HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 11/17/1987MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1987, AT 2:35 P.M. Mayor Renner called to order the Workshop Session of GlendaleCityCouncilinConferenceRoomB-3 of the Council Chambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Huffman, Heatwole, Tolby, and Hugh. Member Absent: Falbo. Charter ReviewOnNovember9, 1987, the Charter Review Committee met andapproveditsreporttoCouncil. The report recommends 14amendmentstotheCityCharter. The exact language ofrecommendedamendmentsiscontainedinthereport. Theactualballotlanguageandadditionalitemsrequiredfor thepublicitypamphletwillbesubmittedforreviewatalater
workshop. The filing deadline for Charter amendments for
the general election ballot is January 15, 1988.
Barry Aarons, Chairman of the Charter Review Committee,
presented the recommended amendment changes.
Vice Mayor Heatwole asked if published also means distributed
and suggested changing the word to distributed.
Vice Mayor Heatwole asked when quorum of four is present can
a motion be passed by 3 to 1. Mr. Aarons stated that is not
the consensus of the commission, the majority is the full
council, so the motion would fail. Mr. Van Haren agreed with
Mr. Aarons.
Councilman Tolby asked regarding the salaries if voters can
modify the amount. Mr. Aarons said they can accept or
reject.
Mayor Renner asked this item come back to the next workshop
with the ballot language.
Time Extension for Rezoning Application Z-80-12: 7510 West
Bell Road (Westcor Partners)
Westcor Partners and the City's project review team are
requesting a six month extension of the proposed regional
center zoning on Bell Road, between 75th and 83rd Avenues.
The request is being made to order to provide more time to
complete the development plans for the project. The
developer and the project team have been working on plans
during the last year, but more time is required. All
previous stipulations of the zoning will continue, and when a
development master plan is approved it will become part of a
PAD zoning request to be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and City Council.
Gary Fulk, Project Manager, gave a brief report. Mayor Renner asked if the estimated start date was still latein1988. Terry Bates, Westcor, responded that was theapproximatetime. This item will be placed on a regular agenda for councilaction. Vicious Dog OrdinanceAttherequestofseveral Council members, staff has draftedanamendedChapter6oftheCityCode, which deals with thecontrolofanimalsforyourreview. Based on research, achangeintheChapterisneededifCouncilwishestoprovidecitizenswithacourseofactiontodealwithpotentiallyviciousdogs, as well as an alternative for owners beyond
possible destruction of their dogs for viciousness.
The amendment defines what constitutes a vicious dog as well
as how they are identified and managed. It does not name any
specific breeds as inherently vicious. Any dog may be taken
to a hearing, and which sufficient probable cause judged
vicious, and the owner required to maintain the dog in a
specific manner.
All dogs need to be managed as potentially vicious; this is
the responsibility of all owners. Dogs running at large
increases the possibility of animal confrontation with
people. The proposed procedure for bringing a dog through
the hearing process includes:
a. Maricopa County Rabies/Animal Control, law
enforcement, or a citizen asks a hearing to be convened.
b. Owner receives a notice of pending hearing.
C. Hearing conducted and outcome based on a
preponderance of evidence.
d. If the dog is judged vicious, appeal is possible
through City Court. Otherwise, owner begins implementing
control measures.
e. Control measures are divided into immediate and time
limited steps. Immediate steps start within 1 calendar day
of determination; time limited measures would be implemented
within 30 calendar days.
Pam Kavanaugh gave a brief report. Doris Smith discussed the
definitions and other city and state ordinances. Harold
Brady discussed the legal expectations.
Councilman Tolby asked with this ordinance if anybody canaffordtokeepapetwithallthestipulations. Mrs. Smithstatedthedogmustbedeclaredviciousbeforetheownerwouldhavetoimposetherequirements. Councilman Tolby asked if other ordinances are as tough asthisone. Mrs. Smith stated some are tougher, some are morelenient. She also stated this is a draft and can be amended. Mayor Renner asked who would conduct the hearings. Mr. BradysuggestedtheCityManagersoffice. Councilman Tolby asked how the process is initiated. Ms. Smith stated the dog must bite someone or another animal thencomplaintturnedin. Councilman Tolby stated he would like to hear the responsefrompeoplewhodealwiththisproblem.
Councilman Bellah stated he felt it was a good ordinance and
a good way to start.
This item will be brought back for further discussion.
Intergovernmental Report
Marion Porch updated the council on legislative issues.
Sewer Development Fee Rebate Option
In discussion with the Central Arizona Homebuilders
Association, the Utilities Committee has examined the concept
of a sewer development fee rebate, predicted upon the reduced
wastewater flows which would result from a low -flow plumbing
fixture ordinance. The Utilities Committee requested a staff
report, which is attached for reference, and was discussed in
a special Utilities Committee meeting of October 29, 1987.
The Utilities Committee referred the rebate option to City
Council Workshop, however, declined to make a recommendation
as to its adoption.
Analysis by staff indicates that low -flow toilets in a
typical single-family residence would achieve an estimated
reduction in wastewater flows of 12%, which could be used as
a rationale for similar reduction of the sewer development
fee. A corresponding rebate of approximately $100 is
determined, which would reduce the sewer development fee from
825 to $725 per residence. A significant reduction in total
sewer development fees is noted in the staff report, which
would markedly reduce funds available for capital
improvements.
Mr. Martinsen, Public Works Deputy City Manager, gave a brief
presentation.
Councilman Bellah questioned the calculation on the last pageofthereport. Mr. Martinsen stated he would have themchecked. Councilman Tolby stated he felt the homebuilders should getsomeoftherebate. Vice Mayor Heatwole stated he felt only the consumer shouldgettherebate. This item will come back to workshop for further discussion. AdjournmentTherebeing no further business the workshop was adjourned at4:55 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk