aaow 6u!pueosep `uo!}eInwnooa an!sseoxa ui `sunnaad paup pue peep Tegl pauieidxe uuno •aW •j aegwnu uo!sinaa aapun saaal wind o1 paa6aa Linn uo!TeIo!A a alnTilsuoo pinonn laynn pw{sa >lieio aagwewiiounoo •a6an6ua! apoo wuaaan° s! Tag pa1a1s uuno aW •shoals Iaiaalaa Jo; moi aq of saaadda `smannap!s pue s}aans oflgnd ayj anoga }aa} uenas uayn aannoi ou 6uay Aeqj }ay} os `pewwu1 saaJI meg o1 z aagwnu uo!s!naa ui 1uawaainbaa aye pias uolsal663 aoi(e j ao!A •apoo 6uijsixe ayl u! a6anbuai aye eas o1 pa){sa s66naoS aoAaw Councilmember Clark agreed to withdraw her request until she was able to obtain further information to verify her concerns. Mayor Scruggs summarized by saying that the only change suggested by the Council was the addition of "limousine" and further clarification of the term "trailers" in revision number 3. Ms. Kavanaugh asked Mayor Scruggs if she would like to have the item brought back to another Workshop session. Mayor Scruggs directed Ms. Kavanaugh to send copies of the material which was revised today to the Council for review. 2. LIQUOR LICENSES — FEE CHANGES AND CITY CODE CHANGES CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Art Lynch, Finance Director; and Mr. Robert Drake, Revenue Administrator. The State of Arizona classifies liquor licenses by "Series". It issues 16 different Series of licenses. Series 1-14 licenses are permanent in nature, and Series 15 and 16 licenses are temporary licenses issued for special events and wine festivals. Any person who applies for a State liquor license, except for a temporary license, must obtain a separate Glendale liquor license. The City of Glendale follows the State's classification system for the different Series of licenses that it issues. The City of Glendale does not issue licenses for special events or wine festivals, but it must process applications for such State licenses. The City of Glendale's application and annual license fees for liquor licenses have not been adjusted since 1986. Some of the City of Glendale's fees are no longer sufficient to recover the costs associated with such fees. An analysis was recently conducted to determine if the correct liquor license application fees and annual renewal license fees were sufficient to cover the City's costs to process them. These costs include staff time for background checks, posting notification on the property, and bringing the license application before the City Council for a recommendation to the State. In order to recover these processing costs for liquor application fees and annual renewal license fees, staff recommended the following liquor license changes: Item Current Fee Proposed Fee Liquor License Application Fee $200 $ 700 Series 1-14 Liquor License Application Fee $ 0 $ 25 Special Event License Series 15 and 16 5 Item Current Fee Proposed Fee Liquor License Annual Renewal Fee $800 $1,400 Series 6 only In conjunction with the fee changes, staff recommended changes to Chapter 4 of the City Code. These changes will clarify and codify existing procedures. They will also recognize a new category of "inactive" licenses for fee purposes. This new fee will apply to a licensee that de-activates its State license, but decides to leave it registered ("parked") at a Glendale location, even though it can no longer sell liquor. These license fee increases are consistent with the City of Glendale's general policy of full-cost recovery for licensing fees and are in compliance with State laws regarding municipal liquor license fee increases. In June of 1986, the City Council adopted a resolution setting new liquor license fees. In June of 1992, the City Council adopted a master fee resolution for all of the City of Glendale's regulatory licenses, including liquor license fees. The liquor license fees that were included in the master fee resolution were the same as the fees established in 1986. In January of 1997, the City Council adopted a new master fee resolution for all of the City of Glendale's regulatory licenses, including liquor license fees. The liquor license fees that were included in the master fee resolution were the same as the fees established in 1986. To date, there has been no public involvement concerning the proposed fee adjustments. The proposed fee adjustments would result in increased revenues of approximately $56,150 per year, with annual revenues increasing from approximately $131,600 to $187,750. This represents an increase of 43% in Glendale's revenues from liquor licensing. The recommendation was to review this item and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Clark asked why fees for liquor stores were not raised when the paperwork involved is basically the same as for a bar, which had a fee increase of $600. Mr. Lynch said there are a lot of costs associated with a Series 6 license that are not required for a Series 9 license, including regular police inspections, which increases the amount of time the City spends in processing. Councilmember Clark suggested having a minimal increase to reflect the increased costs of mandates associated with Series 7, 8, 9 and 10 licenses. Mr. Lynch said, in terms of direct costs for processing Series 7 licenses, most are held by restaurants, golf courses, etc. and do not have the required bar examinations. He noted that the number of people and checkpoints involved in carrying out those statutes is less than those involved in specialized 6 licenses. Councilmember Clark asked why there are no increases to reflect the mandates associated with those licenses. She acknowledged that they are less than those required for Series 6 licenses. Mr. Lynch stated that the current fee level recovers the cost of those mandates. Councilmember Clark asked for a definition of "unlawful" as found in Section 4.5. Mr. Drake explained that they were simply mirroring the State Code. With regard to Section 4.23, Inspection of Premises, Councilmember Clark asked if they would no longer do any inspections of any premises. Mr. Drake stated that the inspection referred to in that section is the one done when an applicant first applies for a license. He said the City now calls the applicant after receiving the application to schedule an appointment to visit the location. Councilmember Clark asked, with regard to Section 4.25(C), Change in Ownership of Business License Fees, if applicants are assessed any fees for liquor sold under a temporary license while waiting for their applications to be approved. Mr. Drake stated that there are a small number of transfers that occur, where the State allows an interim permit. He said, in most cases, that license is a transferable license, which means, f the license does not go through, it resorts back to the old owner. He stated that, in the case of non-transferable licenses, the City would not collect for liquor sold during the time an interim license was issued. Councilmember Lieberman noted that the City does not have any say in the approval or denial of a special event license being issued. Therefore, he questioned whether the City would have taxing authority. Councilmember Lieberman said he would rather have the City not charge the $25 special event license application fee because many of the events are charitable in nature. Councilmember Frate asked why they had reduced the inactive license fee. Mr. Lynch stated that no revenue is being generated by deactivated licenses and to charge the full amount of the fee when no activity is occurring would not be deemed a cost recovery approach. Mayor Scruggs stated that she would support not having an application fee for special event liquor licenses. However, she questioned whether that would leave the City open to allegations of discrimination. Dr. Vanacour stated that it would not because they do not currently charge a fee. Vice Mayor Eggleston noted that other cities in the Valley charge a special event license fee. Mr. Lynch pointed out that they receive a lot of applications where only a portion of the proceeds go towards charitable uses. He said the City requires that at least 50% of the proceeds go to charity to qualify for the special event license. 7 Mayor Scruggs expressed the Council's consensus that no fee be charged in relation to special event licenses. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. 8