Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 5, 2005 C/C Minutes Meridian City CouncK April 5, 2005 Page 5 0158 ~ ~ B. City Attorney - Bill Nary Proøosed Ordinance for Solid Waste Collection Proaram: Wardle: Item 6-8 is Department Reports from the city attorney. 1. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, the first item on there is a proposed ordinance for solid waste collection. We had a discussion last week very briefly. Council member Rountree wasn't here for that discussion. We put it back on as a department report, because didn't have it on laserfiche last week, we just had some copies, didn't make it to everyone. I did get them sent out again by the end of last week and it is on your laserfiche. I think Mr. Sedlacek was here last week. In our discussion these were not significant changes, there is some, essentially, clean up. We did add some other information to the ordinance basically dealing with some scope and authority and purpose statements and things like that. If it's adequate, Council, I would simply ask that we just move it forward to the agenda next week for passage. Bird: So moved, Mr. President. Donnell: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to move the solid waste collection program ordinance forward to the Consent Agenda next week. All in favor of that motion? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYEs. Tabled from March 29, 2005: Proposed Draft Ordinance for License Alcohol Establishments and ProhibitinG Two LIcense Establish~nts within the Same Premise: Wardle: Thank you very much. Mr. Nary, Item No.2. 2. Nary: Thank you. Mr. President, Members of the Council, the second item was tabled from last week. You might recall we had a lengthy discussion on licensing establishments within the city. Prior to that discussion - this was on our department report - you had previously requested a proposed draft ordinance to consider whether or not allowing two licensed establishments within the same facility, essentially, a bar- within-a-bar discussion we had last week. I have made some amendments to this ordinance. If you want to consider it, basically, the concerns have been is how to enforce or how to deal with allowing two of these licensed establishments within the same facility. The way I tried to distinguish that in this draft ordinance was that each of the facilities would have to have their own separate address. That way we would have some method at least to assure where the location was, as well as requiring that they provide a footprint to the police as part of the application process, so we would be sure that each - that one physical address would - there would only be one license for one Mertdlan City Counoil Aprt15. 2005 Page 80158 physical address. If you have any questions, at your pleasure, as to what you want to do with the ordinance from this point. Wardle: Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Two things. Is this ordinance defendable by you and your attorneys? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, I wouldn't bring it if it wasn't. Bird: Okay. I thought that. The second one is for Chief Musser. Is he comfortable with it? Musser: Council President Wardle, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, if it's the same one that I reviewed last week on it, my message back to our attorney at that time was that I thought it would meet all concerns, because it does leave some latitude for Mayoral and Council discretion within it as well. So, the police department can work with it. Bird: With that, Mr. President, I would move that we bring that forward for an ordinance reading at the next available meeting. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded - I'm going to bring some discussion forward and Mr. Nary and I talked about this. The proposed ordinance that is in front of us is a proposal to prevent the decisions which we made last week from happening end I'm not - my recollection of Mr. Nary's comments before was when we didn't have all the information in front of us about the specific applications, we looked at how we could alter our city ordinance to prevent those kinds of applications. And so one of the things that I heard in the discussion about those individual liquor licenses and discrepancy between our city ordinances and the state requirements was that we were comfortable allowing those - those specific users on a case-by-case basis, This ordinance, as I read it, would -- would prevent some of those; is that correct, Mr. Nary? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, yeah, there is probably one thing I will have to verify is on the street addressing and how that particular address is attached. I believe it's attached, actually, by the city and, then, transmitted to the postmaster, but, for example, on those - two of those applications last week, the Backwater Saloon and the Top Shelf application, unless they could have a separate address, which means they at least need to have a separate entrance, rather than the main entrance, to at least have a separate doorway entrance to the facility, they could still have the same MerIdian City Councn Aptll5, 2005 Page 7 of 58 premise internally, it's just that where the physical location of it would be addressed from would be the only difference. Would that prohibit those two facilities? I'm not positive, because, again, I don't know the layouts of either of those places to know whether or not they could actually get a separate physical address, but other than that the layout internally wouldn't change, but the reason we are having this discussion is because we are allowed by state code to create other licensing provisions beyond what the state has. All we had prior to this code would simply be the conditional use requirements and thafs what the discussion was last week. This would simple at least require a little bit more definition of the location, which I think is what the police concern was from the enforcement perspective is just some specificity of the location and, again, I think it would require a separate entrance. Donnell: Mr. President? Wardle: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: How would a separate entrance in terms of having more than one address at the same fairly - at least pretty much at the same location, be any different than some of the houses that are converted into apartments, that the occupants go in the front door, but on that front door is - are several different numbers? It seems to me that that could - that still could be allowed, even under this ordinance; is that right? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Donnell, certainly, if they are distinguishable enough to be able to address them separately, like in that - I thought of the same example, because I used to live in an A and the half was below me. So, I understand that you can address them separately. I think all we were trying to accomplish in this is making sure we had very clear specifications of where the location of the serving establishment is, so that we had some clearer definition for the police enforcement purposes. But, yes, you could have one entrance that may have multiple entrances internally. It would allow still under, for example, the Meridian Marketplace that's being built just south of here, has multiple store fronts and different doors that will have different addresses, sometimes you will have facilities that will have one address within an A or a B or a C, all of those things I think would perfectly still be allowed, as long as you could physically identify the location more specifically than we have had it. The other suggestion, Council, I would have is we routinely on ordinances are not required by state law to have public hearings on ordinances, but this one may be one you may want to consider, rather than bringing it forward once and waiving the reading rules, which we do on a number of occasions, not doing that on this one. You may want to have this on your agenda for the specified three readings under the state code and maybe inviting public comment at one of those readings. The second reading is generally easier, so if you do want to make changes, you can do it before the third reading. But just a suggestion, but since we did have some people, there may be other comment out there that we are unaware of that might be - might be helpful to you on whether to pass this or not. Donnell: Follow up, Mr. President? Meridian City Council AprIl 5. 2005 Page 8 of 58 Wardle: Mrs. Donnell. Donnell: The next question I would have is about those that we have already approved that mayor may not have a separate entrance. Those are still approved? I mean they don't lose that license, since we have already done that prior to this ordinance being in place; right? Nary: Mr. President, Council member Donnell, yes, they would still be in place. There wouldn't be any issue. The only issue would be in their renewal next year, they may need to have a separate entrance put in or something to that nature. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Yeah, Mr. President. I agree that I think we need to have this as a three readings and have the public comment on probably the second one. I think it's -- I, for one, the only reason I voted in affirmative last week was because of the fact that we were - we were over the barrel, to put it bluntly, but getting back to another thought that I have got, I think there is a lot of these ordinances that we need to have public hearings on that can give us some - maybe some ideas that a year from now we are not scrambling to change it or something. So, I think that's a very good idea that Mr. Nary brought up to have a public hearing on this and -- but I think we need, like the motion said, to move forward and get it going. Wardle: Then, for clarification for the motion, would it be the maker's preference to bring that forward for a full set of public hearings and not be written with suspension of rules? Bird: Yes, it would be from the maker's - I don't know what the second - Rountree: To have a first hearing - first reading. Wardle: First reading? And second agrees? Donnell: Do you agree? Rountree: I agree. Donnell: You were the second. Wardle: Thank you very much. I have a motion on the table to bring forward an ordinance - proposed draft ordinance License Alcohol Establishments and prohibiting two licensed establishments within the same premise for a first reading. All in favor of the motion? All opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.