Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Code Review Council Committee - Meeting Date: 2/25/2021MINUTES CITY CODE REVIEW COUNCIL COMMITTEE GLENDALE CIVIC CENTER 5750 W. GLENN DRIVE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85301 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2021 5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5 PM. ROLL CAT.T. Committee members present: Chairperson Councilmember Ray Malnar, Councilmember Joyce Clark, Yvonne Knaack, Ron Short, Michael Socaciu, Barbara Lentz, Vice Chairperson Councilmember Bart Turner, Camille Donley, Rich LeVander, and Warren Wilfong are all present. City staff present: Rick St. John (Deputy City Manager, Public Safety), David Richert (Interim Planning Administrator Services), Jamsheed Mehta (Development Services Director), Cody White (Senior Planning Project Manager), Adam Santiago, Council Assistant, and Diana Figueroa, Admin. Support Supervisor were present. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no citizen comments made. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A motion to approve the January 28, 2021, meeting minutes was made by Ms. Knaack and seconded by Councilmember Turner. All were in favor, and none opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND POSSIBLE ACTION A. BARKING DOGS Mr. St. John inquired with Mr. Bailey, the city attorney, about whether or not an inspector could count as a second witness for this type of noise complaint, but after some discussion, Mr. Bailey explained an officer/inspector could possibly cause a disturbance, and therefore could not be considered a viable witness for a consistent barking complaint. Mr. Wilfong asked if the two witnesses can be from the same household, and Mr. St. John said they must be from independent households. Ms. Knaack thought this change from four -person to two -person witnesses is a fine improvement. Chairperson Malnar asked if there should be any changes to the code as it's written, and Mr. St. John did not recommend any changes. B. REPEAT OFFENDER Mr. St. John noted in section 29 of the code, it defines a "repeat offender." This is almost identical to other chapters, and the wording could be duplicated in the rewrites of chapters 24 and 25. Mr. St. John also noted the vehicles provisions of chapter 25 will be completely removed because chapter 24 will house everything pertaining to vehicles of any kind. Chapter 25 will become a chapter about "nuisances." These adjustments are in progress at this time, and Mr. St. John is hoping to have something drafted by the April meeting. Mr. Wilfong asked if the second and third violation operational order will be adjusted based on the new repeat offender code adjustment, and Mr. St. John said no, the process of repeat offending and reporting will not change at this time. It could change in the near future, but for now, it will remain the same. Mr. Wilfong then asked if a behavior violation will be treated differently than a maintenance or repair violation. Mr. St. John said he's hoping the committee can help steer people away from all these violations, and all reasons for violations (time, money, etc.) need to be taken into consideration upon potentially issuing citations. Councilmember Turner brought up Mr. St. John's goals of making these codes "fair, consistent, and equitable," and Councilmember Turner asked for Mr. St. John to expound on "equitable." Mr. St. John explained he would like to provide opportunities within each person's means to get their violations corrected within a reasonable time. Mr. Socaciu asked if there will be some sort of proof required of people who request more time to address the violation. Mr. St. John said proof isn't needed, but a concrete plan would be put in place to grant them more time than what would normally be allowed. Councilmember Clark expressed concerns with people taking advantage of this system. After further discussion, Councilmember Clark suggested seeing a sample document like this, and Mr. St. John said he would work on drafting this. Mr. Socaciu asked what other systems in the city are like when people claim they cannot pay for something (EX: a water bill). Mr. Socaciu expressed concerns of ensuring everyone is treated fairly, and requiring proof of each person's claim of needing more time is valid. C. YARD ART Chairperson Malnar mentioned there are many areas of the city that have antiques as part of yard art. Mr. St. John explained most cities in the valley don't attempt to regulate this, and the city attorney recommended Glendale follows suit, but it can be regulated through a health and safety lens. Ms. Lentz suggested if the neighbors don't complain, the yard art should be left as is. D. CODE ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY Chairperson Malnar asked that this is discussed briefly during the meeting in hopes the committee can provide feedback to Mr. St. John so he can return with a full presentation. Mr. St. John explained the planning administrator must be in control of the zoning ordinances. How this is enforced should be approached with fair, equitable, and consistent treatment from one citizen to the next. Mr. St. John said several council meetings will be needed to make final decisions on the language, and hopefully, by summer, the language is finalized and enforceable. There weren't any comments or suggestions from the committee. Mr. Wilfong argued that appearance should be taken into consideration in addition to health and safety, even though Mr. St. John said health and safety are more important. Ultimately, Mr. Wilfong stated aesthetics should be more important. Ms. Knaack agreed with Mr. Wilfong to a certain extent. Mr. Turner suggested inviting a representative of the city attorney's office to discuss regulating blights or aesthetics. Mr. Socaciu noted that the city often argues health and safety in an effort to combat the aesthetic issues throughout the city. After discussing Glendale in comparison to other neighboring cities, Chairperson Malnar ultimately decided that further discussion on this subject was needed at a later time. 2 E. COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL FENCES Mr. Mehta explained that while there were many concerns presented in the previous meeting, and there are staff -level responses provided in each packet for the committee. As of today, there isn't anything concrete in the codes that address the temporary fencing, and David Richert and Cody White both contributed to the responses. Chairperson Malnar suggested that, rather than waiting, the committee should go through the presentation and discussion in detail at this time. Mr. White provided a temporary fencing definition: a structure used to enclose an outdoor activity or use for a defined period, that is contained fully above ground and includes no permanently implanted or affixed footings. Mr. White explained many valley cities have an approval process for temporary fencing, and if determined appropriate, permitting requirements or other criteria could be established in the new Unified Development Code. In regards to the length of temporary fencing, there are many variables, particularly when tied to active construction that may have delays or other schedule changes. Many cities allow for extension for temporary fencing, particularly when associated with active construction. Mr. White suggested the committee could establish criteria requiring canvas or mesh screening, with clear maintenance expectations. They could also establish criteria defining where fencing can or cannot be located. With that, Mr. White proceeded with encouraging the committee to discuss this along with how the city staff answered their questions. Mr. Socaciu thanked the staff for their response to their questions, posed the questions of how long a temporary fence will be considered temporary, and expressed concerns about the expense of maintaining temporary fencing. Councilmember Clark had no qualms regarding temporary construction fencing, but she agreed with Mr. Socaciu's concerns of the commercial/residential properties infamous Texaco on the corner of 83rd and Glendale Avenues. Councilmember Clark suggested a permitting process with temporary fencing for businesses that need the temporary fencing up for an undetermined amount of time. Chairperson Malnar asked if the committee would like to move forward with temporary fencing ordinance, and he suggested the Business Council Committee review their findings and suggestions after the Code Review Committee provides their input. Chairperson Malnar asked to make a motion to have the planning division draft a temporary fencing ordinance. Mr. Socaciu made a motion, and Councilmember Clark seconded this. After this discussion, Mr. Wilfong requested revisiting section D. Code Enforcement Philosophy again. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS A. COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE — YVONNE KNAACK Ms. Knaack didn't have anything to report. B. RESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE — COUNCILMEMBER BART TURNER Mr. Turner didn't have anything to report due to work in progress. C. PARKING COMMITTEE — WARREN WILFONG Mr. Wilfong has been focusing on rental properties, and he suggested having a new, special code for rental properties to ensure there aren't any violations. Mr. St. John said he could bring the rental property language so the committee could review/edit in the next meeting. Councilmember 3 Clark asked one of the issues is getting into contact with the landlord. Chairperson Malnar suggested discussing this during the April meeting. D. MISCELLANEOUS COMMITTEE — RON SHORT Mr. Short sent a memo. to the committee about two issues in the city: littering and small cell poles. Mr. Short suggested having a littering hotline for the city, and consequences for littering would be administered to those caught littering throughout the community. As per Mr. Short's memo, "The State Legislature passed Arizona Revised Statutes: A.R.S. 9.591 through A.R.S. 9.599 requiring local governments to approve small cell pole installations in established right -of- way. The law dictates to local governments how to process small cell pole applications. The city of Glendale cannot regulate small cell wireless technology based on health issues." Mr. Short suggested the city department work on the small cell poles and the littering issue. Mr. LeVander spoke on littering consequences, and Chairperson Malnar asked Mr. LeVander to take the committee's concerns to the police department, and obtain a summary of the current regulations for this. In regards to small cell pole installations, Mr. Mehta noted there is a concern of aesthetics and notification as this relates to the 5G cell towers. Mr. Turner found the subcommittee's concern and recommendation of not including these on poles in people's front yards to be valid. Chairperson Malnar asked if there were any objections to include a guideline of approaching the small cell poles. Councilmember Malnar asked Mr. Mehta to report this to the council. UPDATES AND PRESENTATIONS A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES There were no updates from Development Services. B. CODE CONSULTANT There are no updates from Code Consultant. C. RICK ST. JOHN, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER There are no further updates from Mr. St. John. D. MICHAEL BAILEY, CITY ATTORNEY There are no updates from Mr. Bailey. COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS AND TOPICS FOR NEXT MEETING Mr .Wilfong asked why the changes in chapters are occurring for vehicles and nuisances, and Mr. St. John said it's so all the vehicle codes are in one location. Ms. Knaack asked Mr. St. John if Mr. Bailey will have language for vehicle noise for the next meeting. It was planned to go to council workshop on March 9th. Chairperson Malnar also noted the committee was granted a 6 -month extended membership, and the committee hopes the committee will wrap up all code adjustments by then. For future meetings, Chairperson Malnar suggested committee members revisiting the city codes to ensure all the codes are acceptable. n NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the City Code Review Committee will be held Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 5 PM, at the Civic Center, 5750 West Glenn Drive, Glendale, Arizona, 85301, ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the Chairperson Malnar adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:27 PM. 67