HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 08.20 City Council Regular Agenda iiii\CHe✓
4RIZ00' V ity o . (94pache &2unction
COUNCIL AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 20, 1980 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
(1) ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
(2) ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, JULY 16, 1980.
(3) ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, AUGUST 6, 1980.
AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
CALL TO THE PUBLIC (PETITIONS)
CITY ?AM'N\GER'S REPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(4) PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 55, PZ-7-79, JOHN R. SCHUSTER, REZONING
(FIRST READING)
(5) PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 56, PZ-12-79, ROBERT AND HAZEL LAWTHER, REZONING
(FIRST READING)
(6) PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 57, PZ-12-80, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERSHIP
(7) PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 62, PZ-15-80, PARKING AND LOADING AMENDMENT
(EMERGENCY CLAUSE)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (TABLED ITEMS)
NONE
��10E�(10,10°E��Nc�\oN,
pay/v.v.,85220 • ZEIEPHONE(602)982-8002
�NO� � � �S`�
kook NORtH��
COUNCIL AGENDA CON'T
REGULAR MEETING 8/20/80
PAGE 2
NEW BUSINESS
(8) AWARDING OF BID, PROJECT NO. PW-80-7, STREET SIGN, POST AND HARDWARE.
(9) RESOLUTION NO. 80-25, AIRPORT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
(10) RESOLUTION NO. 80-24, HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
(11) RESOLUTION NO. 80-26, SPEED LIMIT CHANGES
(12) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT - APACHE JUNCTION/PINAL COUNTY - ANIMAL CONTROL
(13) PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 64, AMENDING CHAPTER 8, BY ADDING SECTION 8-3-3 (C)
(EMERGENCY CLAUSE)
(14) RESOLUTION NO. 27, COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOL GRANT APPLICATION
(15) RESOLUTION NO. 28, AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE APACHE JUNCTION UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(16) EXECUTIVE SESSION, SEPTEMBER 3, 1980, AT 6:00 P.M.
(17) INFORMATION AND REPORTS
REQUESTES OF COUNCIL
(18) ADJOURNMENT
++r
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
r
•
ITEM # _ MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
fRcsenil 1 Aisseltri-- ,l)
..... _ (YES- 48/- ABS TA t N M6'
COUNCILMAN FI I�!_ t (./
COUNCILMAN DAM IANO
COUNCILMAN SHANKS `�
7COUNCILMAN BURGESS `t
COUNCILMAN EIDSON Y ir
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO ✓ _ 'f,
MAYOR SEEMAL , _ _ ✓ _ /
UNAN I MOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED Ay klcic7
TOTAL: (2,1uAv,'/""3
... ?RESE/07 A i3sE-A'r
z
ITEM NO . 1
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED,
FOR APPROVAL
ITEM NO . 1
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS AMENDED ,
TO AMEND THE AGENDA
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
YES NO ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN HILL
COUNCILMAN DAMIANO ,
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
COUNCILMAN BURGESS
. COUNCILMAN EIDSON
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
ITEM NO , 2
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 16, 1980, BE AND
HEREBY ARE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED ,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 6,1980
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction
was held on August 6, 1980, at the Apache Junction City Hall , pursuant to
the notice as required by law
�► CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Mayor John Granillo called the meeting to order at 7 00 P M at
the Apache Junction City Hall.
INVOCATION
Councilman Eidson gave the Invocation
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice-Mayor Granillo led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present Vice-Mayor John Granillo, Jimmy Eidson
and Marie Shanks.
Councilmembers absent Mayor Virginia Seeman, Jerry Burgess,
Norman Hill, and Thomas Damiano
Staff present G Ray Lee, City Manager
Rich Oesterle, City Clerk
Joe Gero, Director of Planning
Richard Broman, Director of Public Works
City Clerk, Rich
Oesterle informed Vice-Mayor Granillo that there was not a quorum as
required by the City Code Section 2-4-4.
Vice-Mayor Granillo
explained to the audience that no action may be taken this evening that
Adak
the items on the Agenda will be placed on the Agenda of the Regular Meeting
on August 20, 1980 and adjourned the meeting
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1980 BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL
Virginia Seeman
Mayor
ATTEST.
Rich Oesterle
City Clerk
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # .'772 MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY :
YES NO _ ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN BURGESS ✓
COUNCILMAN DAMIANO V
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
COUNCILMAN HILL
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO V
MAYOR SEEMAN
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
J
ITEM NO . 3
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA THAT
THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1980, BE AND HEREBY
ARE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED .
PUBLIC NEARING
I THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 55
(PZ-7-79) THE APPLICANT IS John R.
Schuster
2. WOULD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PLEASE BRIEF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND PUBLIC TO THIS PETITION .
3. IF THE APPLICANT OR SPOKESMAN FOR THE PETITION IS PRESENT,
WOULD THEY PLEASE PRESENT INFORMATION THEY HAVE REGARDING
THIS PETITION AT THIS TIME .
4. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THE PETITION? (RECOGNIZE ONE AT A TIME) •
5. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF THE PETITION? (RECOGNIZE ONE AT A TIME)
G. CALL UPON THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR HIS RECOMMENDATIONS .
7. ANY REBUTTAL ( IF CONTROVERSY — OR NEED — CHAIRMAN `S
JUDGEMENT)
A. APPLICANT
.�. B. IN FAVOR
C. OPPOSED
(-)s-AC HF✓G2
UP z
-4
4R/ZONP `Oily o &4pache 09unction
July 21, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THRU: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER 76 PL
FROM: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR 0ANNING JC- - -
SUBJECT: AGENDA PLACEMENT ITEM FOR AUGUST 6, 1980
(PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING)
PROPOSED ORDINANCE #55 (PZ-7-79)
BACKGROUND: Attached you will find an analysis and report (dated
July 8, 1980) , which sets forth the background. Also
attached are other pertinent data. The site plans for
this planned development are available for review in
the Planning Office.
The City Council is requested to review Ordinance #33,
particularly Section 33.09, prior to the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: The resolution of recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission is attached. It was passed by a vote
of 5 to O. The City staff concurs and recommends
approval of the rezoning.
SUGGESTED MOTION• (Note) On August 6, 1980 there should be only the
first reading and the public hearing which is advertised.
ITEM Na. I (Note) On August 20, 1980 there should be scheduled the
••••""..-..... second reading and City Council consideration.
-• CLJ) L'(1;,t1;S "BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
- NEvi ausNESS OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, that in rezoning case PZ-7-79,
`-- •_.......... INFO application of John R. Schuster, also known as Ordinance
/REPORTS #55, AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE
JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE ZONING MAP,
APPROVED ON ?.21.44.=-,, CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION IN REZONING
CASE PZ-7-79 FROM GENERAL RURAL (GR) TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
ro,, ,.� ::;a — S �.l Q� BY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CR-5/PD) ; REPEALING AND CONFLICTING
,�/� PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.
CI Y MANAGER d
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-6154
Page 2
PROPOSED ORDINANCE #55
FURTHERMORE, the rear lot line setback of ten (10' )
feet shall be approved instead of thirty-five (35' )
feet.
FURTHERMORE, the applicant shall provide for proper
right of way on Scenic Street and Royal Palm Road as
set forth in the Apache Junction Street Classification
Plan.
The reasons for approval as presented by the Planning
and Zoning Commission are incorporated by reference."
JWG/kmc
Attachments:
1) Resolution from Planning and Zoning Commission
2) PZ-7-79 Analysis and Report dated July 7, 1980
3) Engineering Department memo dated July 14, 1980
4) Department of Public Safety memo dated July 2, 1980
5) Fire Chief memo dated March 7, 1980
6) Letter from John R. Schuster dated March 10, 1980
7) Ordinance #55 and map
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona, that in rezoning case PZ-7-79, also known as proposed
Ordinance No. 55, application of John R. Schuster for his property described
as:
South 2 of the Southeast 4 of the Northeast 4 of the North-
west 4 of Section 21, Township 1 North, Range 8 East of the
•.. Gila and Salt River Basin and Meridian, located in Apache
Junction, Pinal County, Arizona
requesting rezoning from General Rural (GR) to Multiple Residence by
Planned Development (CR-5/PD) , that the Commission recommends to the Apache
Junction City Council the approval of said application.
The reasons for the recommendation are:
1. The project fronts on Scenic Street and Royal Palm Road, a quarter
section and mid-section line road respectively. As such, they will
be expected to carry higher traffic volumes and multiple family
uses, provided the density of the area is not over loaded, would
be expected to develop.
2. The location is near commercial uses (approximately 3/4 mile) .
3. Zoning in the area is generally multiple family, except for the
General Rural (GR) and Trailer Homesite (TH-1) location, therefore,
this would not be spot zoning.
4. The applicant has demonstrated through the documents submitted, that
the General Criteria as set forth in Section 33.09 have been com-
plied with.
:..� Special notation for City Council consideration:
1. The City Council should require that the necessary right-of-way for
the development of Scenic Street and Royal Palm Road be granted as
a condition precedent to the rezoning.
2. The City Council should approve a ten (10) feet rear yard instead
of thirty-five (35) feet.
r.,,iP.CHE G2
U I ate;. , 'r, Z
'IPI .,,,IAzoP W ity o ace 09unctian
July 8, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FROM: JOE GERO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. -c/a
SUBJECT: PZ-7-79 ANALYSIS AND REPORT
This analysis and report is for an application from GR to CR-5 by
Planned Development.
Application Data
This application was originally submitted by the applicant in late 1979.
By vote of the Commission, this application was postponed until the
Planned Development Ordinance was approved. This is now a reality.
In the affected area, after subtracting the equal property classification
parcels, 5 of 9 property owners and approximately 85-90% of the area
owners ' signatures are on the petition. The names have been verified
with County records. The staff has had a new advertisement placed in the
newspaper, notices have been mailed to the property owners, and the site
posted. The staff request that the Cotrnnission extinguish any possible
cloud and ratify the action of the Executive Secretary by a motion to
allow the rezoning petition by Commission Initiative.
Conventional Zoning Comparison
The following represents a comparison of the application versus conven-
tional CR-5 zoning district requirements.
Required Plan
Minimum lot area 7,000 sq.ft. 206,910 sq.ft.
(Note: Gross figure
includes streets)
Minimum lot width 60 ft. 627 ft./Scenic
330 ft./Royal Palm
Minimum lot area/dwelling unit 2,000 sq.ft. 2,069 sq.ft.
Permitted coverage (maximum) 35% 22.7%
Building Coverage = 46,880 sq.ft.
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE.JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
Page 2
PZ-7-79 ANALYSIS AND REPORT
Required Plan
Maximum height 20 ft.
7 buildings with 2 story maximum
Minimum distance to main buildings 7 ft. Not Applicable
Minimum distance to front lot line 25 ft. 25 ft./Royal Palm
103 ft./Scenic
Minimum distance to side lot line 7 ft. 76 ft.
Minimum distance to rear lot line 35 ft. 10 ft.
Parking
1.5 spaces/one bedroom x 80
dwelling units 120
2.0 spaces/two bedroom x 20
dwelling units 40
(all parking dimensions meet 160 161
minimum standards)
Other data:
Density: 1 dwelling unit per 2,508 sq.ft. = 21.05 dwelling units
per acre (net) .
Plans show location for three (3) fire hydrants and a fire access lane.
Site is not in an identified flood plain.
Each dwelling unit will have:
One bedroom = 622 sq.ft. liveable
Two bedroom = 805 sq.ft. liveable
The location is approximately 3/4 mile from basic commercial needs. The
site is located on a paved quarter-section line road (Scenic) which
connects to the west with Arizona Highway 88.
The Applicant will be required to make off-site improvements as per City
standards.
Trash pick-up areas are as per plan.
CMU wall on North side.
See plan for stages areas.
JWG/kmc
rNACHt✓GDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
r ,/'�'I' Z
AlRiZOO' 'Oily o C pache unction
W E McDANIEL
MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Gero, Director of Planning
FROM: Lt. Ed Seder, Department of Public Safetil
SUBJECT: Planned Development Application Review
DATE: July 2, 1980
I have reviewed the plans submitted for an apartment
complex located at Scenic and Royal Palm Drive, and an apartment
complex located at Grand Avenue and 1st Avenue.
I do not find any problems with the plans in regard to
accessibility of Fire Department, Police or Ambulance equipment.
The apartments complex which is proposed for Scenic
Drive has fire hydrants located on three corners plus a proposed
fire lane through the complex.
The apartment complex which is proposed for Grand
- Avenue shows a proposed fire hydrant on the Southwest corner of
the property. The location of this hydrant was recommended by
the Apache Junction Fire Chief and is considered sufficient
to handle any fire problems.
1001 NORTH IDAHO RD •POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220•TELEPHONE(602)982-8260
PQACHF ✓Gti
U x ;ttik\;. z
gRiZoNp, c6ity o cpache 09unction
July 14, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Department
_' FROM: Engineering Dept.
SUBJECT: Apartment Complex-Scenic Street and
Royal Palm Road (file #800-8)
A. The flood insurance map shows this project is in flood hazard
area "D".
B. As topography is not indicated on plan final designs shall
allow all washes to enter and leave the project at present
locations. On-site washes may be rerouted appropriately.
C. The right of way on Royal Palm Rd. being a mid section line,
roadway shall be 40' .
D. Offsite improvements are required.
RWB/an
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-6154
cJpacne junction Volunteer . ire ,,beivarbrient
POST OFFICE BOX 829 • APACHE JUNCTION ARIZONA 85220
March 7, '980
MEMO TO: Joe Gero, Director of Planning and Zoning
Bill McDaniels, Director of Public Safety
FRCM: Chief Harvey Miller
RE: Fire hydrants
LCCATION: Property on Royal Palm Rd. and Scenic St.
For sufficient fire flow to combat fires of to-
tal involvement in the Apartment Complex we will need
three hydrants as designated on the blue prints.
//4--c/11
Chief"Harvey Miller
. .
\AcØAPAc,7,
, i ‘ f \
„„ 1 c k
1 0 p) 4 , t 1
I) 1 fib' )\
i
l
—41�RiNA & RESORT
oink
March 10, 1980
Mr. George Baljo
Chairman, Planning and Zoning
P. 0. Box K
Apache Junction, Az. 85220
Dear Mr Baljo:
This letter serves to request the amendment of my application for
zoning. I now request that the zoning be changed from GR to PAD (CR-5),
per the plans submitted to you by my architect, M. A. Overby.
As we discussed in our meeting March 5, 1980, the following items
will be detailed more extensively in subsequent submissions during
the next phase.
A. The main line will come from the Arizona Water Company, located
directly across the street from the southeast corner of the property.
B. The design and location of the fire hydrants will meet specifications
of the Apache Junction Fire Department.
C. Emergency vehicle access and/or fire lanes may cause relocation
of two to four parking spaces.
D. Increased numbers of garbage locations will be shown at more
convenient locations to tenants.
E. Contours will be shown if needed; however, the variation of
Aiik contours on the site is less than four feet.
F. Several units will be designed for use by handicapped persons.
By separate correspondence, Mr. Overby will provide you with a sketch
of the type building to be constructed.
Considering the relatively rapid change in the financial situation in
construction, the building project may have to be undertaken in phases;
however, such a determination cannot be made at the present time.
I respectfully request that the zoning on the property in question he
changed to PAD.
Thank you, _� ,, -7
'- John R./Schuster
Post Office Box 23 Tortilla Flat, Arizona 85290
ORDINANCE NO 55
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION IN REZONING CASE
PZ-7-79 FROM GENERAL RURAL (GR) TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE BY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(CR-5/PD), REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA, THAT
SECTION I. IN GENERAL
1. The zoning district classification for the parcel of land described as.
South 1 of the Southeast ;G of the Northeast 14 of the
Northwest 1 of Section 21, Township 1 North, Range 8
East of the Gila and Salt River Basin and Meridian
located in Apache Junction, Pinal County, Arizona.
be and hereby is changed from General Rural (GR) to Multiple
Residence by Planned Development (CR-5/PD).
2 The approval of the zoning district classification incorporates,
by reference, the preliminary approval of the planned development
as submitted by the applicant, and the development of the said
property shall be in accordance 7Lth said planned development and
as provided in Ordinance No 33.'.
3. Applicant shall install, at his expense, fire hydrants as per
approved plans of the Apache Junction Township Fire Chief for
this planned development.
4 Applicant shall install, at his expense, off-site street improvements
as set forth on the planned development plans in compliance with
design details approved by the Director of Public Works
SECTION II REPEALING OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance or any part of the code adopted herein by reference, are
hereby repealed.
SECTION III PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY -
If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance or arty part of the code adopted herein by reference is for any
ORDINANCE NO 55 - Page 2
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decisions shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona, this day of , 1980
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM.
•tdt-- OL.4\-CD 3,13S-4-3
City Attorney
PZ- 7- 79 SCHUSTER
( PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO 55)
REQUESTED REZONING rnorn GR TO Ca-5/PD
GR GR
iSjA.
cio
GR CR-5
T// 66
CR-5
F z1 /�
SCENIC STREET ` ` `
66' 33' 66
TH
Q a
GR
w
GR
z TH
C R-S
III 1 I
0 300' 400'
1"=300'
ITEM NO . t�
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
NO . 55, FOR THE FIRST READING ,
PUBLIC NEARING
1 , THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 56
PZ-12-79 THE APPLICANT IS Robert and
Hazel Lawther
2. WOULD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PLEASE BRIEF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND PUBLIC TO THIS PETITION ,
3, IF THE APPLICANT OR SPOKESMAN FOR THE PETITION IS PRESENT,
WOULD THEY PLEASE PRESENT INFORMATION THEY HAVE REGARDING
THIS PETITION AT THIS TIME .
4, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THE PETITION? (RECOGNIZE ONE AT A TIME)
5, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF THE PETITION? (RECOGNIZE ONE AT A TIME)
6, CALL UPON THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR HIS RECOMMENDATIONS .
7, ANY REBUTTAL ( IF CONTROVERSY - OR NEED - CHAIRMAN'S
JUDGEMENT)
A. APPLICANT
B. IN FAVOR
C. OPPOSED
( ACH
F✓ .
O)
'gRIZONP
it o f &4pache unction
July 21, 1980
. .
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THRU: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING „1
SUBJECT: AGENDA PLACEMENT ITEM FOR AUGUST 6, 1980
(PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING)
PROPOSED ORDINANCE #56 (PZ-12-79)
BACKGROUND: Attached you will find an analysis and report (dated
July 2, 1980) , which sets forth the background. Also
attached are other pertinent data. The site plans for
this planned development are available for review in
the Planning Office.
The City Council is requested to review Ordinance #33,
particularly Section 33.09, prior to the public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: The resolution of recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission is attached. It was passed by a
vote of 5 to 0. The City staff concurs and recommends
approval of the rezoning.
�.
SUGGESTED MOTION: (Note) On August 6, 1980, there should be only the
first reading and the public hearing which is advertised.
ITEM N0. ... .6r (Note) On August 20, 1980, there should be scheduled
- v F�t't,C j_,E R,NG the second reading and City Council consideration.
--- 0'.a DUS'NESS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
...... - N V/ P,US;NIESS CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT IN rezoning
-.;-,- INFO/REPORTS case PZ-12-79, application of Robert and Hazel Lawther,
also known as Ordinance #56, AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA,
AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING
A;,POrY.-1 �,� ���/�� THE ZONING MAP, CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFI-
CATION IN REZONING CASE PZ-12-79 FROM GENERAL RURAL (GR)
FOR AtsL;;Dq OF ,��/80, TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE BY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CR-5/PD) ,
REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR
--- . _..- � SEVERABILITY, be and hereby is approved.
CITY-MANAGER
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
Page 2
PROPOSED ORDINANCE #56
FURTHERMORE, the rear lot line setback of sixteen (16' )
shall be approved instead of thirty-five (35' ) feet.
The reasons for approval as presented by the Planning and
Zoning Commission are incorporated by reference. "
...
JWG/kmc
Attachments:
1. Resolution from Planning and Zoning Commission
2. PZ-12-79 Analysis and Report dated July 2, 1980
3. Engineering Department memo dated July 15, 1980
4. Department of Public Safety memo dated July 2, 1980
5. Letter from Robert E. Lawther dated June 27, 1980
6. Ordinance #56 and map
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona, that in rezoning case PZ-12-79, also known as proposed
Ordinance No. 56, application of Robert and Hazel Lawther for their
property described as:
Lot 6 and the South 48 feet of Lot 4, Grand View Place
Subdivision, located in Apache Junction, Pinal County,
Arizona
requesting rezoning from General Rural (GR) to Multiple Residence by
Planned Development (CR-5/PD) , that the Commission recommends to the
Apache Junction City Council the approval of said application.
The reasons for the recommendation are:
1. The property is contiguous to a CB-2 zoned area and apartments
would provide an orderly transition between business uses and
existing residential areas.
2. The apartment planned development generally exceeds the conven-
tional zoning requirements of the City, particularly with regard
to density.
3. The location is just south of a major traffic arterial which
would provide access to the future residents to shopping, leisure
and job activities, without necessarily increasing traffic problems.
4. The applicant has demonstrated through the documents submitted, that
the General Criteria as set forth in Section 33.09 has been complied
with.
Special notes for City Council consideration:
1. The City Council should approve a sixteen (16) feet rear lot line
setback instead of thirty-five (35) feet.
7ds/ 'V°
U i {1t! 1 ' Z
_ -�.
qR�Z` Np, 'Oity o' �iuc/2e c2unction
July 2, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
.lak
FROM: JOE GERO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.,14tP
SUBJECT: PZ-12-79 ANALYSIS AND REPORT
This analysis and report is for an application from GR to CR-5 by Planned
Development.
Application Data
This application was originally submitted by the applicant in late 1979.
By vote of the Commission, this application was postponed until the Planned
Development Ordinance was approved. That is now a reality. The original
application had eighteen (18) of twenty-one (21) needed signatures or
approximately 86%. The area that the signatures represent is approximately
85 to 90%. To insure no cloud over the application, the Commission should
reaffirm the original decision and set forth that the application is valid.
Notice has been sent to the property owners, the site has been posted, and
the newspaper advertisement published.
The following sets forth the minimum CR-5 conventional zoning requirements
and how the application compares.
Required Plan
%^ Minimum lot width 60 ft. 147.94 ft.
Minimum lot area 7,000 sq ft. 32,604 sq. ft.
Minimum lot area/dwelling unit 2,000 sq. ft. 2,508 sq. ft.
Permitted coverage (maximum) 35% 24.6%
Building coverage 8,035 sq. ft.
Maximum height 20 ft.
1 building @ 1 story
1 building @ 2 story (4 wide)
Minimum distance to main buildings 7 ft. 7 ft.
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-6154
Page 2
PZ-12-79 Required Plan
Minimun distance to rear lot line 35 ft. 10 ft. to patio
16 ft. to liveable area
Minimum distance to front lot line 25 ft. 25 ft.
Minimum distance to side lot line 7 ft. 8 ft. to patios
16 ft. to liveable area
Parking (2 spaces per each 2 bedroom 26 26
apartment)
Note: The sketch shows all dimensions
at least the minimum required.
With the exception of the front yard setback, the application equals or
exceeds the CR-5 minimum requirements.
Other Data:
Density: 1 dwelling unit per 2,508 sq. ft. = 17.33 units per acre.
Total water retention on site: = 10,916 cu. ft.
Location is not in a designated flood-prone area.
The location is just south and abuts a CB-2 commercial business zoning
district on Apache Trail .
Solid waste management is provided for in a shielded area.
The project has a 6 ft. high CMU wall along the property lines except
adjoining the front yard setback area.
A fire hydrant will be required by the fire chief.
The applicant will make off-site improvements as per City standards.
Project will be built in two (2) phases, those being:
Phase I- One (1) one-story building of five (5) two-bedroom apartments
Phase II: One (1) two-story building of eight (8) two-bedroom apartments
Total = 13 two-bedroom apartments
Landscaping will be desert type.
� P�p,cHF �G2
U i� Z
C *
-0_
' 19/ZONP V ity o c44pache 09unctzon
Ink July 15, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Department
, 1 FROM: Engineering Dept.
RE: Grand Avenue Apartments (PW-800-7)
A. The flood insurance map shows this project is in flood
hazard area "B".
B. As topography is not indicated on plan - final designs
shall allow all washes to enter and leave the project
at present locations. On-site washes may be rerouted
appropriately.
C. 25' right-of-way shown on plan does not agree with sub-
division plat (Bk. 6 - Pg. 2 - P.C.R.) .
D. Offsite improvements are required.
RWB/an
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
(U( J`_O DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
C ')/
'IPIZV,N COit y o C4pache 09unction
W E McDANIEL
D ec r
MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Gero, Director of Planning
FROM: Lt. Ed Seder, Department of Public Safet}Cil
SUBJECT: Planned Development Application Review
DATE: July 2, 1980
I have reviewed the plans submitted for an apartment
complex located at Scenic and Royal Palm Drive, and an apartment
complex located at Grand Avenue and 1st Avenue.
I do not find any problems with the plans in regard to
accessibility of Fire Department, Police or Ambulance equipment.
The apartments complex which is proposed for Scenic
Drive has fire hydrants located on three corners plus a proposed
fire lane through the complex.
The apartment complex which is proposed for Grand
ow. Avenue shows a proposed fire hydrant on the Southwest corner of
the property. The location of this hydrant was recommended by
the Apache Junction Fire Chief and is considered sufficient
to handle any fire problems.
1001 NORTH IDAHO RD •POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220•TELEPHONE(602)982-8260
ROBERT E. LAW]}IER
123 N. Sirrine
Mesa, AZ 85201
June 27, 1980
City of Apache Junction
oak Planning Department
Apache Junction, Arizona
Dear Sirs:
lo ^*h the
We have Qlt �i.�Jr%iCcd l.lUii fVL a i,��k.L i�;c. of �:C�:i Ifs, v�i-i.'-: woo f'i�.
city several months ago. In as much as the city was in the stage of devel-
oping a planned development ordinance, the decision on change of zoning has
been delayed. We were given to understand the original application could
be amended at the time the ordinance was passed by the city. ,Since the
ordinance has now passed, we would like to submit the following:
1. That application 2PZ-12-79 be amended to a zoning change from general
rural to multiple residence CL5-P-D.
2. Electric power supplied by the Salt River Project.
Gas supplied by Arizona Public Service.
Water supplied by the Palm Spring Water Co.
3. There are no recorded easements on the site.
4. The landscaping at the purposed project would be of desert type.
iak
5. Land would not he subdivided and changed to condominiums.
6. Lighting for parking area will be shown on final plans.
7. Due to the delay in zoning and the economic conditions, our time table
for construction is some what vague. Because of this we would like to
request a longer period of time be granted than that set forth in paragraph
B in step three (final application of Precise Development Plans)
8 The site is bounded on the north by commercial development, on the
east and south by single family homes, and on the west by single family
homes.
cerely,
oc ,e1?4‘
' Robert E. Lawther
REL:lf
ORDINANCE NO 56
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION IN REZONING CASE
PZ-12-79 FROM GENERAL RURAL (GR) TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE BY PLANNED DEVELOP-
^ MENT (CR-5/PD); REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY
•
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA, THAT.
SECTION I. IN GENERAL
1 The zoning district classification of the parcel of land described as.
Lot 6 and the South 48 feet of Lot 4, Grandview Place
Subdivision, located in Apache Junction, Pinal County,
Arizona
be and hereby is changed from General Rural (GR) to Multiple
Residence by Planned Development (CR-5/PD).
2. The approval of the zoning district classification incorporates,
by reference, the preliminary approval of the planned development
as submitted by the applicant, and the development of the said
property shall be in accordance with said planned development and
as provided in Ordinance No 33
3 Applicant shall install one (1) fire hydrant off-site at the front
of the subject site at a location to be determined by the Apache
Junction Township Fire Chief.
4. Applicant shall install off-site street improvements as set forth
on the planned development plans in compliance with design details
approved by the Director of Public Works.
SECTION II REPEALING OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance or any part of the code adopted herein by reference, are
hereby repealed.
SECTION III PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance or any part of the code adopted herein by reference, is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
ORDINANCE NO 56 - Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona, this day of , 1980.
Mayor
ATTEST.
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM•
Ci y Attorney
PZ— I2- 79 LAWTHER
( PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO 56 )
REQUESTED REZONING FRom GR To CR-5/PD
U.S HIGHWAY 40,$0,89
CB-2ass'
CB -2
SUB3Ec1 SITE
/ L
1f FIRST AVE
4. A
//17e(91
/-?
t5� C R 3
GR a a
c
GR
0
CC
N o
l"= 120'
ITEM NO , 5
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
NO , 56, FOR THE FIRST READING ,
PUBLIC HEARING
I . THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 57
PZ-12-80 , THE APPLICANT IS COMMISSION
INITIATIVE
2. WOULD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PLEASE BRIEF THE CITY COUNCIL
Air
AND PUBLIC TO THIS PETITION ,
3. IF THE APPLICANT OR SPOKESMAN FOR THE PETITION IS PRESENT,
WOULD THEY PLEASE PRESENT INFORMATION THEY HAVE REGARDING
THIS PETITION AT THIS TIME .
4. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THE PETITION? (RECOGNIZE ONE AT A TIME) '
5. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF THE PETITION? (RECOGNIZE ONE AT A TIME)
G, CALL UPON THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR HIS RECOMMENDATIONS .
7. ANY REBUTTAL CIF CONTROVERSY - OR NEED - CHAIRMAN 'S
JUDGEMENT)
A. APPLICANT
.�. B. IN FAVOR
C. OPPOSED
(cACHE
✓i_k CamF...F ti, _
U 1' ` '; Z
gR/ZoNP COity o C padre cOunction
July 21, 1980
Ilk
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THRU: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ,..P) f9
SUBJECT. AGENDA PLACEMENT ITEM FOR AUGUST 6, 1980
(PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING)
PROPOSED ORDINANCE #57 (PZ-12-80)
BACKGROUND: The Board of Adjustment has requested that the member-
ship of the Board be expanded from five (5) to seven
(7) members. The reasons for the request are:
1. The addition of two (2) members provides for a
wider spectrum of representation of citizens of
the community.
2. The additional members could represent other
fields of expertise, geographical areas of the
City, and/or background interest, thereby ex-
panding the capacity of the Board.
The State Statutes ( 9-462.06 "Board of Adjustment") ,
permits the legislative body to appoint a Board of
/ Adjustment of five (5) to seven (7) members.
ITEM No.
Ask
i/ P:1"! !r t ti ARtNG The Planning and Zoning Commission held an advertised
public hearing on July 15, 1980 on this proposal as it
._ of,) .3U S:NESS would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to be
...... _ NEW LOUSINESS effective. A letter from the Board was read, a copy of
._....._-.._ INFO/REPORTS which is attached, and Mr. William Vaughn spoke in be-
half of the amendment
RECOMMENDATION: The following motion was unanimously passed by the
Commission:
APPROVED ON _71/2/_44G;. "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that in zoning
FOR : '; ';6 A OF 3,4/Q.,, case PZ-12-80, also known as Proposed Ordinance #57,
by Commission Initiative to amend the Apache Junction
,7_ _--....__...,. Zoning Ordinance, Section 2401, to increase the Board
CiTY MANAGER elk, membership from five (5) to seven (7) persons and to
provide for their term of office, be recommended for
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
Page 2
Proposed Ordinance #57
approval to the City of Apache Junction City Council . "
The City staff concurs and recommends approval of the
amendment.
SUGGESTED MOTION: (NOTE) On August 6, 1980, there should be only the
/04
first reading and the public hearing which is
advertised.
(NOTE) On August 20, 1980, there should be scheduled
the second reading and City Council consideration.
"BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, that in zoning
case PZ-12-80, also known as Ordinance #57, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA,
AMENDING SECTION 2401 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE;
REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND PRO-
VIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED
AS RECOMMENDED BY, AND FOR THE REASONS AS STATED
BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION."
JWG/kmc
Attachements:
1. letter from Board of Adjustment
"''� 2. Proposed Ordinance #57
4o ()
U 0'' Z
gPizocIP `.ity o 04pache 09unction
June 25, 1980
elk MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
THRU: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Jfv
FROM: JOE JESSAMINE, CHAIRMAN /
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUBJECT- AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2401 OF CITY ZONING ORDINANCE
(BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERSHIP)
At the June 23, 1980, regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment, the pos-
sibility of a seven (7) member Board of Adjustment was discussed.
It was the expressed feelings of all of the Board members that a seven (7)
member Board of Adjustment would be very appropriate for the City of
Apache Junction.
This expansion of the membership would provide a broader community base
and representation for the Board, as well as broader insight into the
complex issues which the Board might address.
On behalf of the Board of Adjustment, I would greatly appreciate the
consideration of this matter and suggested amendment by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
"1"" Sincerely, -,-
Jo'e Jessamine,' Chairman
-Board of Adjustment
1 CN/kmc
ii /
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
I
ORDINANCE NO 57
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING
SECTION 2401 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Ask SECTION I. IN GENERAL
The Zoning Ordinance, Section 2401, shall be amended to read as
follows
"SECTION 2401 CREATION AND APPOINTMENT There is hereby created,
as provided by law, a Board of Adjustment for the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona, The Board of Adjustment shall be composed of
seven (7) members, each of whom shall be a resident of the City
The members of the Board shall be appointed for terms of three (3)
years each, unless sooner removed by the City Council, either with
or without cause, except that initially, two (2) members shall be
appointed for a term of one (1) year each, commencing July 1, 1979,
three (3) members shall be appointed for a term of two (2) years
each, commencing July 1, 1979, and two (2) members shall be appointed
for a term of three (3) years each, commencing July 1, 1979 Thereafter,
members shall be appointed for terms of three (3) years
SECTION II REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
All Ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinalnce or any part of the code adopted herein by reference, are
hereby repealed
SECTION III PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this Ordinance or any part of the code adopted herein by reference, is for
any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decisions shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona, this day of , 1980
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO 57
Mayor
ATTEST-
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
C
ITEM NO , 6
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
NO , 57, FOR THE FIRST READING ,
PUBLIC NEARING
I . THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 62
PZ-15-80 . THE APPLICANT IS COMMISSION
INITIATIVE ( PARKING AND LOADING AMENDMENT) "
2. WOULD THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PLEASE BRIEF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND PUBLIC TO THIS PETITION .
3, IF THE APPLICANT OR SPOKESMAN FOR THE PETITION IS PRESENT,
WOULD THEY PLEASE PRESENT INFORMATION THEY HAVE REGARDING
THIS PETITION AT THIS TIME .
4, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THE PETITION? (RECOGNIZE ONE AT A TIME) '
5, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF THE PETITION? (RECOGNIZE ONE AT A TIME)
G. CALL UPON THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR HIS RECOMMENDATIONS .
7, ANY REBUTTAL ( IF CONTROVERSY - OR NEED - CHAIRMAN 'S
JUDGEMENT)
A. APPLICANT
B. IN FAVOR
Ask
C. OPPOSED
(la
ACNF�G2
i'
1 C,.4
U ill t,.., , , Z
.-. .: sue'-
qRiZ NP cOity o C puche 02unction
August 13, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO• THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 4t)-19
SUBJECT: AGENDA PLACEMENT ITEM - PROPOSED ORDINANCE #62
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to
review Ordinance #34. Several alternatives were considered. These
alternatives are:
1. Repeal Ordinance #34
2. Do nothing
3. Amend various sections of Ordinance #34
4. Delete the three subsections of Ordinance #34 which are creating
some community problems, i .e. Sections 21.02 (2) , 21.03 (1) , and
21.03 (17) .
On Tuesday, August 12, 1980, the Commission held an advertised public
hearing covering several options. Several citizens commented and
favored the fourth option above. The fourth option can be accomplished
Al II. by the adoption of Proposed Ordinance #62.
RECOMMENDATION:
The community has expressed a desire to study and speak on the parking
issue. Adoption of Proposed Ordinance #62 would remove the issues and
allow a study time. The Planning and Zoning Commission by a 5-0 vote
unanimously recommends, to the City Council , the approval of Proposed
Ordinance #62.
The Commission further recommends that a Citizens Advisory Committee
be appointed as a subcommittee of the Planning and Zoning Commission
to review the parking and loading issue.
The staff also recommends this proposal . However, it also calls the
Council 's attention to the possible alternatives above.REM No. 7 —a APPROVED ON Si/4/4 -
• rs 1-1 .- / 1 Y yam" /J /
`,� r �il-r� FO r 1 (.. ., �,'\ OF V ° 4.
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • PO IL;SfrCf'SOi'fCAPACHE JUNCTIQN,ARIZANA/8 . TELEPHONE (602)982.6154
._ - INFO/REPORTS CITY MANAGER,,,e--
Page 2
Proposed Ordinance #62
SUGGESTED MOTION:
"BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT ORDINANCE NO 62, AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING
THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 34
BY DELETING SUBSECTIONS 21.02 (2) , 21.03 (1) , and 21.03 (17) ;
REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY:
BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED.
JWG/kmc
ORDINANCE NO 62
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO 34 BY DELETING SUBSECTIONS 21.02 (2), 21 03 (1) AND 21 03 (17), REPEALING
ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY
Ask
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA, AS FOLLOWS
SECTION I. IN GENERAL
1 The Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance shall be amended by amending
Ordinance No. 34 by deleting Section 21 02 (2) and inserting in
lieu thereof after the numeral "2" the word "deleted "
2 The Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance shall be amended by amending
Ordinance No. 34 by deleting Section 21 03 (1) and inserting in
lieu thereof after the numeral "1" the word "deleted "
3. The Apache Junction Zoning Ordinance shall be amended by amending
Ordinance No. 34 by deleting Section 21 03 (17) and inserting in
lieu thereof after the numeral "17" the word "deleted "
SECTION II. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES
All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflcit with the provisions of this
ordinance or any part of the code adopted herein be reference, are hereby
repealed
SECTION III. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
If any section, sub-section, sentence, phrase, clause or portion of this or-
dinance or any part of the code adopted herein by reference, is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of com-
petent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remain-
ing portions thereof
PC SECTION III EMERGENCY CLAUSE
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the preservation of the peace, health and safety
of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, an emergency is declared to exist,
and this ordinance shall become immediately operative and in force from and
after the date of posting hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction,
Arizona, this day of , 19
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
V\..0
Ci y Attorney
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
C',) 6 2_ 14.‘ttry-. e-
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: )45 SECONDED BY : 17)
YFS NO ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN BURGESS
COUNCILMAN DAMIANO
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
COUNCILMAN HILL
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO Y
MAYOR SEEMAN
UNAN OUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
J
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
YES NCI ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
COUNCILMAN HILL
COUNCILMAN BURGESS
"� COUNCILMAN DAMIANO
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
ITEM NO , 7
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
step 1 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT THE READING OF ORDINANCE NO , 62, BE READ BY TITLE ONLY, WITH
THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE, AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE
WAIVED ,
(NOTE. This motion must have a unanimous vote to carry, if the vote is not
unanimous, the clerk must read the ordinance in full . )
step 2 NOTE: CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ ORDINANCE NO , 62 BY TITLE
ONLY, WITH THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
Step 3 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT ORDINANCE NO , 62, AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE
JUNCTION ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO , 34 BY DELETING
SUBSECTIONS 21. 02 (2) , 21. 03 (1) AND 21. 03 (17) : REPEALING ANY
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY BE AND HEREBY IS ADOPTED .
(MOTION WITH EMERGENCY CLAUSE) (THE ORDINANCE WILL BE EFFECTIVE
TMMI=TITATPI V IIPnN PACCAC,P
ITEM NO . 7
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA THAT
THE READING OF ORDINANCE NO . 62 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY, WITHOUT THE
EMERGENCY CLAUSE FOR THE FIRST READING .
(MOTION WITHOUT EMERGENCY CLAUSE) (THIS WILL BE THE FIRST READING)
ITEM NO, 7
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA THAT
ORDINANCE NO . 62, AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION ZONING
ORDINANCE BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NO . 34 BY DELETING SUBSECTIONS 21,02
(2) , 21. 03 (1) AND 21.03 (17) ; REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY BE AND HEREBY
IS DENIED.
FOR DENIAL
( CHF✓G
U P `y z
q,piZ NP coity o ' &4pache 09unction
JULY 30, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO• THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
/1 THROUGH: CITY MANAGER
'i f FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT. STREET SIGN - BIDS
Three bids were received for street sign materials as follows.
Farrell M. Smith and Associates Inc. $36,599.57
Apache Barricade and Sign 44,249.77
Safety Engineering and Supply Co. , Inc. 34,207,03
Upon review of the bids and sample materials, this department
recormnends Safety Engineering and Supply Co , Inc. be awarded the
contract for materials to be supplied.
SUGGESTED MOTION: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA THAT
A CONTRACT TO SUPPLY STREET SIGN MATERIALS BE
AWARDED TO SAFETY ENGINEERING AND SUPPLY CO. ,
INC. IN THE ANCUNT OF THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND-
... TWO HUNDRED SEVEN AND THREE/100 DOLLARS
($34,207.03) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
AS STIPULAEED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS,
RWB•sw
ITEM No. ...: APPROVED ON 7%/h v.4.1
__ - PUELIC HEARING /80
_.. Cif i cUS',`l S5 FOR AG:.NDA OF 8
—_.....J NEW BUSINESS _ _.—
,.,_,_. ......., INFO/REPORTS CITY MANAGER e--e-c
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
rr PQACHF',,G2
O n�
qR�Z` NP ity cpacke 09unction
BID OPENING
PROJECT NO. PW-80-7
STREET SIGN PANELS, POSTS AND HARDWARE
O \
JULY 16, 1980
1:30 P.M.
CITY CLERK' s OFFICE
Present: Isabel C. Ballard, Deputy City Clerk, Richard Broman, Director of
Public Works; Marlis J. Davis, Director of Administrative Services; and Bob
Middleton, Vice-president, SESCO Signs, Tempe, Arizona.
The meeting opened at 1:30 P.M. in the City Clerk's Office. Ms. Isabel C.
Ballard closed the acceptance of bids and announced that three bids have
been received at this time. The bids were opened as follows:
1. Farrell M. Smith & Associates, Inc. , 2111 E. Broadway, Suite 19, Tempe,
Arizona 85282. A Cashier' s Check was submitted for 5% of the amount of
the bid.
Phase I , Subtotal $ 6,210.96
Phase II , Subtotal 10,950.91
Phase III , Subtotal 11,318.66
Phase IV, Subtotal 8,079.04
GRAND TOTAL $ 36,559.57 Delivery 45-60 days
Hardware and signs samples were submitted with this bid.
2. Apache Barricade, 1409 So. 21st Drive, Phoenix, Arizona 85005.
PIN A Bid Bond was submitted for 5% of the amount of the bid.
Phase I , Subtotal $ 7,517.52
Phase II , Subtotal 13,255.28
Phase III , Subtotal 13,700.42
Phase IV, Subtotal 9,776.55
GRAND TOTAL $ 44,249.77
No hardware or signs were submitted.
J3. Safety Engineering & Supply Co. , Inc. , 401 So. Hayden Road, Tempe, Arizona
85281. A Bid Bond was submitted for 5% of the amount of the bid.
Phase I , Subtotal $ 5,810.96
Phase II , Subtotal 10,245.64
Phase III , Subtotal 10,589.71
Phase VI , Subtotal 7,056.72
GRAND TOTAL $ 34,207.03 Delivery 45-60 days
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-6154
1
BID OPENING
PROJECT NO. PW-80-7
Page 2
Hardware and signs samples were submitted with this bid.
There being no further bids, the meeting was closed.
Rich Oesterle
City Clerk
1334- g.i.e Z-7
Isabel C. Ballard
Deputy City Clerk
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: 'f9
YES NO ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN -DAPI I ANO cv//
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
COUNCILMAN BURGESS ✓
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
COUNCILMAN HILL
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL: ,)4:,
ITEM NO . 8
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT BID PROJECT NO . PW-80-7 STREET SIGN PANELS, POST AND HARD-
WARE BE AND HEREBY IS AWARDED TO SAFETY ENGINEERING AND SUPPLY
CO . , INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED,
SEVEN DOLLARS AND THREE CENTS ($34,207. 03) IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS AS STIPUTLATED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
AND AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ,
FOR APPROVAL
ITEM NJ . 8
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THU BID PROJECT NO. PW-80-7 STREET SIGN PANELS, POST AND HARD-
WARE BIDS BE AND HEREBY ARE DENIED .
FOR DENIAL
PQAC�E✓G
O
"IRIZOVI city o� &4puche 09unctzon
JULY 30, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO. THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: CITY MANAGER
FRavI. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT• INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR AIRPORT PLANNING
The Airport Commission has reviewed the attached intergovernmental
agreement for airport planning and recommends City Council approval.
This depot concurs with the Airport Commission's recommendation.
RWB•sw
..tea APPROVED ON ?li, //YU
ems' r }-TIN RING
nus;NESS
FOR "AO:NOEt4D OF
N=`v/ 131,)SiN SS j
INFO/REPORTS / --
CITY MANAGER
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
TJLY 30, 1980
: IORANDUM TO: '?; HONORABLE MAYOR .AND CITY COUNCIL
TI- UCII: CI7171 t°IMAGER
DI ECI'OR OF PUBLIC 14ORKS
SUJ CT: IIa1� .,_.. O J�
?� -��r-+�TF`�?v��iTl::u :��'I?�.F''��'�' FOR .�1I??,P �'." ?�'I: Tirr
The Airport Commission has reviewed the attached inter rc tal
ar*reermt for airport piaimi:ng and reeds City Council approval.
This deparment concurs with the Airport Ca ission's recormmdation.
RWB:sW
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statutes , Sections 11-951 through 11 -954 by and between the State
of Arizona acting by and through the Arizona Department of Trans-
portation, Aeronautics Division, herein referred to as the "State"
and City of Apache Junction a political subdivision of the State
of Arizona, herein referred to as the "Sponsor".
WITNESSTH
Recitals :
1 ) The Sponsor desires , in accordance with the authority granted
by A.R. S . Section 2-303 , a grant from the State for the pur-
pose of airport planning.
2) The Arizona Transportation Board and the Director of the
Arizona Department of Transportation, in accordance with the
authority granted by A. R.S. 28-106 , 25-108 and pursuant to
28-1706 have authorized the issuance of e grant to the Sponsor
for airport planning.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and
of the covenants and agreements `by the parties herein made to he
kept and performed, the parties agree as follows :
Sponsor' s Responsibility
1 ) The Sponsor shall commence the effort required by and in
accordance with the provisions of the grant application ,
Exhibit A hereto, within 60 days from the effective date of
this Agreement.
2) The Sponsor shall provide evidence that its governing body
has approved a resolution to enter into this Agreement along
with a written determination of the appropriate attorney that
the Sponsor is authorized under the laws of this State to
enter into this Agreement . Such resolution and determination
shall be attached hereto as Exhibits D and E respectively .
3 ) The Sponsor shall , prior to execution of this Agreement ,
submit a schedule which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit
G for the efforts to be accomplished and shall complete the
efforts within that schedule . Any change to the schedule must
be approved by the State and such change shall be reflected
herein by formal Amendment to this Agreement .
4) The Sponsor shall abide by and enforce the General Provisions
incorporated hereto for a period of twenty years .
Apache Junction AFE 01022
Maximum Obligations
The maximum funding available to the Sponsor shall be as follows .
1 ) From the State 90o percentum of allowable costs
not to exceed $ 54 _000 •
The allowable cost shall not include any costs determined by the
State to be ineligible for consideration. Any costs incurred prior
to the execution of this Agreement may not be allowable.
The State obligation to provide funds hereunder expires upon
completion of the efforts required herein or 30 JUNE 1981 , which-
ever is earlier.
Exhibits
The following Exhibits are incorporated and form a parr of this
Agreement .
Exhibit A - Grant (Project ) application
Exhibit B - General Provisions (State)
Exhibit C - Special Provisions ( if attached)
Exhibit D - Resolutions (Sponsor)
Exhibit E - Determinations (Sponsor)
Exhibit F - Determinations (State)
Exhibit G - Completion Schedule
This Agreement shall be filed with the Arizona Secretary of State
and shall become effective upon such filing.
STATE OF ARIZONA
DEPART`-IENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPONSOR
By By
Title Title
Date Date
(=
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PROVISIONS - STATE
Contracts
The Sponsor as an independent entity and not as an agent of the
State shall obtain the services required in order to fulfill the
work covered in Exhibit A. The sponsor shall submit to the State
for the State ' s approval , the consultant ' s contract which shall
state :
1 ) The name of the Engineer or Consulting and Engineering firm
authorized to act on behalf of the Sponsor.
2 ) The scope of responsibility of the Engineer.
3 ) That the contractor must comply with the provisions of
Arizona Executive Order 75-5 dated 28 April 1975 relating
to equal opportunity.
4) The terms for termination either for the consultant ' s
failure to perform or in the best interest of the Sponsor.
5 ) That duly authorized representatives of the State shall have
access to any books , documents , papers and records of the
contractor which are in any way pertinent to the contract
for the purpose of making audit , examination, excerpts and
transcriptions .
Financial
The Sponsor shall establish and maintain for each Project governed
by this Agreement , an adequate accounting record to allow State
personnel to determine all funds received from the State and
the Sponsor and to determine the allowability of all incurred
costs of the Project .
Reports
Unless otherwise specified in writing, the Sponsor shall submit
monthly reports which shall reflect the progress accomplished in
relation to the contract schedule , reasons for delay and
recommended corrections of problems encountered. The report shall
also include financial information consisting of the contract
price , price of changes , total expenditures to date and
additional funding required to complete the project .
Changes
( Any changes in the scope of work specified by the Sponsor ' s
contract with the contractor must receive approval of the State
prior to the Sponsor authorizing it . All costs incurred in
performing a change under the scope of work prior to the State ' s
authorization may be disallowed and ineligible for State
assistance .
An approval by the State of a contract or a change under the
OIN contract shall not obligate the State to provide funds beyond
those funds obligated by this Agreement . Any changes to the
amount of funds authorized hereunder must be by formal amendment
hereto.
Suspension of Grant
If the Sponsor fails to comply with the conditions of this
Agreement , the State by written notice to the Sponsor may suspend
the Grant and withhold payments until corrective action has been
taken by the Sponsor. Any costs incurred during this period of
suspension shall not be eligible for reimbursement by the State.
Failure to- Perform
If the Sponsor fails to comply with the conditions of the
Agreement , the State may by written notice to the Sponsor
terminate the Agreement in whole or in part . The notice of
termination will contain the reasons for termination and the
effective date of termination. Upon receipt of the Notice of
termination, the Sponsor shall not incur additional obligation of
Grant funds .
Termination for Convenience
'Then the continuation of the project would not produce beneficial
PIS results commensurate with the further expenditure of funds or
when funds are not appropriated or are withdrawn for use
hereunder, the State may terminate this Agreement . In the case
where continuation of the project would not produce beneficial
results , the State and the Sponsor shall mutually agree upon the
termination either in whole or in part. In the case where funds
have been withdrawn or not appropriated , the State shall have the
right to termination at its sole option. Upon receipt of the
notice of termination, the Sponsor shall not incur any additional
obligations of Grant funds .
All parties are hereby put on notice that this Agreement is
subject to cancellation by the Governor pursuant to Arizona
Revised Statutes Section 38-511 .
� �I
c- Waiver by State
No waiver of any condition, requirement or right expressed in
this Agreement shall be implied by any forebearance of the State
to declare a default, failure to perform or to take any other
action on account of the violation of such violation be continued
or repeated.
Compliance with Laws
The Sponsor shall comply with all Federal , State and local laws ,
rules , regulations , ordinances and decrees which are applicable
to the performance hereunder.
Jurisdiction
In the event of litigation between the Sponsor and the State,
litigation shall be commenced and prosecuted in an appropriate
court of competent jurisdiction within Maricopa County, State of
Arizona.
Excess of Grant Payments
If, upon final determination of the allowability of all project
costs of a project hereunder, it is found that the total grant
payments to the Sponsor exceeds the State ' s share of allowable
C costs , the Sponsor shall promptly return the excess to the State.
Final determination of State ' s share of allowable costs shall
rest soley with the State.
Indemnification
The State of Arizona, acting by and through the Arizona
Department of Transportation does not assume any liability to
elk third persons nor will the Sponsor be reimbursed for the
Sponsor ' s liability to third person resulting in any way from the
performance of this Agreement or any subcontract hereunder.
The Sponsor shall indemnify and hold harmless the State , any of
their departments , agencies , officers and employees from any and
all liability, loss or damage the State may suffer as a result of
claims , demands , costs or judgements of any character arising out
of the performance or non performance of the Sponsor or its
independent contractors in carrying out any provisions of this
Agreement .
This indemnification shall include, in the event of any action,
court costs , expenses of litigation and reasonable attorney' s
fees .
Required Provisions Deemed Inserted
Each and every provision of law and clause required by law
to be inserted in this Agreement shall be deemed to be inserted
herein and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as thoug,h
it were included herein, and if through mistake or otherwise
any such provision is not inserted, or is not correctly
inserted, then upon the application of either party, the
Agreement shall forthwith be physically amended to make
^► such insertion or correction.
RESOLUTION NO. 80-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION, ARIZONA AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING AN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND SITE SELECTION
STUDY FOR APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
rr. WHEREAS, by Resolution No 80-17 the City Council of Apache Junction
1 authorized and directed the City Manager to execute a Planning Services
Agreement between the City and Buell, Winter, Mousel and Associates, Inc
for the purpose of preparing an Airport Master Plan and Site Selection
Study; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has complied with said direction and executed
said Agreement; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 80-18 the City Council authorized and directed
the City Manager to file a project application for State aid for funding an
Airport Master Plan and Site Selection Study, and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has complied with said direction and filed
said application, and
WHEREAS, the City's application for State aid, was approved by the State
to fund an Airport Master Plan and Site Selection Study; and
WHEREAS, the State requires the execution by the City of an Intergovern-
mental Agreement prior to receipt of said State aid, a copy of which Agreement
is attached hereto.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager of Apache Junction,
Arizona be and he is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute said
Intergovernmental Agreement for funding an Airport Master Plan and Site Selection
Study, as set forth in the attached Agreement
PASSED this day of 1980 by the Mayor and City
Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
oe
City Attorney
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
YES Na ABSTAIN ,
COUNCI LMAN SHANKS
COUNCILMAN BURG FSS_
COUNCILMAN FTnSON
COUNCILMAN H T] L
COUNCILMAN DAM TANO
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN •
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
p
.r.
ITEM NO . 9
Peg aidlcfaJ
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE 0 ORDI, N NO. 80-25,
'Apo BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT RESOLUTION NO , 80-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREE-
MENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING AN
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND SITE SELECTION STUDY FOR APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA BE AND HEREBY IS ADOPTED.
FOR APPROVAL
ITEM NO . 9
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF IRDINI E NO . 80-25 ,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, I IZONA
THAT RESOLUTION NO . 80-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREE-
MENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING AN
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND SITE SELECTION STUDY FOR APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED,
FOR DENIAL
PQACHE G
O A 2
U �a z
-1 PIZONP Vitt' &4pache &9unctian
A.. July 29,1980
MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: CITY MANAGER
FROM: 0i7 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
RE: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN REFERENCE TO THE MAIN-
TENANCE OF HIGHWAYS US 60
AND SR 88
This department has reviewed the intergovernmental
agreement discussed its contents with the State Engineer,
discussed its effect with other communities and find it to
be a routine agreement.
It appears that the State (like the County) is not
set up to provide the amount of routine maintenance a city
demands, therefore this agreement allows the City to con-
trol routine maintenance of sidewalks, sprinklers, elec-
,,st.. tric devices (under seperate agreement) , parking signs,
street names signs, sweeping and cleaning of roadway curbs
and medians. While the State will be responsible for the
betterment of the roadway, curbs, sidewalks, medians, signs,
bridges, drainage, permits, guardrails, traffic-control
devices, striping and curb markings.
Although approval of this agreement will demand add-
itional personnel and maintenance funds, the results from
providing this local service will be obvious.
This department recommends approval of this agreement.
ITEM Mo. /Q
APPROVED ON 7/3//3:"'
RB•tr ' - Pt.131_1C HEAR; G qid
• OLD CUSINESS FOR AGENDA OF c ,/1D
NEW BUSINESS
INFO/REPORTS
CITY MANAGER Cr�1
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K.APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-6154
RESOLUTION NO. 80-24
lk RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA, TO ENTER INTO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF
ARIZONA FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF HIGHWAYS U.S. 60 AND S.R. 88 AND AUTHO-
RIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT:
WHEREAS, there is a need to provide regular routine maintenance along
Amok and within the major highway transportation corridors of the City of
Apache Junction.
WHEREAS, the City is determined to provide safe transportation corri-
dors to the citizens of Apache Junction and the general public.
WHEREAS, the City desires to enhance its image, to reflect its pride
in the community.
WHEREAS, the attached agreement reflects joint participation by the
City and State to achieve the aforementioned.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the
City of Apache Junction, that the City enter into an Intergovernmental
Maintenance Agreement with the State of Arizona acting by and through the
Arizona Department of Transportation to be effective on being filed with
the Secretary of State;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager of Apache Junction is
authorized, empowered and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of
the City.
PASSED this day of 1980 by the Mayor and
City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Attorney
INTERGOVERNMENTAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
AND
THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statutes , Section 11-951 through 11-954, as amended, by and
between the STATE OF ARIZONA, acting by and through the
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called
"STATE" , and the CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, a municipal corpora-
tion hereinafter called "CITY".
WHEREAS, the STATE is empowered by Arizona Revised
Statutes Section 28-108 to enter into this Agreement and the
Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation has
delegated to the undersigned his authorization to execute
this Agreement on behalf of the STATE;
WHEREAS, the CITY is empowered by Arizona Revised Statutes
Section 9-672 , to enter into this Agreement, and acting by
and through its duly elected governing body, has by that
certain resolution attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit "A" resolved to enter into this Agreement and has
authorized the undersigned as its representative to execute
the same on behalf of said CITY.
Attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit "B" is a copy of the written determina-
tion of the appropriate attorney that the CITY is authorized
under the law of this State to enter into this Agreement and
that it is in proper form.
WHEREAS, it is to the mutual benefit of the STATE and
the CITY to enter into an agreement covering the maintenance
of these certain State Highways known as U. S. 60 and S. R.
88 which are State Highways of the STATE OF ARIZONA and which
traverse the said CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION over those certain
streets which form the necessary and convenient links for the
connection of sections of the aforesaid State Highways and
for carrying of such State Highways through said CITY, as
more particularly set forth upon the map attached hereto and
marked Exhibit "C" , and by reference made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
hereinafter to be kept by all parties , it is mutually agreed
as follows:
1. The CITY shall set aside sufficient funds to
accomplish the maintenance responsibilities set
forth in this agreement.
2. The STATE shall set aside sufficient funds to
accomplish the maintenance and betterment respon-
sibilities within the CITY as set forth by this
agreement.
2
3. That the STATE, acting by and through its
Department of Transportation shall, except as
otherwise expressly provided in this agreement,
have jurisdiction and control over and be res-
ponsible for the maintenance and any needed
betterments of the highways as delineated upon
the map attached hereto and marked Exhibit "C" ,
said jurisdiction, control and responsibility
to include:
a. Betterment of reconstruction of
roadway, curbs , sidewalks , medians
and channeli.zation.
b. Bridges and drainage.
c. Guardrails and fences.
d. Transportation permits , such as
overweight, overwidth, and over-
height as prescribed by law.
e. Routine maintenance of roadway,
median and curb.
f. Permits for highway right of way
encroachments and use.
g. Removal of snow, sand, rock and
other debris caused by slides or
other causes .
h. Traffic control devices , including
approved crosswalks , signs ,
striping and curb marking (except
street name) .
4. That the CITY shall, except as otherwise expressly
provided in this agreement have jurisdiction and
control over routine maintenance of:
3
a. Sidewalks
b. Sprinkling
c. Electrical devices , including but not
limited to traffic signals and inter-
section lighting, will be covered by
separate agreement and will be governed
by that agreement.
likk
d . Street name signs.
e. Routine sweeping and cleaning of
roadway, curb and median.
f. Parking signs .
5. That the CITY shall not allow snow, sand, rocks
or other hazardous debris to be dozed or swept
onto State Highways , except as might occur tempor-
arily during normal maintenance of intersecting
streets .
6. That the regulations as set forth on the
"Authorized Position of Advertising Signs Along
State Highway Right of Way" shall be adhered to
as a minimum by the CITY. A copy of said regula-
tions is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "D" ,
and by reference made a part hereof.
7. That the CITY shall furnish adequate evidence of
full liability and property damage insurance on
all employees engaged in performing duties here-
tofore agreed to on the State Highway right of way.
The CITY will maintain the insurance for the
period of this agreement. A copy of the policy
is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "E" and by
reference made a part hereof.
4
8. That the CITY will provide traffic control in
accordance with the Arizona Department of
Transportation Traffic Control Manual for
Highway Construction and Maintenance during
all maintenance operations by the CITY on the
.r
State Highway right of way.
9. All work performed under the provisions of this
agreement shall be performed in a manner satis-
factory to the Department of Transportation.
10. It is understood that this Agreement will cancel
and supersede any previous Agreements for street
maintenance, and betterment on those State Highways
which traverse within the boundaries of the CITY.
11. This Agreement shall be filed with the Secretary
of State and shall become effective on the 1st day
of January, 1980, but in no event prior to its
being filed with the Secretary of State.
12. It is understood that this Agreement may be amended ,
or supplemented , by mutual consent of the parties
hereto at any time with all other conditions set
forth remaining in effect.
13. This Agreement shall remain in force and effect
until midnight December 31, 1980, and shall there-
5
after be automatically renewed for successive
periods of one (1) year, unless either party
shall give notice in writing to the other not
less than one (1) month nor more than three (3)
months prior to the initial expiration date,
Ad . or of any renewal date hereof, cancelling said
Agreement. In event of such notification and
upon expiration of the term during which notice
is given, this Agreement shall thereupon become
of no further force and effect.
14. It is understood that upon the termination of
this Agreement for any cause whatsoever, all
properties which are the subject matter of
this Agreement are declared to be property of
the Arizona Department of Transportation.
15. Any disposal of properties subject to this Agree-
ment shall be in a manner as otherwise prescribed
by law concerning the disposal of public property.
16. All parties are hereby put on notice that this
Agreement is subject to cancellation by the
Governor pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes
Section 38-511.
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Agreement the day and year first written above.
STATE OF ARIZONA
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY:
Chief Deputy State Engineer
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
ATTEST:
BY:
TITLE: MAYOR
7
� � ( )
-
• Gr'Ti•' NoggS
�''T 1. A permit to rep ir.J for •I. eneroatni.,g
F_a. overn•n*lrt tiros ar.0 wrings These signs
t--i7 and awnings are par-1 red to rurbte urhan
l seettoas for on premise advertising.
2. Vo • ertlling glens or* alloyed on any
Interstate or Mir•. nlahway rlehts r[ wag
~R-311*i
e.Signs on frontage Shads within Highway i./.
In urban areaa are permitted by this $ andard.
lt'-(7' MAX -+I ). Signs wit, word, •Ctro' "ginwiow,e. etc orr t "" .lRna slnliar to sh.+t or r, in cn etficlal
traffic signs are not permitted
6'-Q' ICX• G
r''''''''''''''.7". =:"."" lt., anal...
te •. Lengths of sign. awnings ..av sere as
- ;t' shown except where Cite or County ordi
ra
L K provide snugger maximums
S.'�'-O' MAN S Illuminated signs attached to • ',wilding
6'-O' 1 Min Q"�''�'`�'` - n cI taring the R/'J .re permitted as shown
�� Sigr or avnlnt -
6. An outdoor advertising permit Is required
for off premise signs
I1lunlnsted
m il�n w 7 Ground supported or portable signs shell not
2 CI be pieced within sny right of way
el
k.
jX.
b
.cup,�.r.___i _
_ ,
ii _ 5La.u.lk
12s-•aT MIX
Pt nee aa•acvto RIZG`4 al,
DEPARTMENT CJ(- TA...vrP!nTLTION
CI r 1 HIG 1'/i.-5 D•I.S,O4 —1
aare.wr,0„ .u a T FLC uLAr10%i 't a•.�
H , I POR SIGHS AND AAnrocs ,'• '" -. • 1
CO-
H
H
Exhibit "D"
C -
a'
k
k*******************4**A**4 )c******44********************** ...,ic****** ** c*****n:
of I a 7
_ � z
-
,y .._.— IWthOSONGa STI
Fw-wINIDSONG SST E vnNp£ONG ST i� oI a
O 1 / ¢I zi
I z IW CONCH() ST I = I / i z' 0 7
-
• I9OTtt LSST ,_ W FOOTHI, STD I E. F00T ILL I ST ¢
1•_IM4"4tREEE °I._.ST i r// I �I �I al
it r I ! ; t t ;I
15
_1 (8 0I_ TEPEE _I '` c I-I z I t mI z �11
'� ST Iv �I �� -I i =ITEPYE ST 7
(3,
¢ I I W__ RAWHIDE ST 21 I ( I
a I I �(
- W ___SH,P_ -1$1ROCA SI :1_.*_,
ml SHIP_POCK SI ` of I ¢I I '
_w whlzat.na ST r I a I I c si cI
_ _ I ......
^- I :II
i W I IE MAN2ANITA ST
_ , w - _ .• 1 = Rf%JNDIA_ I_ - ST fI I Y E_ROUNINi c
Q -- I - ~I u� ;1 ST u I
I I
, ��.,y(/
*
:] 1!OaItItGet*o 'n S t I AO
I I 4
• 1. I;aEA Iw000gl st I 1 - _ -- LEiC I CID3 CT", I I I
SE -- I_ W _� ¢ �GREASEW000 ST
Fes- E J-- E 1 Q GREAS W000 ST off(
S F! MHP7 4
r i1 *I 41 c�= 1 0 I i I I I -e I,51ES T4 ¢F'5I. u7G
- rI w _� SUPERSTITION _ _ I____ I BLVO- -- I I -1- I I y{(t
W CHou4 ST g =l T -Q� .' - -../ -- -�- w o; I -'---- -r'- 7G
11 i ¢ 1 r al / ¢ �1 i o I I ,y
S • IDI110 • U.L._ c'1 I 0 ¢I / ;11I I rcl I 7SCOD. ST F' WI s; . JI F o. // NI r E ; CODv T ST IgI 75I • 'i•GIN1a_ W' 1 0I W VIp+GINttJ ST u) 1 I z I . *
Sw _e• _ ST �, I o al z I
1,}:ENIC SL.. I I z nal I ----�- 1 'I E - I SCENIC 1 =I _*
• C41.S i I I I u:, ///,,,AAA I I I T - '--1- = 1ST 1 I -7C
Jr" L_ w NtL MAF CT° IM C4CTUStyy):p1__ST =I z' = / m • -II I I I I Ft W'CACTUS WREN ST
e--• zSREG:r^' _ z SI_ 8 I I 1 / >I I I I � I I I
_ -+, W F005'EVELT I ¢• • ST. _-I '
2 1 _MHP = 21 I r1 ml r1 1 1 '#
t ' 1 21I W TAM4RISK ST A I �'1 I I I =I •y�
{9 •Go .zI 1 W -__1 APACHE TRAIL..1. _ .f._1_-_.� z =I LII zI �`, z IIr 'A
� \s i----- E I- - - - - - L 22UNSTIoJ - I 1
W� 1st NE., ¢ 9 o ' J
j ¢r !� �� W J ¢ rcI I I I I J 1 r.- J u ' ¢ ¢ 1 ¢ I
I oI I =I ¢ w ¢ atj a u ¢ - \ E 2nd6 fNE ¢ c _ E: I 2nd AVE *
w 2nd AVE n { ¢ I - - - - I
¢ Q: y as � u - � � - _W-_- — I m � -1-- � ,,�
W J �tJ = I-, !I JI J I I
�: i 2' �0 w 41 ; W VI_S dI2AVEp f o z \ rt m1 E, 1 :€'I a wol I y.
• W h• Ave I dq h t3 z 3 W 4.n AVE N. 66 g a1 I - �4
wee AA 1 Avx4 zx o - a T �� I E 1 u am I - --I I AVE; I
I — I-' 7� —r— 1 -- - — - - — F- - a — —I--I,�
w Snt ni AVE �! g' C' g Si$� warn AY I 1�- w Stn AvE N JI .1 I 1 I I ,I o I I 7L'
j u o' > a r ROSaL g 1 I .iL. I \ bl I ILE. 61n AVE.I - al 1 I 'I if
■ I ¢ u -, w 6th AVE ¢ a .a- I 7yyrl'
• 1 u r : ; " ' -1' vl I > OATIL m i u`�1.- 1 I aI a1 u_I I al a 'IC',
=I -h 1 .f J , _ N�. NI Ni L ! '�'.-� `__ _P� 18�-.11 lI I w AIR AVE MHP NI yI 3I 'I I T
Hn T • (- -T W Ti,,{" W BR04DWAY_ - _ /NI. u y -- -- -- H I
= i �A 1- I r, I I ^ I • _Y
i ,r ei 'w�1n ¢ , , ! I , E 91n AVE. 1 1 .I At
L .f w�io n_AVE nr t I CO .+ o I I E_IQthJ, -AV -
I c LJQ h ¢
I a ' ! ! 1 1 o t t f¢ '1 - ¢ a i
_ cc,q1 2 I W I2tp•_ NE _ ,'_ _I ' i 1 ¢ q DESERT AVE U21n1 I A 12t _ ul c. N - L -
I a 'I
w Rrn. AVEAv[ i q N }LS -'_ t I 2IE ESTEV_AN 01 AVE (I3th1 .1 o '',d CT_n J , F4RGC AVE I / L.
` I ` _w 13tn AVE r , gj • 'c� `` I v1L I�th
r I ywj 1 { r I I' T,ff n� i"t' = E.FRED NE 1- _ AVE. (141n1 ,� �' �I I AVE
f� ., i I ' 't. , ,.A 1 1 ?f { ` 2, gW 141h AVE L FRIA RPNh-a'AVE I�{ USth1 r-HI
.7_ .. •
N1 M, , I TALOMINO AVE 11 f ryt { b'tw ISth AiE Vo E 28AVEN i lAthl I 1 tE 15tn.- __AYE -i
U - - 3 —1 l - '•_W - -- ....16th 1 29_ _ A/E r' - -- - - •. 4 A g I - 27 16th AVE I
w a 16th_M AVE I. I A E ttn E Jim._ACEJ % r
w Mn a NE L K4GHINA I I
U xtt O 1B+n mil.g"T WC , a E LtN04 A E it le q E AVE t ~\ I E_I ro ME
Q S��S, VI 19th AVE 1._. t1 a I o1 t (9�n1 L ►L5.QVLTE E.141n_R/E to \ t t 4
Cl. . � i' : '? ,0 1 E Mtn Lot.E_�'.QNTtBELLQ t;AYE s(rAnl 1 _.20t11 I _9YE.._ _I¢ \ I�g IOIn E **
(.2 §. r ct ,A t t a I ¢ F' �'
I � 1 �w ton I vtvbF: rM I •2orh �i .TIAVAJO_ _Al._ul2otM 1 1 T_tl A lg I +V
- 20
4w 21t1 a1 NE •E /IFS- u IS- 11._ t-' ag- u I
<.{ t.
- O m I z' ; 2 81 22�mil nt IN E.2;ro N E I :{ �
C-1 , w Jt 22ro I a,AYE 122ro1 L_PEPPCRLREL'. 9 c CIE I iI I ; q -i'
• V I m'I W NI, 23rp ,w A/F 1231 d1 E WAIL 4VE. ,, ,n 'E 2 .d AVE m NI I ¢I 1 *
id***********PKDV4H N********** SAE****-4***:XX *** :******** ** **,fa� ****�-•'*************34
j
�41'4'' t n, ; . I. I' iI - tx14181-r wC ..
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # (.0 MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: 2%�
YES ^l0 ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN _HILL '
COUNCILMAN DAMIANO v
COUNCILMAN SHANKS `s/
COUNCILMAN BURGESS V
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
VICE—MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN
, -
UNANI S IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
ITEM NO , 10
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF RESOLUTION NO , 80-24.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
..� MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT RESOLUTION NO , 80-24, RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA TO ENTER INTO INTERGOVERN-
MENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF ARIZONA FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF
HIGHWAYS U .S . 60 AND S. R. 88 AND AUTH :ZING- CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT BE AND HEREB I ADOPTED ,
FOR APPROVAL
ITEM NO , 10
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF RESOLUTION NO . 80-24 .
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA THAT
RESOLUTION NO . 80-24, RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA TO ENTER INTO INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF ARIZONA FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF HIGHWAYS
U . S . 60 AND S . R. 88 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED .
FOR DENIAL
O� PQACH'�✓Gti
L--- . . ii,i ..- o'q;'SI
gR,Z00' Wity oe c4pac/e unction
JULY 30, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO. THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: CITY MANAGER
QiIA ? FROM. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
/ SUBJECT, SPEED LIMIT INCREASES
Attached is a resolution for your consideration, in accordance
with your direction to effect and increase the speed limits on Broad-
way, Idaho and Ironwood roads from 25 m.p.h, to 35 m.p.h.
This department has inventoried speed limit signs (see attached)
and finds road surface characteristics, shoulder conditions, grade,
alignment, site distance and development conducive to this change,
With adoption of the attached resolution, this department will
charge-out speed limit signs accordingly.
RWB.sw
// APPROVED ON 71-3L/�
ITEM No. - - ,a, / /
Pl!rl_!r 1 i ARING FOR AGENDA OF S. �l�69
CIO i;US;NCSS
_ /' NEW QUS!NESS _- —
__
,......._...._....... INFO/ REPORTS CITY MANAGER a.(.
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-6154
Speed Limit Signs
(Existing Locations)
BROADWAY
500' West of Royal Palm Blvd. 25 miles per hour westbound
200' Fast of Idaho Road 25 miles per hour eastbound
150' West of Idaho Road 35 miles per hour westbound
300' West of Plaza 35 miles per hour westbound
San Marcos 35 miles per hour eastbound
200' Fast of Ironwood 35 miles per hour eastbound
500' West of Ironwood 25 miles per hour westbound (school)
50' West of Main 25 miles per hour eastbound
100' West of Delaware 25 miles per hour westbound
100' East -of Meridian 25 miles per hour eastbound
IDAHO
100' North of 20th 25 miles per hour northbound
100' South of 16th 25 miles per hour southbound
100' North of 16th 25 miles per hour northbound
.�. 200' North of 19th 25 miles per hour southbound
100' North of Broadway 25 miles per hour northbound
300' South of Trail 25 miles per hour southbound
300' South of end of pavement 25 miles per hour southbound
IRONWOOD
.5 miles South Southern West Side 45 miles per hour southbound
1300' South Southern Fast Side 25 miles per hour northbound
665' North Southern West Side 35 miles per hour southbound
975' North Southern East Side 35 miles per hour northbound
175' South of 16th West Side 35 riles per hour southbound
Speed Limit Signs
(Existing Locations) - 2 -
IRONWOOD Continued
60' North of 16th East Side 35 miles per hour northbound
200' South of Broadway West Side 35 miles per hour southbound
200' North of Broadway East Side 35 miles per hour northbound
,,1. 1500' North of Broadway East & West Side 35 miles per hour northbound
& southbound
300' South Apache Trail West Side 35 miles per hour southbound
200' North Superstition East Side 25 miles per hour northbound
300' South Superstition West Side 25 miles per hour southbound
900' North Tepee West Side 25 miles per hour northbound
RESOLUTION NO. 80-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION, ARIZONA, INCREASING THE SPEED LIMIT ON THOSE STREETS
KNOWN AS BROADWAY, IRONWOOD, AND IDAHO ROAD WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
WHEREAS, It is in the public interest to insure safe, effective and
►. efficient traffic flow along public rights-of-ways within the City Limits
of Apache Junction, Arizona.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the
City of Apache Junction that the speed limit be 35 MPH on the following
streets, except in school zones
I. Broadway between Meridian and Goldfield Road
II Ironwood between Southern Avenue and Lost Dutchman
III. Idaho Road between Southern Avenue and Lost Dutchman Boulevard
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is empowered
and directed to initiate appropriate action to change the speed limit signs
on the streets listed in I, II, III above
PASSED this day of 1980, by the Mayor and City
Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
CL.-‘1 267f3c9._
City Attorney
RO.LLCALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY :
YF. 0 1 ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN EIDSON_
COUNCILMAN SHANKS _
COUNCILMAN HILL
COUNCILMAN BURGESS
COUNCILMAN DAMIANO
VICE-MAYOR GRAN I LLO
•
MAYOR SEEMAN
I ,
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL: ��
ITEM NO . 11
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF RESOLUTION NO , 80-26.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT RESOLUTION NO , 80-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, INCREASING THE
SPEED LIMIT ON THOSE STREETS KNOWN AS BROADWAY, IRONWOOD, AND
IDAHO ROAD WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
BE AND HEREBY IS ADOPTED ,
FOR APPROVAL
ITEM NO . 11
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF RESOLUTION NO , 80-26,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT RESOLUTION NO , 80-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, INCREASING THE
SPEED LIMIT ON THOSE STREETS KNOWN AS BROADWAY, IRONWOOD, AND
IDAHO ROAD WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED
FOR DENIAL
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT made and entered
into this day of July, 1980 by and between the City
of Apache Junction, Arizona ("City") and Final County,
Arizona ("County").
RECITALS•
1. City has in effect an Animal Control
Ordinance which must be enforced.
2. The,-County Enforcement Agent is, pursuant
to law, engaged in activities relating to vaccinating and
licensing of dogs, and to rabies and animal control, and has
pound facilities, equipment and trained personnel familiar
with matters of impounding animals and providing them with
proper care and maintenance.
/ ��jjs1 3. It appears to be in the best interests of
APPROVED ON './ .-Q.61 the County and City to agree that the County enforce the
0,PIL, City's animal control ordinance until City is able to
FOR AGENDAOh provide for the enforcement of said ordinance
4. County is authorized to enter into this
CITY MANAGER agreement by ARS 11-201 (3) and ARS 24-365
5. The City is authorized to enter into this
Intergovernmental Agreement by ARS 11-052.
ITEM No. _ �"" ------�
PU'UIC HEARING' NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed upon by
/ C LU RiStNESS and between the parties hereto as follows;
NLVJ ?IrSINESS 1 TERM. This Intergovernmental Agreement
INFO/REPORTS shall be for a period of two (2) months commencing on the
first day of July, 1980 and continuing 'through August 31,
1980.
2. CO'7SIDrRATION. City shall pay to County
the sum of $2,083 33 per month as consideration for services
and equipment to he pro✓ided b; County pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement. City shall also pay to County
all fines and fees collected as a result of violations of
any State, County or City laws, ordinances or regulations
and all fees collected pursuant to rabies animal control.
3. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. County shall be
responsible for enforcement of the City's Animal Control
Ordinances along with state and county laws within the
incorporated city and boundaries of the City while providing
services to the outlying areas immediately adjacent to the
City of Apache Junction.
4. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES The services
and equipment to be provided by County to City during the
term of this Agreement shall be hereinafter set forth.
A. Personnel. During the term of this
Agreement, County shall provide the City with one full time
person for enforcing the City, County and State Animal
Control Ordinances, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 3
above. Said person shall be on duty five (5) working days
per week. County shall also maintain a 24 hour emergency
service for the City. County shall be responsible for
paying to its personnel their compensation and such
personnel provided by the County shall remain the employees
of the County and shall not be considered employees of the
City. County shall be responsible for providing all fringe
benefits to its employees.
B Equipment. County shall provide all
necessary equipment to enforce the City and County Animal
Control Ordinances County shall perform and be responsible
for all maintenance required by the equipment and all
repairs or replacement thereof shall be at County's sole
expense.
5 LIABILITY. It is understood and agreed
by the parties hereto that City shall not be responsible or
liable for the loss of the property or life in respect to
the services or equipment to be provided as set forth in
this Agreement. County is an independent contractor and is
not to be considered an agent of the City for the purposes
of this Agreement.
6 DEFAULT. In the event City fails to pay
the agreed upon consideration when due, County shall have
the right to immediately cease services as required by this
Agreement.
7. INSURANCE County shall maintain public
liability insurance with minimum policy limits of
$1,000,000.00 aggregate for bodily injury occuring in any
one accident, property damage insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000.00; errors and omissions insurance in the amount
of $1,000,000.00.
8 SEVERABILITY. The terms and provisions
of this Agreement are separate and severable, and if for any
reason any court of law or administrative agency shall deem
any provision thereof invalid or inoperative, the remaining
OWS
provisions of this Agreement shall remain operative and in
full force and effect.
9 NOTICES. Any notices required pursuant
to the provisions of this Agreement shall be given in
writing by registered or certified mail enclosing such
notice in a postage prepaid envelope addressed as follows.
County. Jay Bateman, County Administrator,
Pinal County Board of Supervisors, P.O. Box 827, FLorence,
Arizona 85232.
City City Clerk, Post Office Box K,
Apache Junction, Arizona 85232
or to such other address as either party shall hereto
designate by such notice. Any such notice shall be
effective as of the date it is deposited in the United
States Mail.
10 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Agreement
embodies the entire Agreement between the parties hereto
with relation to the subject matter hereof and supercedes
any previous agreement or understanding, whether verbal or
otherwise with relation hereto, and may not be amended,
changed, revised or altered except in writing ,signed by the
parties hereto
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have
executed this Agreement on the day and year first above
written.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
William Mathieson, Chairman
James Karam
Jimmie Kerr
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
MAYOR
ATTEST. ATTEST.
Deputy Clerk of the Board City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM. APPROVED AS TO FORM.
Pinal County Attorney City Attorney
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # II/ MEETING OF
MOTION BY: 11\5 SECONDED BY : 1-1)
YFc N(1 ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN BURGESS V
til
COUNCILMAN DAMIANO _
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
COUNCILMAN HILL a
COUNCILMAN SHANKS /
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO I
MAYOR SEEMAN •� `i � ,�
JL
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED .
TOTAL:
J
ITEM NO , 12
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT THE MAYOR BE AND HEREBY IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO EXECUTE
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
AND PINAL COUNTY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL,
6.R___ARPROVAL
ITEM NO , 12
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION AND PINAL COUNTY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL BE AND HEREBY IS
DENIED ,
FOR DENIAL
„Nc„,,,,,
...0
,,, ,,,„„,,,,,,,,,,„„k „
.,....6
3 t :04-z
x1R/ZOWP' cOity o' C ruche cOunct2on
August 14, 1980
Amok MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: AGENDA PLACEMENT ITEM - PUBLIC UTILITY FEE
Pursuant to discussion with the City Attorney, the attached Ordinance
repeals Section 8-5-23 Public Utility Tax of the City Code and moves
this fee for use of the City right-of-way out from under the Business
Occupational License to a separate section under the Code governing
the Transaction Privilege Tax.
Passage of the Ordinance would clarify several questions regarding
the utility fee and its relation to the Business License.
. 7 /
Rich Oesterle
City Clerk
or
APPROVED ON 8// v/a;
ITEM No. .____ /3.. -— FOR AGENDA OF 546/Y
PUN IC HEARING
i ' s ire-�/�/�//
. . 01
�
v NIEN./ st.:sr^1f sS CITY MANAGER
........ _ INFO/ REPORTS ��LL'�
1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-8002
RQLL_CALL_VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
. YES . ABSTAIN ,
COUNCILMAN DAM T X1 LO
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
COUNCILMAN BURGESS
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
COUNCILMAN HILL
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN _
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
BOLL CALL VOIE SHEEI.
NOTES
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
YFS- Nin I ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
COUNCILMAN BURGFS_S_
COUNCILMAN FinSON
COUNC I L.MAN H T ! L
COUNC I LMAN TIAM T ANO
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL: � 4
ORDINANCE NO. 64
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA REPEALING CHAPTER 8, SECTIONS 8-5-23,
8-3-3.A.3 AND 8-3-3.A.4 OF THE CITY CODE; AMENDING
eS
CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 8-3-3 OF THE CITY CODE BY
ADDING SECTION 8-3-3(C); REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING
1 PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS.
SECTION I In General.
That Section 8-5-23 of the City Code be repealed.
That Sections 8-3-3.A.3 and 8-3-3.A.4 of the City
Code be repealed.
That Section 8-3-3 of the City Code be amended by
adding the following.
C. Public Utilities
1. There is further levied an amount equal to three
percent (3%) of the gross income from the business, a
tax upon every person, including districts formed under
1._
Title 45, Chapter 4 of the Arizona Revised Statutes,
engaged in or continuing within the City of Apache
Junction in the business of:
A. Furnishing to consumers within the City, and not
without, electricity, electric lights, current,
power, gas (natural or artificial) or water.
B. Transmitting local or long distance messages or
conversations by telephone, or messages by
telegraph, from a point within the City to
another point within the State of Arizona,
including gross income derived from any services
rendered subscribers within the corporate limits
of the City and gross income derived from
subscribers within the corporate limits of the
City in connection with the publication of any
directory.
2. Franchise Credit
I In computing the amount of the tax imposed under
subsection C.1 there shall be allowed as an offset
against this tax full credit for any and all franchise
: [ fees paid to the City pursuant in the terms of a
franchise by anyone engaged in and holding a City
franchise for any of the businesses heretofore
described, such franchise fees to include all fees and
payments made which are based on gross income realized
from sales or services provided to specified classes of
customers within the City.
SECTION II Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances.
All Ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict
with the provisions of this Ordinance or any part of the
Code adopted herein by reference, are hereby repealed.
S
SECTION III Providing for Severability
If any section, sub-section, sentence, phrase,
clause or portion of this Ordinance or any part of the Code
adopted herein by reference, is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any Court of
competant jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION IV Emergency Clause
Whereas, it is necessary for the preservation of
the peace, health and safety of the City of Apache Junction,
Arizona, an emergency is declared to exist, and this
Ordinance shall become operative and in force from and after
September 1, 1980,
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona this day of
, 19
VIRGINIA SEEMAN
Mayor
ATTEST.
RICH OESTERLE
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM.
City Attorney
-2-
R_QLLCALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
6-13 &pin e r)
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: 1[7 LT _ SECONDED BY: ) r- '
YES PLO ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN -DAM I ANO
COUNCILMAN SHANKS f .
COUNCILMAN BURGESS
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
COUNCILMAN HILL
VICE-MAYOR CRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
ITEM NO . 13
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
step 1 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT THE READING OF ORDINANCE NO . 64, BE READ BY TITLE ONLY, WITH
THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE, AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE
WAIVED ,
(NOTE: This motion must have a unanimous vote to carry; if the vote is not
unanimous , the clerk must read the ordinance in full . )
step 2 NOTE: CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ ORDINANCE NO , 64 BY TITLE
ONLY, WITH THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE .
step 3 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT ORDINANCE NO. 64, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA REPEALING CHAPTER 8, SECTIONS 8-5-23, 8-3-3 , A, 3 , AND
8-3-3. A. 4 OF THE CITY CODE; AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 8-3-3
OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 8-3-3 (C); REPEALING ANY
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY BE AND HEREBY IS ADOPTED ,
FOR APPROVAL
ITEM NO , 13
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT THE READING OF ORDINANCE NO , 64, BE READ BY TITLE ONLY,
WITHOUT THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE FOR THE FIRST READING ,
(MOTION WITHOUT EMERGENCY CLAUSE) (THIS WILL BE THE FIRST READING)
ITEM NO , 13
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT ORDINANCE NO , 64, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA REPEALING CHAPTER 8, SECTIONS 8-5-23, 8-3-3 , A.3, AND
8-3-3, A, 4 OF THE CITY CODE; AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 8-3-3
OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 8-3-3 (C); REPEALING ANY
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED ,
FOR DENIAL
PQACHE✓,_
1 I
gR/ZONP C6ity 4 &419ache unctaon
AUGUST 13, 1980
Ank
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: G. RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOE GERO, PLANNING DIRECTOR AND�L,14
CHUCK NEWCOMER,` ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOL GRANT APPLICATION
Application deadline for the FY 1981 Arizona Outdoor Recreation
Coordinating Commission (AORCC) grant program is August 29. This
is the program through which the City received funding for the
ballfields and tennis courts last year.
Preliminary cost estimates indicate that the construction of an
olympic-size swimming pool, bathhouses, and parking areas may run
as high as $500,000. This would mean a local commitment of $250,000.
Discussions are underway with the School Board to provide for joint
payment of the local match (City - $125,000 - School - $125,000) and
joint responsibility for the annual maintenance and operation costs
(estimate at $38,000 annually) . The School Board is scheduled to dis-
c cuss this matter at their August 14th meeting.
After staff analysis of 7 alternate sites, it was decided that the most
appropriate location for the pool, if this joint use agreement is to be
pursued, would be on school property adjacent to the High School. An
alternative site, should the intergovernmental agreement with the School
Board not be negotiated, would be on North Idaho Road, between City Hall
and Four Peaks Elementary School. It may be possible to obtain a lease
for recreational purposes from the State Land Department for this tract.
In your packet is enclosed 1) a Resolution which AORCC requires if the
City decides to apply for the grant and 2) a draft intergovernmental agree-
ment between the City and the School Board similar to the one between the
City and School Board for the ballfields and tennis courts and 3) a Res-
olution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with the School Board.
APPROVED ON 8",//2 2r4
ITEM No. __- --__
_ PU3L IC HEARING FOR AGENDA OF _8/�� d
otD
I— N'Vi 3US'NESS ..- `
150 NORTH OCtt1[10 • INP OF,EIGE,.B K APACHE JUNCTION, r( i g, P TEL RONE(602)982-6154
MEMORANDUM
page 2
More information on whether or not the School Board decides to par-
ticipate with the City in funding this project as well as more
detailed project costs and preliminary drawings will be available
p• by the August 20th City Council Meeting.
RESOLUTION NO 80-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT A COMMUNITY SWIM-
MING POOL, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, the Congress under Public Law 88-578 has authorized the estab-
/, lishment of a Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant-In-Aid Program,
providing matching funds to the State of Arizona, its political subdivisions
and Indian Tribes for acquiring lands and developing facilities for public
outdoor recreation purposes, and
WHEREAS, the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission (AORCC)
is responsible for the administration of the program within the State, setting
up necessary rules and procedures governing application by local agencies
under the program; and
WHEREAS, said adopted procedures established by AORCC require the appli-
cant to certify by resolution the approval of applications, signature author-
ization, the availability of local matching funds, and authorization to sign a
Participant Agreement with AORCC prior to submission of said applications to
AORCC, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Community Swimming Pool project must be consistent
with the Arizona State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, and
WHEREAS, the project must be compatible with the land use plans of the
applicant;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT IT HEREBY:
1 Approves the filing of an application for Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund assistance, and
2. Certifies that the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, will comply
with all appropriate state and federal regulations, policies,
guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the application,
and
3 Certifies that the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, has
matching funds in the amount of $250,000 from the following
sources• City General Fund, School District Funds, and can
finance 100 percent of the project, half of which will be
reimbursed by a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant, and
4 Certifies that the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, has the
non-project surcharge in an amount not to exceed ten percent
(10%) of the total project cost, which will be paid to AORCC
upon AORCC approval of said application; and
5 Certifies that the project is compatible with the land use plans
of the City of Apache Junction, and
6 Appoints the City Manager as agent of the City of Apache Junction,
Arizona, to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all
documents including but not limited to applications, agreements,
amendments, billing statements, and so on which may be necessary
for the completion of the aforementioned project.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the immediate operation of this Resolution is
necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety of
the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, and an emergency is declared to exist,
and this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, adoption or approval by the City Council of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona
PAGE 2
RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Apache Junction, Arizona, this day of , 19
Mayor
ATTEST.
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
^ ^ V
City Attorney
C 4
OIN
fs
pE
SA
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # lfr\ MEETING OF
MOTION BY: '19 SECONDED BY : J `-
YFS NO . AB IAI N
COUNCILMAN JilLL
COUNCILMAN D MIANO
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
COUNCILMAN BURGESS
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL: C
ITEM NO . 14
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF RESOLUTION NO . 80-27.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT RESOLUTION NO . 80-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA, APPROVING THE
APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT A
COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOL; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY BE AND HEREBY
IS ADOPTED .
FOR APPROVAL
ITEM NO . 14
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF RESOLUTION NO . 80-27
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT RESOLUTION NO . 80-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS
TO CONSTRUCT A COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOL; AND DECLARING AND EMERGENCY
BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED .
FOR DENIAL
icr1/41-ip,CHE ..-- /e
II
fit
-9P/ZONP
cOity o� @4pac�ie 2unction
AUGUST 13, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: G. RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER
FROM. JOE GERO, PLANNING DIRECTOR ANDL��'
CHUCK NEWCOMER,`'ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT. COMMUNITY SWINNING POOL GRANT APPLICATION
Application deadline for the FY 1981 Arizona Outdoor Recreation
Coordinating Commission (AORCC) grant program is August 29. This
is the program through which the City received funding for the
ballfields and tennis courts last year,
Preliminary cost estimates indicate that the construction of an
olympic-size swiumling pool, bathhouses, and parking areas may run
as high as $500,000. This would mean a local commitment of $250,000.
Discussions are underway with the School Board to provide for joint
payment of the local match (City - $125,000 - School - $125,000) and
joint responsibility for the annual maintenance and operation costs
(estimate at $38,000 annually) . The School Board is scheduled to dis-
Ass cuss this matter at their August 14th meeting.
After staff analysis of 7 alternate sites, it was decided that the most
appropriate location for the pool, if this joint use agreement is to be
pursued, would be on school property adjacent to the High School. An
alternative site, should the intergovernmental agreement with the School
Board not be negotiated, would be on North Idaho Road, between City Hall
and Four Peaks Elementary School. It may be possible to obtain a lease
for recreational purposes from the State Land Department for this tract.
In your packet is enclosed 1) a Resolution which AORCC requires if the
City decides to apply for the grant and 2) a draft intergovernmental agree-
ment between the City and the School Board similar to the one between the
City and School Board for the ballfields and tennis courts and 3) a Res-
olution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with the School Board. /
APPROVED ON. -Z�`�!���.f'
-
F U;L;C IEARiHG FOR AGENDA OF g��C1 p
___ OLD//BUSINESS * :-V
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST-OFfIABOX K ACf1PJUMCTiON ARIZONA 85220 •T- - ,NE 0023'962 6154
INFO/ REPORTS Chi tvii..AC:.'
MEMORANDUM
page 2
More information on whether or not the School Board decides to par-
ticipate with the City in funding this project as well as more
detailed project costs and preliminary drawings will be available
by the August 20th City Council Meeting.
RESOLUTION NO. 80-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE APACHE JUNCTION
UNIFIED SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, will submit an appli-
cation to the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission (AORCC)
for a fiscal year 1980-1981 Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant; and
WHEREAS, said application is in the amount of $250,000 which is
fifty-percent (50%) of the funds needed to construct a swimming pool
facility, and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it would be in the best interest
of the City to enter into an agreement with the Apache Junction Unified
Schools Board of Education to provide for joint funding of the construc-
tion and annual maintenance and operating costs of the swimming pool
facility; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it would be in the best interest
of the City to enter into an agreement with the Apache Junction Unified
Schools Board of Education to provide for joint use of said facility by
the City and said Board of Education, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the preservation of the peace, health
and safety of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that an emergency
be declared to exist and the Resolution be effective immediately upon
passage and adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the
fl City of Apache Junction, Arizona, that the City Manager be and hereby is
authorized to enter into an agreement with the Apache Junction Unified
Schools Board of Education, and that the City Manager be and is hereby
authorized and directed to execute any and all documents which may be
necessary to implement said agreement;
FURTHER RESOLVED that the immediate operation of this Resolution is
necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety of
the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,and an emergency is declared to exist,
and this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, adoption or approval by the City Council of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Apache Junction, Arizona, this day of - , 19
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City AttorneK
.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT -tea
-1%).:0)/. d d
THIS AGREEMENT made an entered into this day of
19 , by and between the City of Apache Junction, a municipal corporation,
and hereinafter referred to as "City" and the Apache Junction Unified School
Board of Education hereinafter referred to as "School"
RECITALS•
1. Arizona Revised Statutues Section 15-1171 and 11-952 authorize
the City and the School to enter into this Agreement, and auth-
orize the City to expend public monies for the proposed con-
struction work,
2 It is the desire of the parties hereto that the City design,
construct and operate, on property owned by the School what is
known as Apache Junction High and Junior High School, a swim-
, ming pool facility and necessary attendant facilities including
bath houses, fencing and parking areas, hereinafter referred to
as facilities, suitable to serve the School activities and City
recreation needs, and described as
The recreational facilities that are proposed to be constructed
A portion of the NW; of the NW; of Section 32, Township 1 North,
Range 8 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and
agreements of the parties hereto contained it is agreed as follows
A The City agrees
1 To design, construct and inspect facilities on said property,
in accordance with plans and specifications approved by both
parties, and to share expenses therefore and as hereinafter
provided.
2 To hold the School harmless of or from any claims made by
any person against the School in connection with the con-
struction work of the contractor, its employees or agents,
during the construction period until the project is accepted
by the City, and to provide insurance therefore
3. To pay or cause to be paid all valid claims for personal
injury or property damage arising out of the operation of
the facilities by the City during nonschool activities.
4. To operate the facilities on a year-round basis and make
them available to the public and to the School as scheduled
h Cityincooperation with the School and to share the
by the ,
expenses thereof and hereinafter provided.
PAGE 2
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
The School shall have use of the pool between the hours of
8:00 A M. and 5.00 P.M. daily, Monday through Friday, from
the opening of the school year and until the close of the
class sessions for the school year
(Exception• The School, in order to host an interscholastic
swim meet, shall have priority use of the pool
at times other than mentioned above by prior
agreement with the City )
The City shall have use of the pool at all other times and
shall schedule appropriate times and hours the pool will be
open to the public
5 To provide one-half (1) the maintenance and upkeep of the facil-
ities, including supplies and cleaning, subsequent to completion
of the facilities and to provide reimbursement to the School for
utility bills received by the School according to an appropriate
schedule to be agreed upon by the City and the School.
6 To provide an amount of money equal to one-half (' ) of the amount of
a Federal Grant applied for and to be received by the City in pay-
ment for the expense of the design and construction of facilities
described above and to provide one-half (1/2) the balance of expenses
incurred in the design and construction of said facilities
B The School agrees.
1. To allow the City to develop facilities on said property, subject
to the approval of the School and the City
2 To grant the City an easement to lay and maintain utility service
lines, and to grant free ingress and egress from all property lines
as required.
3. To provide one-half (1/2) of the maintenance and upkeep of the
facilities, including supplies and cleaning, subsequent to com-
pletion of the construction of the facilities.
4. To pay all utility charges in connection with the construction
and operation of said facilities, provided however, that nothing
herein shall prevent the School from receiving reimbursement for
such utility costs as provided for in Paragraph A (5) above
5 To provide an amount of money equal to one-half (1-2) of the
amount of a Federal Grant applied for and incurred in the ex-
pense of the design and the construction of the facilities,
over and above the amount of money received from a Federal Grant
as described in Paragraph A (6) above
PAGE 3
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
6 To pay or cause to be paid all valid claims for personal in-
jury or property damage arising out of the operation of the
facilities by the School during School activities and to pro-
vide insurance therefor
"�" 7. To permit the City to install adequate signs on School property
to locate the facility and indicating when the facilities are
available to the general public
C. It is agreed and understood that this Agreement is contingent upon
receipt by the City of the Federal Grant described in Paragraph A
(6) above.
D This Agreement shall be filed with the Pinal County Recorder, and
shall become effective ten (10) days after it has been filed, and
shall remain in full force and effect for a period of twenty-five
(25) years, unless modified by mutual agreement of the parties
hereto, and shall be renewable in increments of twenty-five (25)
years with the mutual consent of the parties hereto for the life
of the facilities, or until they are otherwise disposed of.
E. This Agreement shall not be cancelled without the approval of
parties and the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordination Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorr�ey Da e
School Attorney Date
PAGE 5
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
SCHOOL APACHE JUNCTION UNIFIED SCHOOLS
BOARD OF EDUCATION
/u By
ATTEST
Clerk
STATE OF ARIZONA )
) , SS
County of Pinal )
On this day of , 1979, before me, the under-
signed Notary Public, personally appeared and
who acknowledged themselves to be the President
and Clerk of the Apache Junction Unified Schools Board of Education of
Apache Junction Public Schools, duly organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of Arizona and that they, as such officials,
being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing agreement for and on
behalf of the said Apache Junction Unified Schools Board of Education for
the purpose and consideration therein expressed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal
ji.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires
PAGE 4
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused these presence to be
executed the day and the year first above written.
CITY CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, a
municipal corporation
By
ATTEST
City Clerk
STATE OF ARIZONA )
ss
County of Pinal )
On this day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned
Notary Public, personally appeared and
who acknowledged themselves to be the City Manager and
City Clerk respectively, of the City of Apache Junction, a municipal corp-
oration, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
State of Arizona, and that they, as such officials, being authorized so to
do, executed the foregoing Agreement for and on behalf of the said municipal
corporation, for the purpose and consideration therein expressed
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: //1) SECONDED BY: AS
•
YES NO ABSTAIN
COUNCILMAN FIDSON_ 1
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
COUNCILMAN HILL '
COUNCILMAN BURGESS ✓
COUNCILMAN DAMIANO
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO J
MAYOR SEEMAN
,
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL: I 6
ITEM NO . 15
CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF RESOLUTION NO . 80-28.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT RESOLUTION NO . 80-28, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA,
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREE-
MENT WITH THE APACHE JUNCTION UNIFIED SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY BE AND HEREBY IS ADOPTED .
FOR APPROVAL
ITEM NO . 15
�- CALL UPON THE CITY CLERK TO READ THE TITLE OF RESOLUTION NO , 80-28,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT RESOLUTION NO , 80-28, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA,
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A`1 AGREE-
MENT WITH THE APACHE JUNCTION UNIFIED SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED .
FOR DENIAL
ROLL CALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # 11 ) MEETING OF
MOTION BY: ��� SECONDED BY : 1y
YFS ��.fl APSTA I N
COUNCILMAN BURGESS /
COUNCILMAN DAMIANO J/
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
COUNCILMAN HILL
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL: ("? -
J
ITEM NO . 11)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PERSONNEL AND LEGAL ADVICE
BE HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1980, AT 6: 00 P.M. IN THE
CITY MANAGER' S CONFERENCE ROOM.
ZONING VIOLATION
COMPLAINT ACTIVITY
MAY & JUNE 1980
During the months of May and June, 1980, we received ten (10)
new Zoning Violation Complaints from various citizens.
We are now using the new Cease & Desist Notice as the first
step in written notification that there is a zoning problem When
possible, the violator is also informed as to the nature of the vio-
lation either before this notice is posted or when it is posted.
When it is not possible to inform the violator, the notice is
posted. This notice requests the recipient to contact the office
of the Zoning Administrator to find out the nature of the problem.
Since the incorporation of this form into our processing of
zoning violations, most of the cases are solved in this stage of the
process.
During the months of May & June activity was as follows:
CASES ACTIONS CEASE & DESIST INSPECTIONS
RESOLVED/CLOSED TAKEN NOTICES ISSUED MADE
18 10 3 16
Also, during the month of June, one complaint was filed by this
office in the City Court.
LF sw
8/11/80
BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
CLASSIFICATION MONTH OF JULY
YEAR TO DATE
Number of Building Permits Issued 52 403
Total of Permit Fees Assessed $ 3,375 75 $ 15,423.25
Total of Plan Reviews Assessed 1,626.50 7,224.62
Total Pre-inspection Fees Assessed - - 105.00
Total Incoming 5,002.25 22,752.87
Cost of Proposed Work 951,140 92 $8,169,547 22
Number of Inspections made in connection
with building permits 117 814
8/11/80
PQACHF✓o
Via z
'1PIZ pNP C6itj o� C47,ac1 e 09unction
AUGUST 6 , 1980
MEMORANDUM TO : RICH OESTERLE, CITY CLERK
THRU: JOE GERO , PLANNING DIRECTORN..14.-t5
FROM: CHUCK NEWCOMER, ACTING EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUBJECT : MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
This memorandum is to inform you of Board of Adjustment
actions taken at their August 4 , 1980 , meeting . The case
BA-10-80, an application for a variance submitted by Frances
S . Ramirez of 1686 N. Valley Drive , will be continued at
the October 6 , 1980 , meeting of the Board .
In the case of BA-11-80 , an application for a variance to
yard and setback requirements submitted by Mr . Donald L .
Owensby of 2377 W. Ohio , Apache Junction, the Board granted
Mr . Owensby the variance as requested .
The next meeting of the Board of Adjustment will be held on
September 8 , 1980, at 7 : 00 P .m• at the City Hall Complex .
Please note that the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board
is the first Monday of each month, however, since September
1st is a holiday, the Board has changed their meeting to the
second Monday in September , which is September 8th .
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
'7'
U ;,1.• 1i�'y Z
gRiZ`ONp, ( its o @ pucGce 09unction
4.116. August 5, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THRU: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGE./
FROM: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING f, 2"
AND . I
CHARLES NEWCOMERACTING EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Enclosed you will find copies of the approved "Minutes" from the Board
of Adjustment meeting of July 7, 1980.
Any questions concerning these "Minutes" should be directed to the Acting
Executive Secretary.
Please have the original "Minutes" inserted in the "MINUTES" Book.
Thank you.
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-6154
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
1001 N IDAHO ROAD
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
JULY 7, 1980
7.00 P.M.
' In Attendance Guests
Joe Jessamine Mr. and Mrs. Lawson
Don Nesser Mr and Howard Soso
Bill Vaughn Mr. and Mrs. Ribaudo
Bill Furness Tom Damiano, Councilman
Pete Nunn Marie Shanks, Councilman
Chuck Newcomer, Acting Executive Secretary Joe Gero, Director of Planning
Kathy Connelly, Secretary Mrs Frances Ramirez
1. Mr. Newcomer opened the meeting at 7 00 P M and announced
that since this was the first meeting of the
new fiscal year, it was necessary for the Board
to elect new officers Until such time that
the new Chairman was elected, he would assume
the role of the Chairman and conduct the
meeting
He then proceeded to call the roll and deter-
mined all members present as indicated above
There being a quorum present, he called for
nominations for the position of Chairman.
2. Nunn/Vaughn M/S to nominate Joe Jessamine for Chairman.
3. Furness/Vaughn M/S to nominate Don Nesser for Chairman.
4 Vaughn/Nunn M/S to close nominations. '
The motion passed 5-0.
5 Mr Newcomer proceeded to distribute ballots for a written
vote on the nominations
r ` After the counting of the ballots, it was
determined that Joe Jessamine was elected
Chairman of the Board of Adjustment for a term
ending June 30, 1981, by a vote of 4-1.
6. Mr. Jessamine assumed the Chairman's position and proceeded
with the election of the Vice-Chairman.
7. Nunn/Furness M/S to nominate Don Nesser for Vice-Chairman
8 Nunn/Vaughn M/S to close nominations.
The motion passed 5-0.
9 Chairman announced that since there were no other nom-
inations for Vice-Chairman that Mr Nesser
was the newly-elected Vice-Chairman for the
term ending June 30, 1981
10 Chairman called the Board's attention to the Minutes
from the meeting of June 23, 1980 and called
for a motion on the Minutes
11 Nesser/Vaughn M/S to approve the Minutes from the Board
of Adjustment meeting of June 23, 1980, as
written
The motion passed 5-0.
Page 2 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980
12. Chairman announced that the next item on the agenda
was the continuance of the hearing on Pinal
County Special Use Permit SUP-59-77 issued
to Mr. Howard Boso for automobile repair
0111441 He informed those present that the hearing
had been continued so that the Board members
could resolve the issue of the fencing re-
quirements for the property.
He called for a discussion or comments from
the Board members.
13 Mr Furness expressed to the members that he felt that
the decision of what areas to be fenced
should be left up to the individual re-
garding the requirements of the work area
14 Chairman described the property in question and the
fenced areas already in existence
15 Mr Nesser suggested that the meeting be opened to the
public so that Mr Boso would have the oppor-
tunity to speak for-himself
16 Chairman called on Mr Boso to explain his view of
the fencing requirements
17 Mr Boso questioned why the Board wanted such a large
area of the property fenced in
18. Mrs. Boso explained that the area with the concrete piers
was also their own parking area and to fence
it in would be a great inconvenience
19. Chairman explained that the requirement was such that
the work area be screened from the neighboring
properties
20. Mr Boso explained that certain areas were used for
automobiles, but that these were his own per-
sonal property since he also restored Corvairs
The areas where these cars were located were not
actual work areas
21 Chairman called for comments for or against the renewal
of the Special Use Permit and the requirements
as set forth
22 Mr Nesser suggested that the Board revise the terms of the
requirements to include a specific height for
the screening fence, a stipulation that it be
fencing material and not hedges, and that the
applicant be given the chance to answer com-
plaints if and when they are filed. He also
suggested that the work area be defined in
order to avoid future conflict
23 Mr Newcomer suggested that the applicant be given a time
frame of 6 months to 1 year to erect the fence.
24 Chairman questioned the term "work area".
25. Mr. Furness suggested that the Board not define the work
area, but leave it to the applicant to do so.
He felt that the main concern was that the
fence screened this particular area
Page 3 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980
26. Mr. Gero explained the terms of the Special Use Permit
and the requirement that it be renewed on a
year-to-year basis The fence around the work
area was a requirement, but should not be con-
sidered a restriction
He explained that the installation of the
t fence might be an unexpected financial burden
and that a reasonable period of time should be
allowed to comply
He agreed that the applicant should be allowed
to define the work area and that the respon-
sibility for doing so be placed on him.
27 Chairman pointed out that the work area could be on the
east side and fenced accordingly, but any cars
placed on the west side would not be screened.
28. Mr. Gero stressed that if the applicant parks a car in
a specific area to be worked on, then that will
also be a part of the work area.
29. Mr. Nesser reiterated that all cars associated with the
facility must be screened whether parked there
or actually undergoing repair
30 Mr Nunn questioned the height requirement for the fence
since a specific 6' fence seemed high.
He called for a staff recommendation on the
height requirement.
31 Mr Newcomer suggested that the requirement be between 5
and 6 feet, and emphasized that 4' would be too
low for effective screening. He pointed out
that on the east side of the property that the
fence was only 4', but the shrubs were between
6'-8' and did provide adequate screening.
32 Mr Nesser suggested that the original resolution be
amended to allow for a 1-year extension to
comply with the fencing requirement
33 Mr Nunn pointed out that the original resolution did
not specify a fence height or area to be
screened.
34 Mr Boso explained that a fence 5' high would conceal
cars being-worked on
35. Chairman suggested that the fence on the west side be
allowed to remain at 4' high unless someone
complains about the lack of screening
36. Mr. Boso explained that the neighbors on that particular
side of the property would not complain.
37 Mr Nunn suggested that the Board require a 6' height
requirement on the fencing
38 Mr Vaughn suggested that the requirement be between 5'
and 6' to allow for calculation errors and
deviations
39. Mr. Gero agreed with Mr Vaughn to allow for grading
requirements.
Page 4 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980
40 Mrs Boso felt that the Board should specify those
areas used for work and those used for family
parking since part of the property was used
for their own private cars.
^ 41. Mr. Boso explained that he had approximately 15 cars
on the premises that he owned privately and
that he was restoring as classics He did
not see why these cars had to be fenced in
since they were not part of the work area.
S 42 Mr Nesser suggested that the original resolution be
amended to allow the applicant to define the
{ work area and to fence it accordingly.
43 Nesser/Nunn M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment
Tithe City of Apache Junction, Arizona•
Hereby granting a twelve (12) month extension
of Pinal County SUP-59-77; a special use permit
issued by the Pinal County Planning and Zoning
Commission to Mr. Howard Boso of 1536 West
Roundup Street, Apache Junction, Arizona, to
operate an auto repair garage on the premises,
provided that the conditions and requirements
herein established by the Board of Adjustment
and as set forth in Pinal County SUP-59-77
are complied with These conditions and re-
quirements include
1 The approval would be granted on a year-
to-year operation with extensions, provided
that nuisance complaints are not filed
In the event of a complaint, the applicant
would be notified and given the opportunity
to answer the complaint before the Board.
2. The approval of use cannot be transferred
to another person without a hearing and
Board of Adjustment approval.
0111
3. This approval is for car repair only and
+ does not include body or fender work.
4. The location is to be kept in a clean order
and "junk" automobiles will not be permitted
All parking shall be on the owner's prop-
erty and any signs shall be approved by
the City Zoning Administrator
5 The work area shall be surrounded by a
screening fence of 5' to 6' in height to
conceal activity from any and all neigh-
bors. The applicant shall determine what
is the work area and erect the screening
fence accordingly to be inspected by and to
meet the approval of the City Building
Official
The fence on the east side of the property
shall be permitted to remain 4' in height
with shrubbery as additional screening un-
less complaints are made against same
The applicant shall be permitted a period
of one (1) year to erect the fence and meet
the requirements as indicated above.
6. Any provisions contained in the City Zoning
Ordinance which are applicable to property
located in a CB-2 zone and which does not
conflict with the special requirements as
set forth in this resolution, shall also be
Page 5 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980
applicable.
The Board takes note that there has not
been a written complaint filed against Mr.
Boso's auto repair operation within the
past twelve (12) months Upon receipt by
the City of Apache Junction of a written
complaint filed against Mr. Boso's auto
repair service, Mr Boso will be duly
notified and will be given the opportunity
to be heard on the matter. The Board of
Adjustment may refuse to grant future
extensions of Pinal County SUP-59-77
based upon written complaints.
Failure to comply with the provisions as
set forth in this resolution shall result
in the discontinuance of the special uses
granted to Mr Boso by Pinal County SUP-59-77
44. Chairman called for a vote on the proposed amendments to
the resolution regarding fencing as motioned
by Mr Nesser and Mr Nunn
The motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Vaughn voting
"no"
45. Chairman called for a motion to accept the resolution
• as indicated above.
46. Nunn/Furness M/S to approve the resolution as indicated
b-i ove.
The motion passed 4-1 with Mr Vaughn voting
"no".
47. Chairman requested the Executive Secretary brief the
members on the next item on the agenda, BA-10-80,
the variance application from Mrs Frances
Ramirez
48 Mr Newcomer explained the circumstances of the case to the
members and the requirement that the legal
property owners grant permission to the re-
quest for such a variance.
He further explained that it had come to his
attention that Mrs Ramirez was not the sole
property owner and that the other owner had
not given his consent to the variance request
Therefore, the Board had before them an improper
application and would not be able to proceed
with the hearing
He informed the Board that the applicant's
attorney was working in getting sole ownership
for Mrs Ramirez but had not obtained a court
date as of this time
49 Mr. Ribaudo read a telegram to the Board from the other
property owner which refused approval of the
variance application and informed the Board
that he was unable to attend the meeting
50 Mr Gero explained that the original application had
given the staff the impression that only one
property owner was involved He suggested
that the Board allow Mrs Ramirez the time to
show ownership However, he also suggested
that a specific time frame be allowed since it
would be improper to continue the hearing in-
definitely
Page 6 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980
51. Chairman asked Mr Ribaudo to submit the telegram to
the Board as reference to be brought up at
the next meeting.
52. Mr Newcomer informed those present that the continuance
would not be readvertised and the property
owners would not be notified of the next
hearing
53. Mr. Ribaudo questioned whether or not the City was still
enforcing the zoning restriction of one (1)
mobile home per 114 acre since Mrs Ramirez had
already placed another trailer on the propert'..
54 Mr Gero reminded the Board that on properties that had
more than one ownership, all involved parties
must give approval. Since the Board did not
have the complete approval, they could not
proceed at this time
55 Chairman called for a question on the continuance of
the public hearing
56 Vaughn/Jessamine M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment
f the City of Apache Junction, Arizona.
Hereby delaying any action on BA-10-80 until
the next regular meeting meeting of the Board
of Adjustment to be held on Monday, August 4,
1980 at 7 00 P M at 1001 North Idaho Road,
Apache Junction, Arizona, at which time the
public hearing on this case will be continued."
The motion passed 5-0.
57. Chairman called for a motion to close the public hearing
58 Nesser/Nunn M/S to close the public hearing section of the
meeting
The motion passed 5-0
^ 59 Chairman called for a five-minute recess before pro-
ceeding with the business portion of the
meeting
The meeting was re-called to order at 8.05
P M
60. Mr. Newcomer briefed the members on the information in their
packet marked Agenda Item #6 which included a
memo from the City Clerk requesting that the
Chairman submit an Activity Report by noon on
the second Wednesday of each month for inclu-
sion in the City Council packet These reports
were in addition to the "Minutes".
Also included in the information was a memo to
the Planning and Zoning Commission asking them
to consider increasing the Board membership
from five (5) to seven (7) members.
Included for the information of the members was
an excerpt from the State Statutues on "conflict
of interest" which had been discussed at the
previous meeting This definition clarified
the question of what was legally a "conflict of
interest"
Page 7 - Board of Adjustment Minutes of July 7, 1980
He informed the Board members that the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission would be considering
the increase of the Board membership at their
July 15, 1980 meeting and urged all to attend.
61 Chairman called for additional questions or comments
from the Board members.
62 Mr Nesser asked if the newly-appointed members of the
Board had to be sworn in even if they had
been re-appointed.
63 Mr Newcomer explained that letters had been sent out to
Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Furness informing them of
their appointment and requesting that they
be sworn in by the City Clerk Both parties
had already complied with the requirement.
64 Mr Vaughn asked if it was possible to have the Board
packets prepared by the Thursday prior to the
meeting so that there was enough time to re-
view the information and inspect the sites
65. Mr. Newcomer replied that he would try to have the packets
9 prepared by Thursday, at the latest, unless it
was unavoidable
66. Chairman called for a motion to close the meeting.
67 Nesser/Nunn M/S to adjourn the meeting.
The motion passed 5-0
68. Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8.40 P.M
Respectfully submitted
Pi/-
Charles Newcomer
Acting Executive Secretary
Approved.
Jo� Qam cli�1"e
Char- n
B of Adjustment
[.
p.CHE ✓G
PQ G
gRIZoNP (Oily a @479ache 2unctian
August 13, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THRU. RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING `t)."
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SUBJECT. "MINUTES" - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Enclosed you will find copies of the approved "Minutes" from the meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 15, 1980.
Any questions concerning these "Minutes" should be directed to the Executive
Secretary.
Please have the original "Minutes" inserted in the MINUTES BOOK.
Thank you.
JWG/kmc
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
1001 N IDAHO ROAD
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
JULY 15, 1980
7.00 P.M.
In Attendance Absent Guests
Ilene Taylor, Vice-Chairman George Baljo (vacation) John Schuster
Roy Hudson Mildred Baker (vacation) Robert Lawther
Richard Oltman Ron Kell (illness)
Henry Steelsmith John Hutchens
Sim Strickler (out-of-town)
Joe Gero, Executive Secretary
Kathy Connelly, Secretary
1. Mrs. Taylor called the meeting to order at 7 00 P.M. and
(Vice-Chairman) requested the Executive Secretary to call roll
2. Mr. Gero called roll and determined the members present
as indicated above
3. Vice-Chairman announced that a quorum was present and that
the first item of business before the Commission
was the public hearing on case PZ-7-79
She asked the Executive Secretary to brief the
members on the case before them
4. Mr. Gero explained that the hearings on the agenda to-
night were the first hearings to be conducted
regarding Planned Development and the newly en-
acted Ordinance 1133.
The case designated as PZ-7-79 was first brought
before the Commission on December 11, 1979 At
that time, the hearing was postponed until such
time that the City Council passed the Planned
Development Ordinance The Planned Development
Ordinance allowed for the development of the
property under pre-set and controlled con-
ditions.
The application of Mr Schuster had since been
changed to a request for a CR-5/PD, designating
it a Planned Development
He called attention to the memo on PZ-7-79 which
outlined the -dimensions and requirements of a
conventional zone as compared to that in a PD zone,
and how the proposal from Mr. Schuster compared
He pointed out that the Commission members had
memos from the Police and Fire Departments, as
well as Public Works, on the proposal
5 Vice-Chairman called on Mr Schuster to present his case.
L_ 6. Mr. Schuster explained how his case was held in abeyance until
such time that the Planned Development Ordinance
became effective.
He explained to the Commission that his project
was to be multi-family dwelling units in the area
of Scenic Street and North Royal Palm Blvd He
further explained that the plans for the project
were drawn to specifications and would provide
adequate parking for the tenants
He indicated that he would be happy to answer
any questions that the Commission members might
have
Page 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 15, 1980
7 Mr Gero called the Commission's attention to the memo
from the Director pf Public Works concerning
washes and the establishment of the proper
right-of-way
He further explained that these washes must
^ meet state requirements, and must enter and
leave the site at their present location
With regard to the right-of-way, it would be
necessary to have a forty feet (40') right-of-
way which would require an additional seven
feet (7') to be dedicated to the City
He further indicated that these were not major
problems and could be taken care of in the plan
review process.
8. Vice-Chairman called for comments for or against the proposed
project from the Commission members
She then called for the staff recommendation
9 Mr Gero pointed out to the Commission that the project
was sound and would be good for the City The
project exceeds the requirements for the Planned
Development and would be a positive step in the
development of the City.
10 Mr Steelsmith agreed with Mr Gero Speaking as an architect,
he complimented Mr. Schuster on the project and
interjected that it also provided a place for
children to live within the City
11 Vice-Chairman called for additional comments from the members
There being no additional comments, she called
for a motion on the proposed project.
12. Steelsmith/Strickler M/S BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning
raimission of the City of Apache Junction, Ar-
izona, that in rezoning case PZ-7-79, also known
^ as proposed Ordinance No 55, application of
John R Schuster for his property described as.
South 14 of the Southeast % of the Northeast
14 of the Northwest 34 of Section 21, Town-
ship 1 North, Range 8 East of the Gila and
Salt River Basin and Meridian, located in
Apache Junction, Pinal County, Arizona,
requesting rezoning from General Rural (GR) to
Multiple Residence by Planned Development (CR-5/PD),
that the Commission recommends to the Apache Junc-
tion City Council the approval of said application.
The reasons for this recommendation are-
1 The project fronts on Scenic Street and Royal
Palm Road, a quarter section and mid-section
line road respectively As such, they will
be expected to carry higher traffic volumes
and multiple family uses, provided the density
of the area is not overloaded, would be ex-
ected to develop
2. The location is near commercial uses(approx-
imately 3/4 mile)
3. Zoning in the area is generally multiple fam-
ily, except for the General Rural (GR) and
Trailer Homesite (TH-1) locations, therefore,
this would not be spot zoning
Page 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 15, 1980
i
4. The applicant has demonstrated through the
documents submitted that the General Criteria
as set forth in Section 33 09 have been com-
plied with.
Special notation for City Council consideration
r- 1 The City Council should require that the nec-
essary right-of-way for the developement of
Scenic Street and Royal Palm Road be granted
as a condition precedent to the rezoning.
2 The City Council should approve a ten (10)
feet rear yard instead of thirty-five (35)
feet.
The motion passed 5-0.
13 Mr. Gero stated that Mr Schuster's plan meets all the
criteria of the Planned Developement and will
have good access to the downtown area and also
to public facilities-
He announced that the recommendation of the Com-
mission would be forwarded to the City Council
and would be on their agenda for Wednesday,
August 6, 1980, at 7 00 P M at the City Hall
Complex, 1001 North Idaho Road, Apache Junction,
Arizona
14 Vice-Chairman announced that the next item on the agenda was
case PZ-12-79, the application of Mr Lawther
to rezone his property from General Rural (GR)
4141
to Multiple Family Residence by Planned Deve-
lopment (CR-5/PD).
She called on Mr Gero to brief the Commission
on the case.
15. Mr Gero explained that the second case was also one
which had been delayed pending approval of the
Planned Developement Ordinance He then pre-
sented a sketch of the proposed apartments for
review by the Commission members.
He verified that there were no major problems
with the proposal, but asked if the drainage
channel_at the rear of the property was located
in the easement
16 Vice-Chairman called on Mr. Lawther to present his case
17. Mr. Lawther explained that he had started the project long
ago and that he was hoping to complete the work
in two phases, depending on the available
financing.
With regard to Mr Gero's question, he replied
that, to his knowledge, there was no wash or
drainage area within the easement It was his
impression that the adjacent Grandview Sub-
division contained the wash
18 Mr Gero reminded Mr Lawther that there would be a main
tenance responsibility regarding the wash and
possible easement area
19 Mr Lawther explained that he was aware of this obligation
Page 4 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 15, 1980
20 Mr. Gero explained that if there was an easement, then
the City must have a way to gain access and that
the area must be kept clean
21 Vice-Chairman called for comments or questions from the Com-
mission members.
She then called on Mr. Gero to present the
staff recommendation.
22 Mr. Gero called attention to the memo concerning case
PZ-12-79 in which was outlined the conventional
requirements and those of the Planned Develop-
ment He explained that Mr Lawther's project
met those requirements.
He also called attention to the comments from
the Director of Public Works, the Fire Chief and
the Department of Public Safety, all of which
found no serious fault with the project. He
indicated that any problems could be worked on
during the plan review meetings
He noted the letter from Mr Lawther, as well
as one from an adjacent property owner agreeing
with the planned land usage.
He recommended that the Commission recommend
approval to the City Council.
23. Steelsmith/Oltman M/S BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Apache Junction, Ariz-
ona, that in rezoning case PZ-12-79, also known
as proposed Ordinance No 56, application of
Robert and Hazel Lawther for their property des-
cribed as•
Lot 6 and the South 48 feet of Lot 4, Grand
View Place Subdivision, located in Apache
Junction, Pinal County, Arizona,
requesting rezoning from General Rural (GR)
^ to Multiple Residence by Planned Development
(CR-5/PD), that the Commission recommends to
the Apache Junction City Council the approval
of said application
The reasons for the recommendation are
1 The property is contiguous to a CB-2 zoned
area and apartments would provide an orderly
transition between business uses and exist-
ing residential areas.
2 The apartment planned development generally
exceeds the conventional zoning requirements
of the City , particularly with regard to
density
3 The location is just south of a major traffic
arterial which would provide access to the
future residents to shopping, leisure and job
activities, without necessarily increasing
traffic problems
4. The applicant has demonstrated through the
documents submitted, that the General Criteria
as set forth in Section 33 09 has been com-
plied with
Special notes for City Council consideration.
1 The City Council should approve a sixteen
(16) feet rear lot line setback instead of
thirty-five (35) feet
Page 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 15, 1980
The motion passed 5-0
24 Mr Gero informed both Mr Schuster and Mr Lawther
that the City Council hearing on their plan-
ned development projects would be at 7.00
P.M on Wednesday, August 6, 1980 at the City
Hall Complex, 1001 North Idaho Road, Apache
Junction, Arizona.
He thanked them both for their patience and
understanding of the situation
25 Mr Hudson thanked them both for allowing the City to
hold up their project for such a long time
and for having shown such a great interest
in Apache Junction.
26. Mr Schuster thanked the Commission for their time and
informed them that he felt the City was
heading in the right direction.
27. Vice-Chairman asked the Executive Secretary to brief the
Commission members on the next case on the
agenda, PZ-12-80.
28. Mr. Gero explained that the Board of Adjustment was
requesting that the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission consider amending the Zoning Ordinance
so as to increase the membership of the Board
from five (5) to seven (7) members
He informed the members that at the last reg-
ular meeting of the Board, the members had
It voted unanimously to request the change in
membership
He further explained that it was up to the
Commission to make the recommendation to the
City Council since it involved a change in
the City Zoning Ordinance
^ In order for the Board membership to be in-
creased to seven members, the Commission would
have to recommend an amendment to Section 2401
of the Zoning Ordinance.
He called the Commission's attention to the
presence of Mr Vaughn and Mr. Newcomer as the
representatives of the Board
29 Vice-Chairman asked Mr. Vaughn for his comments on the
request from the Board
30. Mr Vaughn explained to the Commission that the Board
wished to expand its membership so as to en-
compass other areas oZ the City which were
presently lacking representation on the Board.
He further explained that the present member-
ship covered basically the same areas. The
Board also wished to add other areas of exper-
tise in which they were now lacking.
31. Vice-Chairman called on others for questions or comments
32 Mr Strickler asked if the recommendation would stress that
the newly appointed members would be from other
areas of the City and other backgrounds.
33. Mr. Gero explained that the appointments were up to the
Mayor and members of the City Council, but the
Board and Commission could bring up the areas
of interest at the City Council meeting during
Page 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 15, 1980
the public hearing on the matter
34 Vice-Chairman called for additional comments.
35. Mr. Steelsmith asked if the Commission could suggest that
the new members fill in geographical areas
where there are now voids
Y
36. Mr. Vaughn mentioned that since the Board of Adjustment
was also the Board of Appeals, that it would
be wise to have a representative of the con-
struction industry that was familiar with the
business and the materials The Board was
presently lacking in professional people who
would be helpful and knowledgable in the
cases before the Board
37 Mr Gero explained that those suggestions should be
brought up before the Council at the public
hearing
38 Vice-Chairman called for additional comments.
39. Steelsmith/Strickler M/S BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona, that it recommend to the
Mayor and City Council an increase in the
membership of the Board of Adjustment from
five (5) to seven (7) members.
The motion passed 5-0
40. Vice-Chairman asked if there was additional business for
the Commission to consider
41. Mr. Gero called the member's attention to the infor-
mation on the Parking Ordinance which was in
their packet
He announced that on Tuesday, July 22, 1980,
the Commission and the City Council was going
to have a Work Session on this ordinance and
that all members were urged to attend He
called their attention to the letter from Mr
Dugger.
He mentioned that he had met with Mr Dugger
earlier in the day to discuss the letter and
had reviewed the various points with him
Mr. Dugger had indicated that he would dis-
cuss the matter at the City Council meeting
the following evening
He further explained the proposed amendments
to the ordinance which would allow for an
interim period to comply with the paving re-
quirements and which clarified the actual
language of the ordinance
He suggested that the members review the ordi-
nance and attend the City Council meeting the
following evening
42 Vice-Chairman called for additional questions or comments.
43 Mr Gero explained that the following afternoon at
1 30 P M at the Pinal County Planning Office
in Florence, there would be a hearing on the
application of Mr. Thomas Wolfe to rezone an
area south of the City limits
Page 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 15, 1980
This was the case that the Commission had
discussed during the meeting of July 8, 1980
and had recommend against rezoning.
He requested that one of the Commission mem-
bers attend the meeting with the staff since
the designated representatives were out-of-
P town and would be unable to attend
44. Vice-Chairman indicated that she would call the Planning
Office in the morning to let them know if
she would be able to attend
45 Mr Gero reminded the Commission members that there
would be a special meeting of the Commission
within the next week to consider several items
including the enactment of a street-name plan,
street signs and a request for review and
recommendation from the State Land Department.
46 Mr Hudson recommended that they proceed with caution on
the street-name plan since the previous change
in names had caused a lot of confusion and
aggravation throughout the City.
47 Mr Gero explained that they would not change the
street names, but that the State requires the
City to adopt an official street name map and
means of adopting additional street names
48 Mr Hudson requested that the City change only those
names that required it and to leave the bal-
ance alone.
49 Vice-Chairman called for any other comments or other
business from the members.
There being no other business, she called
for a motion to adjourn.
50 Hudson/Strickler M/S that the meeting of the Planning and
oning Commission of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona, be adjourned
The motion passed 5-0.
51 Vice-Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8 35 P M
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Gero
Executive Secretary
[_ Ap oved.
George/Baljo, irman
Planning and Zoning Commission
em
_UZ
qR�Z` Np, cOit?y o &479GLche unction
August 13, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO• THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THRU: RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Aj- 2
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: "MINUTES" - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Enclosed you will find copies of the approved "Minutes" from the meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 8, 1980.
Any questions concerning these "Minutes" should be directed to the Executive
Secretary.
Please have the original "Minutes" inserted in the MINUTES BOOK.
Thank you.
ti
JWG/kmc
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE(602)982-6154
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
1001 N IDAHO ROAD
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
JULY 8, 1980
7 00 P M
In Attendance Absent Guests
eIN
George Baljo, Chairman Roy Hudson Mr. & Mrs Castro Tom Wolfe
Ilene Taylor, Vice Chairman (excused) Doretta Addison Mrs. Wolfe
Mildred Baker Ron Kell Mayor Seeman Jan Hiller
John Hutchens (excused) Marie Shanks Fred Hiller
Richard Oltman Robert Shanks Barry Abrams
Henry Steelsmith Dana Morvak Bill Hayes
Sim Strickler Joe Morvak Donald Taylor
Joe Gero, Executive Secretary Chuck Newcomer Tom Damiano
Kathy Connelly, Secretary Clovis Hibbard Robert Dugger
Lavonne Keller Pamela Manson
Richard Keller Lonnie Carroll
Jacqueline Ribaudo Carole Carroll
Sherre Van Dyke Les Trask
Sherri Richardson Mrs. Trask
Phil Richardson Keith Stachar
Richard Broman Ray Lee
Leo Frazier Harold Crist
Bob Landis Don Brookes
Earl Laabs Jr.
1 Mr Gero (Executive Secretary) opened the meeting at 7.00 P M and
announced to those present that he was
presiding over the meeting at this time
since it was the first meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission for the
new fiscal year and, at present, the
officers for the new year had not been
elected
He explained that the first order of
business would be the election of the
officers and would introduce the mem-
bers present by roll call
It was determined by roll call that
seven (7) of the nine (9) members were
present as indicated above He announced
that there was a quorum present and that
the members could proceed with the elec-
tion of officers
He called for nominations from the mem-
bers for the position of Chairman.
2 Strickler/Taylor M/S to nominate George Baljo for the
position of Chairman
3 Mr Gero called for additional nominations
With no additional nominations forth-
coming, he announced the nominations
closed and called for a show of hands
as to the nomination
The motion passed 6-1 with Mr Baljo
voting "no"
Mr Baljo was congratulated by Mr Gero
The position of Chairman and gavel was
turned over to him and he was instructed
to proceed with the nomination for the
position of Vice Chairman
4. Mr. Baljo assumed the position of Chairman and
announced that nominations for Vice
Chairman were now open
Page 2 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
5. Baker/0ltman M/S to nominate Ilene Taylor for the
position of Vice Chairman
6. Chairman called for additional nominations. There
being no more nominations, he closed the
nominations and asked for a show of hands
as to the nomination of Mrs. Taylor for
the position of Vice Chairman
The motion passed 6-1 with Mrs. Taylor
voting "no"
7. Chairman Congratulated Mrs Taylor and announced
to all present that, it being the first
meeting of the new fiscal year, the City
Manager, Mr Ray Lee, was present to
give the City Manager's Report to the
Commission.
He introduced Mr Lee to all present
8 Mr Lee Thanked Mr Baljo and explained to the
Commission members that he was distrib-
uting to them Vol. I of the City of
Apache Junction Program Budget for the
fiscal year July 1, 1980 through June
30, 1981.
He explained to the Commission that the
City of Apache Junction was a General
Law City and was budgeted by the "alter-
native process" whereby budget funds
were determined based on past, present
and predicted costs. He further explained
that, being a General Law City, the City
was subject to the laws of the State, par-
ticularly Title IX Therefore, the Mayor
and Council must adhere to the laws as
established by the State.
He presented an organizational chart to
the members and illustrated to the audience
the same chart which outlined the level
of rule within the City.
He explained that the initial direction
comes from the voters. The City Council
sets the policy and the City Manager
carries it out. The City staff does not
make the decisions, but does carry out
the Council's policy He pointed out
that the 8 Boards and Commissions of
the City had 54 members all of whom were
Council-appointed
He thanked the Commission for allowing
him the opportunity to speak and infor-
med them that he would be glad to attend
the meetings at any time upon request
9 Chairman Thanked Mr Lee for informing the members
of the budget status and outline of the
City government
He announced that the meeting was now
officially called to order and that he
would entertain motions regarding the
Minutes from the meeting of June 10, 1980,
which the Commission members had before
them.
Page 3 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
10 Oltman/Baker M/S to approve the Minutes of the meeting
bT-June 10, 1980, as written
The motion passed 5-0 with Mrs. Taylor and
Mr. Hutchens abstaining since they had not
OIN attended the meeting in question
11. Chairman announced that the next item on the agenda was
the continuation of case PZ-9-80, the application
of Cato Trolen to rezone from General Rural to
Light Industrial.
He asked the Executive Secretary to brief the
members on the status of the case.
12. Mr Gero explained to the members that he was in receipt
of a letter from 1r. Harry Stanton requesting
that his name be withdrawn from the application
petition if, by the date of July 8, 1980, the
applicant had not amended his petition to CI-1-
Planned Development.
:He further explained that in conversations with
the applicant's representative, it was determined
that the applicant would not be making any changes
to his application prior to October, 1980. Based
on the considerable amount of time between the
original date of application and the time of the
possible amendment, he suggested that the Com-
mission declare the petition incomplete
He informed the Commission that it would be nec-
essary to re-notify the necessary property owners
of the application once amended and to use con-
siderable administrative time in the preparation
of same Since this delay was the result of the
applicant not informing the property owners of
the proper proposed use, then it should be the
responsibility of the applicant to bear the
cost by submitting another application and another
fee
13. Chairman asked if it was necessary to pay an additional
fee if the 6-month waiting period was waived.
14. Mr. Gero explained that the fee could be refunded if the
problem arose due to fault on the part of the
City. Since the problems arose when the applicant
changed his mind as to the intended use of the
property, it should be his responsibility to bear
the additional cost
15. Chairman agreed that it was not the City's fault, but found
it regretful that the fee could not be refunded or
reduced
He asked the applicant's representative, Mrs
Addison, if she had any comments.
16 Mrs Addison explained that Mr. Trolen had no objection to
Mr. Gero's suggestion and thought it wise to with-
draw the application at this time. Mr. Trolen
felt that it would be better to delay the plans
until the fall when he would be able to handle
the matter himself.
17. Chairman thanked Mrs Addison for her comments and further
explained that the applicant must have approval of
51% of the surrounding land area and property owners
in order to have the petition considered. Upon pro-
test of twenty percent (20%) or more of the affected
property owners, the City Council must have a un-
animous vote of all members before the rezoning can
be approved.
Page 4 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
18 Mr Gero reminded the members that the fee for filing
such a petition simply off-sets the cost of
the work involved and never actually pays for
the full cost of filing a rezoning petition
Among the costs involved in such a procedure is
the placement of a newspaper advertisement and
the mailing of certified letters to all invol-
ved parties
19 Chairman called for comments from the Commission either
for or against the withdrawal of the application.
He then called for comments from the audience
20. Oltman/Strickler M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning
Zommission of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,
that in rezoning case PZ-9-80 (Trolen) that the
Commission declares the petition incomplete and
is, therefore, unable to proceed by the withdrawal
of signature thereby causing the petition to have
less than the 51% area and affected property
owners represented For clarification, this
action takes no position on the merit of the
application and does not harm a new application
by the property owner "
The motion passed 7-0
21 Chairman called on the Executive Secretary to introduce
the next item on the agenda, Pinal County Case
PZ-13-80 (Thomas Wolfe)
22 Mr Gero explained to the members that the Pinal County
Planning and Zoning Commission had requested
the City to give their recommendations on the
proposed rezoning which is just south of the
City limits
The applicant, Thomas Wolfe, wished to rezone
4 24 acres from General Rural to Light Indus-
trial
23 Chairman called on the applicant to present his case
24. Mr. Wolfe illustrated to the Commission the location of
his property in relation to the City He also
indicated the existing zoning classifications of
the surrounding area.
He explained that the General Rural classification
was a holding class pending future developments in
the zoning of the area. He further explained that
his request for the zoning change was subject to
review by other agencies.
25 Chairman called on the members of the Commission to ask
questions of the applicant
With no questions forthcoming from the members,
he opened the question to the floor for comments
either for or against the proposed rezoning.
He then asked Mr. Gero for the staff recommendation
26 Mr Gero explained that since Pinal County was not in the
position to enforce a Building Code, there would
not be any actual supervision of the structures
proposed by the applicant.
He agreed that the area did show a need for
industrial zoning, especially with the proposed
Superstition Freeway However, the property in
Page 5 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
question was across from a residential area,
namely Noralta Acres
Since this requested change would constitute
spot zoning, he recommended that the Commission
act to deny or disapprove of the proposed change
27 Chairman agreed that the County was not equipped to
supervise the construction in the area However,
the City would see additional problems in the
future concerning the conflict between indus-
trial/commercial and residential properties
28 Mr Steelsmith inquired why the County had permitted the
additional zoning changes throughout this area.
29 Mr Gero explained that the County had recognized the
need for transition areas. The City also saw
the need for transition, but not when it created
spot zoning
He explained that the Planned Development classi-
fication allowed for the developement of these
areas The County, however, did not have the
Planned Developement classification.
30 Mr. Wolfe asked if the City had any plans to incorporate
the area in question into the City limits.
31 Chairman informed the applicant that several areas had
been discussed with regard to incorporation, but
the City had no set plans concerning these areas
at this time
32 Mr Wolfe explained to the Commission that spot zoning would
exist until more people rezoned their property to
create a majority zoning classification in any one
area.
He informed the Commission that the County would
hold their hearing on the rezoning on July 16, 1980,
PIN at 1.30 P M in Florence
1 33 Chairman thanked Mr. Wolfe for his presentation and called
for a motion from the Commission.
34 Strickler/Steelsmith M/S to recommend approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Apache Junction,
Arizona, of the proposed rezoning of Thomas
Wolfe for an area within the Pinal County zoning
jurisdiction from General Rural (GR) to Light
Industrial (CI-1).
The motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Baljo voting "no"
35. Chairman requested that the Executive Secretary brief the
members on the next case before them, namely the
request of the proposed subdivision known as
Fenimore Acres in Maricopa County.
36. Mr. Gero explained to the Commission that the Maricopa
County Planning Department had requested the
City to review the proposed Fenimore Acres sub-
division because it would be in the Apache Junction
"sphere of influence" The proposed subdivision
would be at the intersection of Crismon Road and
Fenimore in Maricopa County.
He informed the members that he found nothing
wrong with the plans, but had offered suggestions
to the County that Fenimore Road be dedicated to
the City/County and developed at a cost to the
builder, and that sufficient fire hydrants be
installed
Page 6 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
37 Chairman called for a motion on the proposed Fenimore
Acres subdivision on Maricopa County.
38 Oltman/Hutchens M/S to approve the letter drafted by the Director
o Planning recommending approval of the proposed
Fenimore Acres subdivision and making the
suggestions regarding the street dedication
and improvement, and the placement of fire
hydrants.
The motion passed 7-0
39 Chairman called the members attention to the next item
on the agenda, the State Land request by the
developers of Mesa Del Oro
He called upon the Executive Secretary to
brief the members on the request.
40. Mr. Gero explained that the land in question was approx-
imately 3 miles east of the City on Highway 60
He then called the developer of Mesa Del Oro,
Mr Harold Crist, to present his case to the
Commission
41 Mr Crist explained the master plan of Mesa Del Oro to
the Commission members and why it was nec-
essary to acquire State Land for the construc-
tion of a waste water treatment facility
As a planned community, Mesa Del Oro would
eventually be in need of a sewer system. At
( this time, however, the waste water treatment
Ift facility would be sufficient
He then called upon Mr Bob Landis of the
engineering firm of Cella, Barr and Evans to
present additional information.
42 Mr Landis explained to the Commission that the City of
Apache Junction had a vested interest in the
01144 Mesa Del Oro development since it was so close
to the City limits and that the people of the
community would have to go to the City for
certain services
He further explained that the sewer oxidation
plant would be temporary until such time that
sewer systems could be installed, possibly in
conjunction with a City sewer system He
looked forward to the possibility that Mesa
Del Oro and Apache Junction might find it
wise to construct a plant that would serve the
needs of both communities
43 Chairman called for questions from the members and from
the audience regarding the State Land request.
He then called upon the Executive Secretary
for his recommendation.
44 Mr Gero reminded the Commission that the water treat-
ment facility would also be governed by other
agencies such as the health department, the
State and the County
He recommended that the Commission give its
approval to the land request.
Page 7 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
45. Chairman asked Mr Crist if he had any additional
comments.
46. Mr. Crist thanked the Commission for their time and
informed then that he looked forward to
working with the City in the future.
47. Chairman thanked Mr Crist and Mr. Landis for their
time and called for a motion on the State
Land request
48. Taylor/Hutchens M/S to give a recommendation from the Planning &
Mang Commission to the request of the
developers of Mesa Del Oro to purchase and/or
lease State Land for the development of a
waste water treatment facility, and to in-
struct the Executive Secretary to advise the
State Land Department of the Commission's
approval
The motion passed 7-0.
49 Chairman called for a motion to h ave a five-minute
recess before proceeding with the balance
of the agenda
50 Steelsmith/Baker M/S to recess for five-minutes before pro-
ceeding with the balance of the agenda
The motion passed 7-0.
51 Chairman called the meeting to order at 8 35 P M.
( after a five-minute recess
He informed the members and those present
that the Commission would now continue with
the next item on the agenda, the request of
the Mayor and Council to review the Parking
Ordinance (Ordinance No 34) and offer pos-
sible amendments to same.
He informed the members that this was a
special meeting on this issue since it in-
volved public input after the fact being that
the particular Ordinance had already been
passed by the Council.
He then requested the Executive Secretary to
brief the members of the recent occurrences
surrounding the Parking Ordinance
52 Mr Gero explained that Ordinance #34 provided for
parking regulations within the City It
had come to the attention of the Mayor and
City Council members that some individuals
had problems with accepting the ordinance as
it was written
He reminded those present that the ordinance
and parking regulations had first come before
the Commission approximately six months before
The parking ordinance had been discussed at
meetings of the Advisory Committee, the Com-
mission, various public hearings and the Town
Hall Meetings Over one-hundred copies of the
ordinance had been made available to the public,
but only a handful had been picked up.
After the discussion on the parking ordinance
at the City Council meeting of June 18th, the
Mayor had requested the Planning Director to
review the ordinance with the Commission and
make recommendations regarding amendments.
Page 8 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
53 Chairman informed those present that the Mayor wished
to make a short speech regarding the general
charge of duties and proceeded to introduce
the Mayor
54 Mayor Seeman spoke to the members and the public regarding
the future of the community. She informed
everyone that it was the duty of the City
Council to legislate and the duty of the var-
ious departments to carry out this legislation
and the directives of the Council
She stressed the point that the City was going
to grow and change Therefore, it was the duty
of the Council to prepare the people for that
change as best as possible. She informed those
present that the only option to preventing
growth and change was for the City to purchase
available land within the limits and therefore
prevent development She also stressed that
this was foolish and economically not feasible.
55 Chairman thanked the Mayor for her comments and called
on the staff to present the proposed amendments.
He reminded those present that even though this
was not an actual public hearing, those persons
in the audience wishing to speak on the subject
would be given the opportunity to do so
56. Mr. Gero explained that, if amended, the changes in the
parking ordinance would have to follow the set
procedures which would include an advertised
public hearing before the Commission and further
hearing before the City Council.
He explained, via slides, the problems in the
City regarding dirt and gravel in the roadways
and the cost factor to the City (and taxpayer)
of having to clean and maintain those roads
0O, He then explained the suggested amendments
to the ordinance which the Commission members
had before them
The amendments would serve to clarify the lan-
guage of the Ordinance and to allow some leeway
regarding to conforming with the requirements
Section 2102 (2) had been re-written to allow
for a one-year extension to conform with the
requirements which were a pre-requisite to
obtaining a Building Permit This would, hope-
fully, lessen the financial burden that an in-
dividual might incur in the process o.f building
a house or making improvements on an existing
one
The suggested amendments would allow the same
leeway on construction when the building in
question was located on an unpaved street In
these cases, however, the property owner would
have the option to making the full paving areas
immediately, doing so prior to January 1, 1985,
or doing so within one year from the date of the
Building Permit, whichever is longer
Subdivisions must have paved streets in order
to be approved for developement In regard to
commercial areas, whenever a building is im-
proved which would increase the number of
required parking spaced by more than
Page 9 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
two (2) spaces, than those paved parking spaces
must be provided.
He explained to the Commission that they had
three choices with regard to the Parking Ord-
^ inance 1) they could recommend that it stay
as it is, 2) that the entire ordinance or part
of it be revoked, or 3) that the Commission make
recommended amendments to the Ordinance
57 Chairman thanked Mr Gero for his comments and explana-
tion to the Commission.
He called for a discussion of the Ordinance
and the proposed amendments as suggested by
the Planning Director He reminded the mem-
bers that this particular ordinance will be
administered in conjunction with the basic
Zoning Ordinance.
He reminded the members that the Ordinance
was primarily geared toward new and future
construction within the City, and not meant to
impose hardship on the residents
He suggested that the members consider other
amendments to the Ordinance to include
1) not requiring asphalt or concrere as the
sole paving material, that gravel be permitted
on unpaved streets for parking spaces, drive-
ways and approaches
2) that homes and businesses be allowed 12
months after the street has been improved to
complete the necessary parking improvements
3) that in subdivisions presently existing,
the approach from the curb to the property line
remain as is until such time that the street has
reached its ultimate width
He called for discusssion from the members of
the Commission, and then called for comments^
and discussion from the floor
58. Mr. Gero explained to the Chairman that Councilwoman
Marie Shanks was in the audience and wished
to speak on the issue at hand
59. Chairman introduced Councilwoman Shanks to the members
and the audience.
60. Mrs. Shanks spoke on the effect that the Ordinance would
have on those residents living in the outlying
areas She suggested that the City allow other
areas to pioneer planning ideas and, after a
success rate has been established, then allow it
in Apache Junction
She explained that she had a problem accepting
the section of the Ordinance that required the
outlying areas in the unpaved, rural parts of
the City to conform with the requirements She
felt that the City should first inforce the
code in those areas that had the maximum im-
provements already at hand
She stressed the point that the driveways would
not improve the rural areas nor control the dust.
She felt that the requirements were imposing a
financial hardship on people who had moved to the
Page 11 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
71 Mr Morvak asked if there had been input from other
departments in the drafting of the Ordinance
72 Chairman explained that the ordinance had been through
much discussion prior to its enaction. Public
hearings had been held by the Commission and
the City Council. The parking situtation had
also been discussed at the Town Hall Meetings.
73. Mr. Morvak inquired as to the status of the Ordinance at
this time and if it was in effect during this
review process
74. Mr. Gero explained that every department had played a
role in the writing of the Ordinance and called
on Mr Frazier, Building Official, to present
additional information
75 Mr Frazier explained that the Building Department was still
issuing permits, but the parking requirements
were being held in abeyance pending the outcome
on the final decision of the City Council
76. Mr. Gero requested that the people speak to the staff
where information was needed on specific lots
77 Mr Morvak asked if the one-space parking could be allowed
if it was not hazardous to the City or people.
78 Mr Gero explained that the City should not enact a set
of rules based on individual situations, but
should establish a set of rules that could be
Lapplied to a class
79. Mr. Morvak informed the Commission that Mesa did not re-
quire such setbacks and made allowances for
small sized lots with regard to setbacks He
further explained that Mesa was not trying to
build to requirements that were 25 years in the
future
80. Chairman called for additional comments from the floor.
81 Mr Steelsmith inquired as to the consequences of holding the
parking requirements in abeyance, and the pos-
sibility of having stricter regulations.
82 Chairman informed Mr Steelsmith that the Council was
looking for requirements that were compatible
with the community and not expected to enact
stricter rules
83 Mr Gero reminded those present that the parking require-
ments would be on the City Council agenda for
July 16th at 7.00 P.M. at this same location
84 Mr. Hutchens asked how a driveway would stop gravel and dirt
from going into the streets when the terrain
was actually higher than the street and that it
would be the natural flow.
85 Mr Gero explained that lots located in the flood plain
would be raised above the streets and some
gravel from storm water was expected to pass
onto the paved areas, but the motion of a
vehicle on a driveway was the main factor in
creating this kind of a situation.
Page 12 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
86 Mr. Brookes asked if, when enlarging a business to the
rear of the existing structure so as to in-
crease floor space and storage area, if addi-
tional parking spaces were required.
87. Mr. Ger'o explained that if the increase caused a need
for less than 2 spaces, then paving would not
be required. He further explained that not
having enough parking spaces could actually
jeopardize a business by discouraging customers.
He informed Mr. Brookes that a business had the
same option as a contractor and could go before
the Board of Adjustment for a variance
88 Mr Brookes asked what could be done in a location where
there was an existing lease without adequate
parking and the business was unable to go else-
where
89. Mr. Gero pointed out that that was exactly what this
kind of ordinance was trying to avoid by
planning for future-growth
90. Mr. Hutchens stressed the point that he felt the ordinance
was putting a harsh burden on the lower income
and beginning homeowners by forcing them to pay
for improvements that they could not afford.
91. Mr. Gero stated that the Ordinance included consideration of
the future administrative time of the City He
explained that the average number of cars per
family, including those with lower incomes, was
two These vehicles could be a public hazard
and houses could be designed with this require-
ment in mind.
He pointed out to the Commission that it was a
decision based on what was the individual's
interest and what was a public burden.
r
92. Chairman explained that options were available and
future construction could work with these options.
93 Mr Frazier explained that the FHA and the City have min-
imum size requirements on house designs and that
there was not practical way to redesign the houses
to make them more affordable because of the re-
1 quirements. - There are specifed minimums.
94 Mrs Castro pointed out to the Commission members that people
on lower incomes may have more cars than those
with higher incomes, the only difference being
that those cars may not be in operable condition.
95 Mr Morvak explained that it could be attempted to redesign
a house to fit a specific lot, but the additional
cost must be added on to the purchase price The
restrictions may close certain people out of the
housing market
96 Mrs Baker asked why Apache Junction should not have the
same restrictions and requirements that other
cities have
97 Mr Gero explained that the average family had 2+ cars,
and were required by the cities to have off-
street parking areas for those cars.
Page 13 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
98. Mr. Gero suggested that the Commission review the
recommended amendments and decide whether or
not to recommend them to the City Council
a report.
99. Chairman reminded the members that the recommendations
would be going to the City Council for review
and discussion, followed by public hearing.
100 Mr Gero made the following recommendations to the
Commission for consideration*
1) that an interim period be established in
order to allow an individual to handle the
burden of installing additional parking areas
financially
2) that a transition or interim period be set
up for those parties who currently front on an
unpaved street
3) that the language of the ordinance be clar-
ified to define an improvement which expands the
liveable or usable floor area as opposed to an
improvement which does not intensify the use or
is simply normal maintenance.
He suggested that the Commission recommend that
the staff be directed to assemble the information
to be submitted to the Council for review and
its eventual return to the Commission
101. Steelsmith/Baker M/S that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
ITT City of Apache Junction, Arizona, recommend
( to the City Council the following items for con-
sideration as amendments to Ordinance #34•
1) that a transition or interim period be estab-
lished in order to allow an individual to install
the required parking areas without imposing a
financial burden
2) that a transition or interim period be set-up
for those parties who currently front on unpaved
__\ streets to comply with the requirements.
3) that the language of the ordinance be clari-
fied in order to define an improvement which ex-
pands the liveable or usable floor area, as op-
posed to an improvement which does not intensify
the use or anything that is simply normal main-
tenance.
Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission
directs the Department of Planning to assemble
all data and information regarding the proposed
changes to the Parking Ordinance #34 for review
by the City Council
The motion passed 7-0
102 Chairman asked the Executive Secretary to brief the
members on the final item on the agenda
103 Mr Gero explained that the members had before them the
agenda for the meeting of July 15, 1980 at
7 00 P M at the same location
The motion before them set up the meeting and
established the agenda items for the meeting.
104 Hutchens/Strickler M/S Be It Resolved by the Planning and Zoning
�mmission of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,
that it ratifies the action of the Executive
Page 14 - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes of July 8, 1980
Secretary to call a business meeting at 7.00
P M on Tuesday, July 15, 1980, at the City
Hall Complex, 1001 North Idaho Road, Apache
Junction, Arizona
^ The motion passed 7-0
105. Mr. Gero explained that the City-delayed hearings on
two Planned Developments would be held on this
date as well as a hearing to increase the
membership of the Board of Adjustment.
106 Chairman called for additional discussion or comments
from the members.
107 Chairman here being no further business or discussion,
called for a motion to adjourn
108 Hutchens/Taylor M/S to adjourn the meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Commission of the City of Apache
Junction, Arizona.
The motion passed 7-0
109 Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10.40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph W. Gero
Il Executive Secretary
Approved.
7r
r
George aljo, Ch an
Planning and Zoning Commission
EDWARD M KENNEDY,MASS..CHAIRMAN
BIRCH BATH IND STROM THURMOND.S.0
ROBERT C BYRD,W VA CHARLES MC C MATHIAS JR.,MD
JOSEPH R.BIOEN JR. DEL. PAUL LAXALT REV
JOHN C CULVER IOWA ORRIN G HATCH,UTAH
HOWARD M METZENBAUM.OHIO ROBERT DOLEKANS. '�l Cnif eb ,of of ez ,�enaf e
DENNIS DE CONCIN I,ARIZ THAD COC CHRA HRAN MISS
PATRICK J LEAHY,VT ALAN K SIMPSON.WYO.
MAX BAUCUS MONT.
HOWELL HEFLIN.ALA COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
STEPHEN BREYER,CHIEF COUNSEL
RICHARD H GROGAN,JR.,STAFF DIRECTOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
July 29 , 1980
Am.
Rich Oesterle
City Clerk
City of Apache Junction
P.O. Box K
Apache Junction, Arizona 85220
Dear Mr. Oesterle-
Please find attached the correspondence which I have
received from Mr. William A. Ordway, Director of the Arizona
State Department of Transportation, in reply to our recent
inquiry on your behalf.
It seems by his discussion that the Department of Trans-
portation is working closely with the city in an effort to
work out the difficulties with the problem. He further indica-
ted that there have been discussions with the City Council sub-
sequent to your original letter, and that ADOT is working closely
with them in an attempt to work out the problem.
We were happy to be of what limited assistance we were with
the matter, but please be assured we will be happy to work with
you in any other way if you deem it appropriate .
Thank you for your consideration. Next time I 'm visiting
Apache Junction, perhaps we can get together and become better
acquainted.
S 'ncerely,
(4/5-r
MICHAEL C . CRUSA
Special Assistant for State Affairs
Office of Dennis DeConcini
101 N. 1st Avenue, #1684
JUL 3 1 1cj30 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
MCC/A
ly
ts
: ' g ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
\ � y
'\9 , • 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007
BRUCE BABBITT July 23 , 1980
Governor
WILLIAM A ORDWAY
Director
Mr . Michael C Crusa
Special Assistant for State Affairs
Office of Dennis DeConcini
101 N. 1st Avenue , #1684 JUL 25 1980
Phoenix, AZ 85003 REC'j
Dear Mike
This is to get back to you on your July 15 letter pertaining
to the concerns expressed by the City of Apache Junction on
potential hazards at the intersection of S R. 88 with U. S . 10
and 89 in that community.
This subject was first broached in a letter last December and
responded to by Oscar Lyon. There is no question but what
redesign and reconstruction of the junction would be desirable
to simplify its operation Such a revision, however , would be
extensive (probably around a million dollars) and would have
to be included in the Board ' s Five-Year Construction Program
An expenditure of this magnitude , we feel , is not justified
in the near future .
As a result of the December contact , an engineering study was
conducted by the Department and discussed at a meeting of City
officials and District 7 representatives this past July 10,
which would have occurred after this June 23 letter from City
Clerk Oesterle . The City gave verbal concurrence with the
study ' s recommendation and the District requested the City to
advise the businesses affected of a proposed change in the
median crossover . It ' s our intention to implement the recom-
mendation upon receipt of written concurrence from the City
after the business contacts are completed
There was a complaint in the December letter also pertaining
to vegetation in the median . This was removed in January of
this year by District 7 which has improved the sight distance
for northbound vehicles crossing westbound U S . 60
So I think you ' ll find interim measures are well in hand, short
of the major reconstruction I mentioned at the outset . We ' ll
be keeping an eye on this situation in coming months
:42;14'
W. A. ORDWAY
WAO .hbb Director ,, ,,
cc : Joseph B . Mertz II
J
c ■
f 0.Ws
HIGHWAYS • AERONAUTICS • MOTOR VEHICLE • PUBLIC TRANSIT • ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
rOPQACigE..b..
(lam
U ; , • �y Z
'9R/ZOVI V ity o c pache cOunction
August 13, 1980
MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH. RAY LEE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOE GERO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING405-
SUBJECT: ACTIVITY REPORT - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
At its regular meeting of August 12th, the Planning and Zoning Commission
had a seven-item agenda which included three rezoning petitions, two
alternatives for changing Ordinance #34 (Parking and Loading) , and two
Special Use Permits at the request of Pinal County for kennels located
outside the City limits.
The Commission voted to continue one of the public hearings on the rezonings
until its next regular meeting on September 9, 1980. The remaining two
rezoning petitions were recommended to the City Council for approval and
will be on the Council agenda for September 3, 1980.
The Commission further recommended the approval of Proposed Ordinance #62
....... which would amend Ordinance #34 by deleting certain sections. This item
will appear on the City Council agenda for August 20, 1980.
The Commission recommended the approval of the Special Use Permits to the
Pinal County Planning Commission. They recommended that the following
stipulations be attached to the approval :
1. That the applicant comply with the regulations of the Pinal
County Animal Control Ordinance.
2. That any areas where animals are to be kept be set back a
given distance from other residential property lines.
3. That fencing be placed around the general kennel area.
4. That the Special Use Permit be reviewed on an annual basis
and that the Permit be declared void if complaints are
placed against the permitted use.
If you have any questions or comments on any of the above items, please
contact the Director of Planning.
JWG/kmc
150 NORTH OCOTILLO • POST OFFICE BOX K,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA 85220 • TELEPHONE (602)982-6154
ELDON RUDD COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
4TH DISTRICT,ARIZONA
COMMITTEE ON BUDGET
WASHINGTON OFFICE: TASK FORCES:
1110 L BUILDING QCongre55 of theniteb &tate� DEFENSE AND INTERNATIONAL
WASHINGTON,NGTON,D.0 20515 AFFAIRS
(202)225-3361 INFLATION
3 oufSe of Reprtantatibel
DISTRICT OFFICE: COMMITTEE ON COM M ITTEES
6900 E CAMELBACK ROAD �/ 1�' t y�
SCOTTSDALE,ARIZONA 85251 I� obington,0.e. 20515
(602)241-2801
.40.. July 23
1 9 8 0
Rich Oesterle
City Clerk
City of Apache Junction
1001 North Idaho Road, P. 0. Box K
Apache Junction, Arizona 85220
Dear Mr. Oesterle,
Thank you for bringing to my attention your
community' s deep concern about the traffic
- hazard at the intersection of State Highway 88
with US Highway 10 and 89 .
With a view to being of assistance in this matter,
I have taken it up with the officials of the
Federal Highway Administration, requesting them to look
into it and to report to me fully about it. As soon
as I hear from them, I will get in touch with you
again.
It is a privilege to be of service.
Sincerely,
6042A, 401°L .
Eldon Rudd
Member of Congress
ER:rr
JUL 2 8 1-a.0
cfk.riznnut (t th.e , enah.e
Phoenix,t nix, rizorto
July 11, 1980
Mr. Rich Oesterle, City Clerk
City of Apache Junction
1001 North Idaho Road
Post Office Box K
Apache Junction, Arizona 85220
Dear Mr. Oesterle .
Thanks for your recent letter and copy of
a Resolution by the Apache Junction City
Council concerning traffic hazards at the
intersection of Highways 88, 10 and 89.
I shall contact Mr. Ordway, Director of the
Department, and find out what their position
is on this matter.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Sincerely yours ,
4
Stan Turley //
ST: bl
,JU�- f 4 loon
EDWARD M KENNEDY.MASS..CHAIRMAN
BIRCH BATH IND. STROM THURMOND.S.0
ROBERT C BYRD,W VA CHARLES MC C MATHIAS JR MO
JOSEPH R BIDEN,JR. DEL PAUL LAXALT NEV
JOHN C.CULVER IOWA ORRIN G HATCH UTAH
HOWARD M METZENBAUM.OHIO ROBERTDOLE KANS
DENNIS DECONCINI ARIZ THAO COCHRAN,MISS Crtrf eb Zf of ez Zeuaf e
PATRICK J LEAHY VT ALAN K SIMPSON WYO.
MAX BAUCUS,MONT
HOWELL HEFLIN ALA. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
STEPHEN BREYER CHIEF COUNSEL
RICHARD H.GROGAN.JR.,STAFF DIRECTOR WASHINGTON, D C 20510
July 15, 1980
Mr Rich 0esterle
City Clerk
City of Apache Junction
P.O, Box K
Apache Junction, Arizona 85220
Dear Mr. 0esterle:
Senator DeConcini has asked that I contact you regarding your
letter of June 23 requesting assistance with the Arizona Department of
Transportation.
At this time, I am looking into the possible alternatives to assist
in reducing the hazard potential of traffic in the immediate vicinity of
the subject intersection, and upon completion of my review, I will be
back in contact with you, In the interim, if I can provide any additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me
S. erely,
MICHAEL C. CRUSA
Special Assistant for State Affairs
Office of Dennis DeConcini
101 N, 1st Avenue, #1684
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
MCC/A
'JUL. t IQRO
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
MOTIONS
MEETING OF JULY 16, 1980
ACTION
MOTION AGENCY DISPOSITION
THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. -0-
(MOTION CARRIED)
THAT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 2, 198C -0-
BE AND HEREBY ARE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED.
(MOTION CARRIED)
THAT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 2, 1980 -O-
BE AND HEREBY ARE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED.
(MOTION CARRIED)
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REV-2ity being processed
ENUE, THE QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT OF THE APACHE JUNCTION 21erk
SENIOR NUTRITION SITE "SMALL GAME" BINGO LICENSE TO BE
CONDUCTED AT THE ST. GEORGE'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1890 S.
PLAZA DRIVE, APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, DURING THE TIME
SPECIFIED IN THE APPLICATION. THE QUALIFIED ENDORSEMENT
IS THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES TO MAINTAIN THE SITE IN
SUCH-A MANNER THAT THE BUILDING IN WHICH THE BINGO
GAMES OCCUR SHALL NOT HAVE MOTOR VEHICLES PARKED IN THE
VICINTY DURING THE GAMES WHEREBY THE VEHICLES PRESENSE
WOULD BECOME A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY
AND GENERAL WELFARE.
(MOTION CARRIED. )
HAT THE READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 52, BE READ BY TITLE -0-
INLY AND THAT THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE
AIVED.
HAT ORDINANCE NO. 52, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF !City published
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA AMENDING SECTIONS 8-3-5, AD- (Clerk 7/21 - 7/26
IINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES OF CHAPTER 8, BUSINESS, OF , posted 7/21
HE CITY CODE, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING correspondence
IRDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, BE AND sent 7/24
HEREBY IS ADOPTED.
(MOTION CARRIED. )
MOTION TO MAKE A CLARIFING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. City published
54, BY INSERTING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE AFTER THE SEMI Clerk 7/21 - 7/26
COLLEN IN LINE ONE OF SECTION ONE "THE PUBLIC IN ACCORI posted 7/21
WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT TO PETITION COUNCIL AT THE CALL TO THE PUBLIC
THE TIME FOR WHICH TO BE PRESCRIBED BY COUNCIL, BUT
OTHERWISE" AND THEN CONTINUING WITH THE REST OF SECTIO
ONE AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION THAT THE READINe
OF ORDINANCE NO. 54, BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THAT
THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED.
(MOTION CARRIED. )
Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
MOTIONS
MEETING OF JULY 16, 1980
ACTION
MOTION AGENCY DISPOSITION
THAT ORDINANCE NO. 54, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL City published
OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA AMENDING CHAP- Clerk 7/21 - 7/26
TER 2 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 2-2-7, ADD- posted 7/21
RESSING THE COUNCIL; 2-2-8, DISRUPTION OF MEETING; AND
2-2-9, PENALTY: PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
ORDINANCES AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY BE AND HEREBY
IS ADOPTED, AS AMENDED.
(MOTION CARRIED. )
THAT RESOLUTION NO. 80-22, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY City published and
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, RECOGNIZING Clerk posted 7/21
THE ARIZONA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE COORDINATING
SYSTEM FOR GILA AND PINAL COUNTIES, BE AND HEREBY IS
ADOPTED.
(MOTION CARRIED. )
THAT RESOLUTION NO. 80-23, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR City published and
AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZ- Clerk posted 7/21
ONA PROVIDING FOR THE DEPOSIT OF CITY FUNDS OF LESS
THAN $100,000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY TREASURER TO INVEST
CITY FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, BE AND HEREBY
IS ADOPTED.
(MOTION CARRIED. )
THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING PROCEED UNTIL 9:15 P.M. -0-
(MOTION CARRIED. )
HAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PERSONNEL AND LEGAL City posted 7/30
ADVICE BE HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1980, AT 6:00 Clerk
P.M. IN THE CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM.
HAT DIRECTION BE AND HEREBY IS GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC Director Agenda item
ORKS DIRECTOR THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER TO EFFECT AN of for Council
INCREASE IN THE SPEED LIMIT ON BROADWAY AVENUE, IDAHO Public consideration
'OAD, NORTH FROM THE TRAIL TO THE FOOTHILLS',- FROM Works
IRONWOOD WEST TO MERIDAN, FROM 25 MILES PER HOUR TO
c5 MILES PER HOUR, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT A
'ESOLUTION BE DRAFTED EFFECTING THESE CHANGES, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS.
(MOTION CARRIED. )
Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
REQUESTS
MEETING JULY 16, 1980
ACTION
REQUEST AGENCY DISPOSITION
MAYOR SEEMAN REQUESTED THAT A WORKSESSION WITH THE City posted 7/18
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BE SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY Clerk
JULY 22, 1980, AT 7:00 P.M.
Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
REQUESTS
ACTION NOT COMPLETED
MEETING ACTION
DATE REQUEST AGENCY STATUS
9/19/79 THAT RESOLUTION NO. 79-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR City Action
AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, Manager/ contingent
ARIZONA RELATING TO THE APACHE JUNCTION CHAMBER OF City upon City' s
COMMERCE, BE ADOPTED TO SET ASIDE A ONE-HALF ACRE Clerk purchase or
PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX PARCEL lease of 100
FOR THE USE OF THE CHAMBER. acres of land
(MOTION CARRIED) from the State
Land Department
THAT THE CITY CLERK BE AND HEREBY IS DIRECTED TO PER- City Necessary
FORM ALL ACTS NECESSARY AND REQUIRED TO REFER ORDINANCE Clerk action to be
NO. 50, ENACTED BY THE APACHE JUNCTION CITY COUNCIL taken
ON JULY 2, 1980, TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 4, SECTION 1 OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION AND
THE ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AT THE NEXT REGULAR
MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
(MOTION CARRIED. )
ROLL__C�i_ VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # I MEETING OF
MOTION BY: � SECONDED BY: l �?
YES NO ARST?I
CQnC I ILMAN _I)AE_LAisLo
COUNCILMAN SHANKS J
COUNCILMAN BURGESS
COUNCILMAN EIDSON
COUNC I LMAN HILL
VICE-MAYOR GRANILLO
MAYOR SEEMAN ry-
b
UNANIM US IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
•
•
•
•
i
•
ITEM NO,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, THAT
THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED AT e' X 0 P. M.
R_OLLCALL VOTE SHEET
NOTES
ITEM # MEETING OF
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
•
YF� NO ARSTAI NN
-LC-1-1-MAN-_JAMI 11�tD-
COUNCILMAN SHANKS
COUNCILMAN BURGESS
COUNCIL..MAN EIDSON
COUNCILMAN HILL
'cE-MAYOR GRAM
LRL0
MAYOR SEEM AN �/
UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OPPOSED ABSTAINED
TOTAL:
•
i KAYO -
lL. 70.F.)
c,
L
State of Arizona co,..,05�
44 R.,
IIdv
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES s?
222 North Central Avenue, Suite 850, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 1912
August 14, 1980 / .0
Hon. Virginia Seeman
Mayor of Apache Junction
1001 North Idaho Road
Apache Junction, Arizona 85220
Dear Mayor Seeman:
This letter is in regard to the new groundwater legislation which was
recently passed by the State of Arizona. Incorporated into the new law are
changes pertaining to subdivision approval and recordation procedures in
Active Management Areas. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of
those changes.
Under wlat was previously ARS 32-2181, subsection E, if the Arizona
Water Commission reported an inadequate on-site supply of water to meet the
needs projected by the developer, or if no water was available (dry lots) ,
the State Real Estate Commissioner required that all promotional material
and contracts for sale of lots in subdivisions approved by the Commissioner
adequately display the Arizona Water Commission's report or the developer's
summary of the report as approved by the Commissioner. With this notice to the
prospective buyer, the lots could be offered for sale. This remains the law for
subdivisions outside the boundaries of an Active Management Area (AMA) .
However, for subdivisions within the AMA, this procedure has been changed
under the new groundwater law. ARS 9-463.01, section J, states that every
municipality is responsible for recordation of final plats that have been
approved by the legislative body. New language in section I states that if
the subdivision is within a groundwater AMA, as outlined in ARS 45-402, the
plat shall not be approved unless accompanied by a Certificate of Assured
Water Supply (see ARS 45-576) issued to the developer by the Director of the
Department of Water Resources, unless the subdivision is located within an
area designated by the Director as having an assured water supply. Detailed
maps of the boundaries of the AMA's in each county have been filed with the
county recorders. The legislative body is further required to note on the
face of the plat that a Certificate of Assured Water Supply has been submitted
with the plat or that the proposed subdivision is within au area designated
as having an assured water supply. The revision also prevents a county recorder
frpm recording or accepting to record any plat within an AMA which does
not have an assured water supply as demonstrated in either of the above manners.
Think Conservation !
Administration 255-1550, Water Resources and Flood Control Planning 255-1566, Dom Safety 255-1541,
Flood Warning Office 255-1548, Water Rights Administration 255-1581, Hydrology 255-1586.
Lion. Virginia Seeman
Page 2
August 14, 1980
Constraints similar to these are imposed on Boards of Supervisors for
developments within AMA's by ARS 11-806.01.
ARS 45-576, subsection D, states that the Director shall designate service
areas of private water companies in Active Management Areas where an assured water
,.. supply exists. An allocation for Central Arizona Project water by the United
States Secretary of. the Interior to a private water company is deemed a pre-
sumption of an assured water supply upon a finding by the Director that the
private water company has made an unconditional offer to enter into a contract
for Central Arizona Project water sufficient to supply the intended use and is
proceeding to develop the necessary delivery system and treatment works.
Within water companies that have not received a designation as an area with
an assured supply, the developer of a subdivision or unsubdivided lands must
obtain a certificate of assured supply by providing a demonstration of an assured
supply (ARS 45-577) .
I would appreciate it if you would appraise developers in your service area
of these new requirements at an early point in the subdivision review process.
Please contact myself or my staff if you have any questions. I have enclosed
the pertinent portions of the new law.
Sincerely,
i
fit,11)'6% --
.(6
/,esley;E'Steiner
Acting'Director
Enclosure
cc: G. Ray Lee, Manager, City of Apache Junction
— Joseph Gero, Planning Director, City of Apache Junction
PERTINENT PORTIONS OF S .B . 10C1
9. 463. 01
I. 1F THE SUBDIVISION IS WITHIN A GROUNDWATER ACTII: f` FNAGEHENT
AREA, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 45-402, ._THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SHALL NOT BE
APPROVED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY A CERTIFICATE OF ASSURED WATER SUPPLY
ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES, UNLESS THE SUBDIVISION IS
LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA DESIGNATED AS HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY BY THE
DIRECTOR OF WATER RESOURCES PURSUANT TO SECTION 45-576, SUBSECTION 0 OR E.
THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY SHALL NOTE ON THE FACE OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT A CERTIFICATE OF ASSURED WATER SUPPLY HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED WITH THE PLAT OR THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS WITHIN AN AREA
DESIGNATED AS HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 45-576,
SUBSECTION D OR E.
11-806.01. Subdivision regulation; platting rules;
classification
A. The county board of supervisors shall regulate the subdivision
of all lands within its corporate limits, except subdivisions which are
... regulated by municipalities.
B. No plat of a subdivision of land within the area of jurisdiction
of such county shall be accepted for recording or recorded until it has
been approved by the board. The approval of the board shall be endorsed in
writing on the plat and shall also include specific identification of and
approval of the assurances except those for hiking and equestrian trails
required by this section. Where a county planning and zoning commission
exists, the plat shall first have been referred to such commission for its
consideration and the board shall have received the recommendation of the
commission. IF THE SUBDIVISION IS WITHIN A GROUNDWATER ACTIVE MANAGEMENT
AREA, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 45-402, THE PLAT SHALL NOT BE APPROVED UNLESS
ACCOMPANIED BY A CERTIFICATE OF ASSURED WATER SUPPLY ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR
OF WATER RESOURCES, UNLESS THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA
1 DESIGNATED AS HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY BY THE DIRECTOR OF WATER
i RESOURCES PURSUANT TO SECTION 45-576, SUBSECTION D OR E. THE BOARD SHALL
NOTE ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT THAT A CERTIFICATE OF ASSURED WATER SUPPLY HAS
BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE PLAT OR THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS WITHIN AN
AREA DESIGNATED AS HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION
45-576, SUBSECTION 0 OR E.
45-402. Definitions
IN THIS CHAPTER, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
23. "SERVICE AREA" MEANS:
( a) WITH RESPECT TO A CITY OR TOWN, THE AREA OF LAND ACTUALLY BEING
SERVED WATER BY THE CITY OR TOWN PLUS:
( i) ADDITIONS TO SUCH AREA WHICH CONTAIN AN OPERATING DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM OWNED BY THE CITY OR TOWN PRIMARILY FOR THE DELIVERY OF
NON-IRRIGATION WATER.
( ii) THE SERVICE AREA OF A CITY, TOWN OR PRIVATE WATER COMPANY THAT
OBTAINS ITS WATER FROM THE CITY PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA.
(b) WITH RESPECT TO A PRIVATE WATER COMPANY, THE AREA OF LAND OF THE
PRIVATE WATER COMPANY ACTUALLY BEING SERVED WATER BY THE PRIVATE WATER
COMPANY PLUS ADDITIONS TO SUCH AREA WHICH CONTAIN AN OPERATING
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OWNED BY THE PRIVATE WATER COMPANY PRIMARILY FOR THE ,
DELIVERY OF NON-IRRIGATION WATER.
45-576. Certificate of assured water supply; issuance of
building permits; designated areas; exemptions
A. A PERSON WHO PROPOSES TO OFFER SUBDIVIDED OR UNSUBDIVIDED LANDS,
AS THESE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN SECTION 32-2101, FOR SALE OR LEASE IN AN i
ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA SHALL APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF ASSURED
WATER SUPPLY FROM THE DIRECTOR PRIOR TO PRESENTING THE PLAT FOR APPROVAL TO
THE CITY, _TOWN OR COUNTY IN WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED, WHERE SUCH IS
REQUIRED, AND PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE STATE REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONER A
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER SUCH LANDS FOR SALE OR LEASE, PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 32-2181 AND 32-2195.01, UNLESS THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN
AN AREA DESIGNATED AS HAVING AN ASSURED SUPPLY PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION D OR ,
E OF THIS SECTION.
B. A CITY, TOWN OR COUNTY MAY APPROVE A SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY IF THE
SUBDIVIDER HAS OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF AS:;u,:cu ,,r iER SUPPLY FROM THE
DIRECTOR UNLESS THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA DESIGNATED AS
HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION D OR E OF THIS
SECTION. THE CITY, TOWN OR COUNTY SHALL- NOTE ON THE FACE OF THE APPROVED
PLC inAI n UcRiiFl,;,;;C 07 PSS:;?ED WATER SUPPLY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE
PLAT OR THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA DESIGNATED '—
AS HAVING AN ASSURED SUPPLY, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION D OR E OF THIS
SECTION.
C. THE STATE REAL ESTATE CUMISSIt;+ER ;;,Y 13.)uE A PUBLIC REPORT
AUTHORIZING THE SALE OR LEASE OF SUBDIVIDED OR UNSUBDIVIDED LANDS ONLY IF
THE SUBDIVIDER, OWNER OR AGENT HAS OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF ASSURED WATER
SUPPLY FROM THE DIRECTOR, UNLESS THE LANDS ARE LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA
DESIGNATED AS HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION D OR E
OF THIS SECTION.
D. THE DIRECTOR SHALL DESIGNATE SERVICE AREAS OF PRIVATE WATER
COMPANIES IN ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREAS WHERE AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY EXISTS.
AN ALLOCATION FOR CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER BY THE UNITED STATES
SECRETA;\ OF '': '}''r^'" TO A PRIVATE WATER COMPANY IS DEEMED A
PRESUMPTION OF AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY UPON A FINDING BY THE DIRECTOR THAT .
THE PRIVATE WATER COMPANY HAS MADE AN UNCONDITIONAL OFFER TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT FOR 'ETrRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER SUFFICIENT TO SUPPLY THE
INTENDED USE AND IS PROCEEDING TO DEVELOP THE NECESSARY DELIVERY SYSTEM AND
TREATMENT WORKS. THE PRESUMPTION OF AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY FOR A PRIVATE
WATER COMPANY CEASES IF THE PRIVATE WATER COMPANY REFUSES TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT FOR CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER DURING THE CONTRACT PERIOD, AS
DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR. IF A CITY OR TOWN ACQUIRES A PRIVATE WATER
COMPANY WHICH HAS CONTRACTED FOR CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER, THE CITY OR
TOWN SHALL ASSUME THE PRIVATE WATER COMPANY'S CONTRACT FOR CENTRAL ARIZONA
PROJECT WATER.
E. THE DIRECTOR SHALL DESIGNATE SERVICE AREAS OF CITIES AND TOWNS
IN ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREAS'WHERE AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY EXISTS. IF A CITY
OR TOWN HAS RECEIVED AN ALLOCATION FROM THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR FOR CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER OR HAS SIGNED A LETTER OF INTENT
; WITH THE DIRECTOR TO CONTRACT FOR CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER, THE
SERVICE AREA AND EXTENSIONS OF THE SERVICE AREA OF SUCH CITY OR TOWN ARE
DEEMED TO HAVE AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY. IF THE CITY OR TOWN REFUSES TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER DURING THE CONTRACT
PERIOD, AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR, THE DETERMINATION THAT THE CITY OR
TOWN HAS AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE DIRECTOR AND
THE DIRECTOR MAY DETERMINE THAT A CITY OR TOWN DOES NOT HAVE AN ASSURED
WATER SUPPLY WITHIN ITS SERVICE AREA. IF A CITY OR TOWN ENTERS INTO A
CONTRACT FOR CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER, THE SERVICE AREA AND
EXTENSIONS OF THE SERVICE AREA OF SUCH CITY OR TOWN ARE DEEMED TO CONTINUE
TO HAVE AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2000. COMMENCING ON
JANUARY 1 . 2001, THE DETERMINATION THAT THE SERVICE AREA OF A CITY OR TOWN
HAS AN ASSURED WATER 3urrL( SU3 ECT TO REVIEW BY THE DIRECTOR AND THE
DIRECTOR MAY DETERMINE THAT A CITY OR TOWN DOES NOT HAVE AN ASSURED WATER
SUPPLY WITHIN ITS SERVICE AREA.
F. A MAP IDENTIFYING AND DESCRIBING THE DESIGNATED SERVICE AREAS OF
CITIES, TOWNS AND PRT\I TFF IJATcR. C(MPP!IES WHERE AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY
EXISTS SHALL Bt ON FILE IN THE DEPARTMENT AND SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR
EXAMINATION BY THE PUBLIC DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS. THE DIRECTOR
SHALL NOTIFY THE MAYORS OF ALL CITIES AND TOWNS IN ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREAS
AND THE CHAIRMEN OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF COUNTIES IN WHICH ACTIVE
MANAGEMENT AREAS ARE LOCATED OF THE SERVICE AREAS WHERE AN ASSURED WATER
SUPPLY EXISTS AND ANY MODIFICATION OF SUCH AREAS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE
DESIGNATION OR MODIFICATION. PERSONS PROPOSING TO OFFER SUBDIVIDED OR
UNSUBDIVIDED LANDS LOCATED WITHIN SUCH DESIGNATED SERVICE AREAS FOR SALE
OR LEASE ARE EXEMPT FROM APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF
ASSURED WATER SUPPLY.
G. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE SALE OF LANDS FOR
DEVELOPMENTS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO A MINERAL EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING
I PERMIT OR AN INDUSTRIAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 45-514 AND
45-515.
H. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "ASSURED WATER SUPPLY" MEANS:
I. SUFFICIENT GROUNDWATER OR SURFACE !FATE,^. Cc ADEQUATE QUALITY WILL
BE CONTINUOUSLY AVAILABLE TO SATISFY THE WATER NEEDS OF THE vROPOSED USE
FOR AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS;
2. THE PROJECTED WATER USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND ACHIEVEMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT GOAL FOR THE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA;
AND
3. THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTRUCT THE
DELIVERY SYSTEM AND ANY TREATMENT WORKS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE SUPPLY OF
WATER AVAILABLE FOR THE PROPOSED USE.
45-577. Application; hydrological study; review of
application
A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL PRESCRIBE THE FORM OF APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF ASSURED WATER SUPPLY, TO INCLUDE, AS APPLICABLE:
i1. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND.
- A2. THE PLATS, PLANS AND MAPS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
'3. INFORMATION ON THE NATURE AND MAGNITUDE OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF PARCELS, LOTS OR DWELLING UNITS AND
THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED.
A. EVIDENCE OF CONTRACTS FOR THE DELIVERY OF WATER AND INFORMATION
RELATING TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS.
5. IF GROUNDWATER IS A PROPOSED SOURCE OF WATER:
(a) EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OF ANY GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS PURSUANT TO
WHICH GROUNDWATER MAY BE WITHDRAWN FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
(b) THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION Or EXISTING WELLS
.+, THE LOCATION it i ANY EXISTING v����J
FROM WHICH THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO WITHDRAW GROUNDWATER OR THE PROPOSED
LOCATION OF NEW WELLS.
6. EVIDENCE OF THE RIGHT TO USE SURFACE WATER PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1,
ARTICLE 2 OF THIS TITLE, PURSUANT TO A JUDICIAL DECREE OR PURSUANT TO A
RIGHT ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO 1919.
7. FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVIDENCE OF
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY TO CONSTRUCT THE DELIVERY SYSTEM AND ANY TREATMENT
WORKS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE SUPPLY OF WATER AVAILABLE FOR THE PROPOSED
USE.
8. A SWORN STATEMENT THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE
APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF OF THE
1 APPLICANT.
9. ANY OTHER INFORMATION WHICH THE DIRECTOR MAY REQUIRE.
B. IF GROUNDWATER IS A PROPOSED SOURCE. OF WATER, THE APPLICANT
SHALL SUBMIT WITH THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ASSURED WATER SUPPLY
A COPY OF A HYDROLOGICAL STUDY ON THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES THAT
DEMONSTRATES AN ASSURED SUPPLY FOR THE PROPOSED USE. THE DIRECTOR SHALL
PRESCRIBE THE CONTENTS OF THE STUDY WHICH IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE
APPLICATION.
C. THE DIRECTOR SHALL REVIEW AND EVALUATE THE APPLICATION. THE
DIRECTOR MAY REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND CONDUCT
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN
ASSURED WATER SUPPLY EXISTS.