Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-20 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2009 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, was held on October 20, 2009, at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers .pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Insalaco called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Councilmember Wilson gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Dietz led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present:Mayor Insalaco Vice Mayor Eck Councilmember Barker Councilmember Coleman Councilmember Dietz Councilmember Serdy Councilmember Wilson Staff Present: Others Present: City Manager George Hoffman Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Joel Stern Public Works Director David Fern Development Svcs. Director Brad Steinke Assistant to the City Mgr. Matt Busby Commander Tom Kelly Grants Specialist Roger Hacker Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 1 OF 35 Deputy City Clerk Jan Mason ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Councilmember Coleman MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED; AND THAT THE AWARD OF BID FOR PW 2009-15, CHIP SPREADER, BE AWARDED TO NORWOOD EQUIPMENT, INC, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $198,730.50, INCLUDING TAX; AND THAT AUTHORIZATION BE GIVEN FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT, PENDING FINAL APPROVAL AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; AND THAT APPROVAL BE GIVEN FOR THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CABLE SYSTEM LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION AND MEDIACOM, EXTENDING THE TERM THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE MEDIACOM'S COMPLIANCE AND NEGOTIATE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ANOTHER FIVE-YEAR TERM; AND THAT AUTHORIZATION BE GIVEN FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT PENDING FINAL APPROVAL AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 09-44, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGTREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION USED CITY POLICE VEHICLE(S) AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT TO THE TOWN OF MIAMI, ARIZONA, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 09-50, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, REAFFIRMING ITS INTEREST IN ANNEXING FIFTY ACRES LOCATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 8 EAST, FOR THE ELLIOT AVENUE REALIGNMENT, EAST OF MERIDIAN DRIVE, PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 09-51, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE USE OF THE ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 09-49, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF A SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOLS GRANT, BE APPROVED; AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 35 THAT RETROACTIVE APPROVAL BE GIVEN TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION AND VERIZON WIRELESS FOR THE ADDITION OF NEW ANTENNA PANELS ON THE TOWER AS WELL AS A NEW VAULT AND AN ADDITIONAL UTILITY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ITS USE, WITH THE CITY ALLOWING THE IMPROVEMENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR VERIZON WIRELESS PAYING THE CITY $7,500.00. Councilmember Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CURRENT EVENTS Vice Mayor Eck announced the G.A.I.N. event is this coming Saturday. Councilmember Serdy thanked everyone who helped put on the AJ Jamboree. Mayor Insalaco commented he had some literature and red ribbons handed to him from Captain Kelly on Freedom is Drug Free/Red Ribbon Week. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager George Hoffman commented on a new policy of department directors ensuring that key positions and key functions in their departmental operations have a backup for the flu pandemic and emergency preparedness.To that end, Deputy City Clerk Jan Mason was functioning as city clerk for this evening's meeting.He also announced the Apache Junction Parks and Recreation '09 Outdoor Expo is on Saturday, November 21 at Prospector Park. PUBLIC HEARINGS REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 3 OF 35 ORDINANCE NO. 1351, CASE AM -6-09, AMENDING THE CITY CODE, VOLUME II LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,CHAPTER 1 ZONING ORDINANCE,BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND EXCEPTIONS,SECTION 6.0112 EXCEPTIONS FOR WALLS AND FENCES )Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item. Vice Mayor Eck asked how they are going to enforce what fences are already up.There are 100 to 200 fences that are currently at 6 feet.He asked if they would be grandfathered or are they going to make them reduce the height on the fence to five feet.For an example, someone with a chain link fence would have to roll back the chain link. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated some of those fences may be permissible now under the new regulations if the property is 20,000 sq. ft. or larger.The other ones, such as those in a single family zone with a lot size of smaller than 20,000 sq. ft. would still be treated on a complaint basis as far as code enforcement is concerned.This will not solve all the fence problems we have in the city, but the commission reasoned that by going to a 5' minimum standard, probably most of the violations would be alleviated. Vice Mayor Eck commented he was concerned that in his neighborhood over the years they could do 8,000 sq. ft. lots in trailer homesite zoning.Then the lot minimums went to 11,000 and finally 20,000 minimum.There are a few lots in the neighborhood that are 11,000 sq. ft. that have the 6' chain link.The lot next door might be 1.25 acres.He asked if they would be going after these people. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated the lot size issue and the fence height issue are two different parts of the code.They acknowledge that over the years the minimum lot size has increased, but he does not think that the fence height was increased since the zoning ordinance was adopted.He would say the 6' fences mentioned were never in compliance to begin with. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 4 OF 35 Vice Mayor Eck commented he would hate to tell his neighbar that is confined to a wheelchair that he has to lower his fence a foot.Another one has polio. His concern is going back on the ones that are already there. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated the original commission recommendation was to allow 6' fences for everybody.At the work session the council stated they preferred to see the 6' fences on 20,000 sq. ft. lots or larger.They can get rid of the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum and apply it to properties in general as originally recommended by the commission.Draft Ordinance No. 1351 does not have the 20,000 sq. ft. minimums. Vice Mayor Eck commented he is concerned about those mixed areas.It is really a rural area with 1.25 acre lots, but there are some 11,000 sq. ft. lots in there because at the time they were rezoned, that is what it was.He could see it on any new construction, but he would have a difficult time in going to those already there and telling them they need to lower the fence a foot.He asked how a chain link fence would be lowered a foot. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is an issue.Every time the code changes there are a bunch of people that are grandfathered and others that are subject to the new standards.There is a provision in here that talks about non -conforming fences.Any fence which does not meet the standards of this section but which was established prior to the adoption of these regulations may be eligible to be recognized as lawful non -conforming, provided the owner applies for a letter of lawful non-conformance.There is that option, which has the fee and the burden of proof on the property owner, but that may be one way to handle some of those fences.If the fence was there prior to March 1985, everything from then to the present taller than 4.5' would be an illegal non -conforming fence. Councilmember Wilson asked what type of proof is needed to show that the fence was there prior to 1985. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 5 OF 35 Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they typically accept signed And notarized affidavits from neighbors who have lived in the neighborhood a long time and can attest to the fact that a certain grandfathered use has existed.Sometimes people will turn in old pictures that will show that the same fence was there back then.Fence issues are a little harder to take care of then property improvement issues because fence heights do not necessarily show up on Pinal County property assessments.It will be a standard of more flexibility regarding what an applicant might turn in as proof of a non- conforming fence. Councilmember Wilson commented that most people that put up their fences years ago do not have their sales receipt from the company that put it in. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is true. Councilmember Wilson asked what the reasoning was behind the commission requiring a permit for a 6' fence but not a 5' fence, when even the 5' fence is technically illegal right now. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they struggled with the issue of raising the minimum standard of 4.5' in the front yard.They settled on 5' partly because of acknowledging violations in the community, and also because of discussions on the horse issue.They settled on 5' being the new minimum standard, but someone could go up to 6' if they got a permit from development services.The intent of the permit would be to check to make sure the fence is being constructed of approved fence materials and to ensure that the proposed fences are allowing for the minimum standard of transparency.They do not want to see 6' walls going up and creating corridor effects. Councilmember Wilson commented he believes part of the problem that got them here is the city did not have an ordinance requiring a permit to put up a fence.He talked to an individual a few months back that was installing a fence for American Fence that was technically REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 6 OF 35 illegal.He stated the city does not require permits for fences less than 6' in height. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct. Councilmember Wilson stated he was putting it in the front yard which, when he informed him of it, he argued that it is not that way as it is less than six feet.He asked if it would not be more prudent to require anyone who puts in a fence to have a permit.It would eliminate the problems. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated some cities do require a permit for any fence.Our planning and zoning commission limited it to fences over 5', but it is certainly an option to require a permit for all fences. There would probably be a nominal fee for the permit.Fences taller than 6' require a building permit review, structural review, etc. Councilmember Barker asked where the commission came up with 16.6% on the transparency. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that basically refers to having a 5' fence going to 6'. That additional foot has to be transparent, such as wrought iron or chain link.One divided by six is 16.6%.It basically means one foot.If the fence is below 5' then it will be a more interesting math problem, but if they have a 5' solid fence, the additional foot of height would be the 16.6% in some type of transparency.It does not necessarily have to be applied like that.They can have segments of masonry and wrought iron, which would be more than 16.6%, but the minimum is 16.6%. Vice Mayor Eck commented he still has a problem with what is currently up.He does not know how they would lower a current fence construction -wise.He believes they need a permit process for something that is 5' or higher.He believes not having a permit process has caused some of the problems that the city has.He asked how they would lower a 6' chain link fence to a 5' chain link fence.He has a concern about enforcing what is currently out there.He does REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 7 OF 35 not know how they could cut a foot out and lower the pole down a foot. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated it would probably have to be a new fence. Vice Mayor Eck commented he does not want to have to go through that process. Councilmember Wilson asked how code enforcement would know whether or not a permit has been applied for. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they have a tracking system called Tidemark in the building division.Every time someone applies for a permit it is entered into the system.Anyone in development services can look at a property and find what permits have been issued by either address or parcel number.Once these people start applying for permits, they will be in the system.The ones that are not in the system will be properties that have not applied for permits. Mayor Insalaco opened the public hearing on the item. Mr. Wayne Standage, 1920 E. 20th Avenue, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He commented he has given the council a lot of information on the fencing over the last year.From comments made in the past and his own observations he estimates there are 250 violators of fence heights.He believes at least 95% of the residents are complying with the city ordinance at 4.5'.If they vote for a 6' fence, they are telling the citizens that doing the right thing does not matter, and business investors would get a message of inconsistency.He suggested they create a permit process where standards are defined, establish a fence height of 5' in front and 6' on the sides and rear, topography challenged fences should have the height of the fence determined by the grade level, block or solid walls should be no higher than 4.5' so that officers can see that each home is safe, implement civil sanctions with a criminal chaser, create a reversal of a complaint driven system on the compliance issues and implement REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 8 OF 35 an active prevention enforcement on compliance issues as they come up, and give a 12-18 month period to come into compliance. Mr. Eric Messina, 2623 E. 4th Avenue, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He stated a lot of people bought houses that had existing fences and were unaware of the rules.Adding one more foot is not detrimental to police looking over a chain link fence.He thinks the 6' fence is logical and most people would be brought into compliance. Mrs. Shannon Flynn, 305 N. Acacia, Apache Junction, addressed the council.She stated she had to take down her chain link fence by rolling the fence down. They had to put ties on the fence.She was later told she would have to take down the posts also.She also had to take down another fence to 4.5'; she knows her neighbors do not like her fence.She added her place looks horrible.Six other people on the street have not been told to take their fences down.She had to take her cross poles down, too.She invited the council to view what was done. Mayor Insalaco closed the public hearing on the item with no one else wishing to speak. He reopened the item to council discussion. Vice Mayor Eck commented he feels this became an issue over aesthetic problems with the 6' block walls that appeared in front.A 6' chain link or other fence that is see-through should not have this enforced.He does not think it is a solution to tie the fence down.They need to go after the future and leave the ones that have been installed in the past.He thinks it is punishment to take a 6' fence down to 5'.That is his biggest concern.A solution is having a permit process in the future.A 6' chain link or similar open view fence should not be reduced. Councilmember Barker asked for clarification.She asked if he was saying that those fences through which he can see are okay but those who have 6' block walls are not. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 9 OF 35 Vice Mayor Eck commented he does not care for the block walls.He does not have the answer for enforcing it.He thinks the chain link and the others are much simpler to enforce and say they are alright.He does not have the direct solution as to what to do with the current 6' block wall that is up.He thinks the see through ones are the solution and they should leave them alone.In the future they should use the permit process for a 6' fence or any fence.He thinks the chain link is much simpler because of its effect.He does not think there is much advantage in lowering them one foot.He does not have an answer for the block wall. Councilmember Barker asked if he would be willing to say an ordinance such as the one placed before them would be effective from this day forward and not affect those things which have already been put up, regardless of whether they are conforming or not. Vice Mayor Eck stated that is correct. Councilmember Wilson commented he has debated long and hard on this issue.A question that keeps coming back to his mind is that they have had since 1985 an ordinance saying 4.5' was the standard for maximum height for a front yard fence.Obviously it was not followed.When they built a new building down the street from him, the first thing they did was put up a 6' high chain link fence around their property.They then started constructing the house.During the entire time of the inspection period and all the way up through the final inspection, people had to drive in through that 6' fence.No one said anything.Now the new owners that bought it from the construction company are being faced with having to cut the fence or roll it back.He thinks it is unfair.Whether the council decides to say a permit is required, it should be for all fences.That way they would have the ability to say what is allowed and what is not.The person building the fence would then know exactly what it is.He believes the permit should be at as low a cost as possible.The block walls exceeding the limit he believes result from confusion as to what the front of the yard is and what the front of the house is.It is a big decision and it is something they will have to wrestle with and then live with the decision. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 10 OF 35 Councilmember Serdy commented he has never had a problem with the 6' fences on the large lots if you can see through them.He does not want them in the urban areas.He would not like to see more permits as it just makes more trouble for staff.Everything is getting more complicated and government is getting bigger and bigger.He would like to try to avoid as many permits as they can. Councilmember Coleman commented he was going to say what Councilmember Serdy said as far as lot size.There are several things he thinks they can do.They can lower the lot size from 20,000 to 10,000 if that brings more into compliance.He thinks it should still be open visually or opaque so that they do not get the corridor effect. He feels better having subsection C in there which defines what can be used for fence material and what cannot be used for fence material.He thinks they could change the non -conforming fence date to this current ordinance as far as grandfathering in.He asked if that could be done. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that can be done. Councilmember Coleman asked if they could make it an effective date of 30 days from when the ordinance is passed.People like Mrs. Flynn would have time to get it back up before it took effect.There are a lot of different things they could do.He keeps thinking about Southern Avenue everyday when he goes to work.His wife asks him if he did not notice the fences on either side because they are also 6 feet.He did not notice them because he can see right through them.The block or stucco over chicken wire you notice.They tried to make it artistically but it is an interesting piece of art. Councilmember Barker commented she wanted some comments from the others on the transparency issue.The amount of 16% seems like an awfully small amount for a block wall.It does not impact chain link or anything like that.To block walls, stucco walls and board fences, 16% in the front yard is small. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 11 OF 35 Councilmember Coleman commented he thinks the block wall should be up to 4' with wrought iron above that.It should be decorative wall with the foundation in block.He has seen some that are probably 6' with the wrought iron.There is one where the wrought iron is arched.He thinks that is because when the police and code enforcement are out patrolling in their cars they can see through that.He would have a problem with a solid fence going up to five feet and then another foot where you could see through.He thinks it needs to be lower than that. Councilmember Barker asked what he would like to see. Councilmember Coleman stated if it needs to be a percentage, he would like it to be solid up to 4' or 4.5' as some people might only want a 4.5' fence or already have a 4.5' fence in the front.That is our current standard.Anything above that needs to be of a material they can see through. Vice Mayor Eck commented it seems they appear to be in some kind of agreement here. Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion with no further comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1351 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilmember Dietz SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Deputy City Clerk Jan Mason read the ordinance by title only. Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1351, AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK, BE APPROVED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 12 OF 35 AND ADOPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:THAT IT REFLECT THE STANDARDS THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS PUT FORTH WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:FIRST, SECTION D, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS BE THE DATE THAT THIS ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE; City Attorney Joel Stern asked for clarification. Councilmember Barker continued THAT THE STANDARD OF THIS SECTION, THAT WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THESE STANDARDS (DECEMBER 1) AND THAT THE SECTION THAT REFERS TO TRANSPARENCY BE CHANGED SO THAT THE TRANSPARENCY IS ANYTHING ABOVE 4'6".There are two changes, one gives those that already have it the opportunity to roll it back up and to make the transparency from 4'6" and up, regardless of the height.The permit for the 5' to 6' fence would still be there, if it goes beyond 5'. Vice Mayor Eck asked if the current 6' transparent fence, like chain link, is okay. Councilmember Barker stated that is correct.If it was in prior to December 1, 2009. Councilmember Coleman asked if this is on the 20,000 square foot lot. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated Rudy said that is not in there. Councilmember Barker stated it is not in the ordinance. Councilmember Dietz commented a 7,000 square foot lot could have a 6' fence. Councilmember Barker stated according to this ordinance it could.If he wants to amend the motion he may do so and lower the lot size.It would be okay with her. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 13 OF 35 Councilmember Coleman commented he is concerned about that in high density residential areas. Councilmember Barker agreed. She would be receptive to his amendment. Councilmember Coleman MOVED TO AMEND THAT THE 6' LIMIT APPLY ONLY TO THOSE LOTS LARGER THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET. the amendment. Councilmember Barker accepted Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:6-1 (Councilmember Dietz voted in opposition.) The motion carried. Councilmember Wilson asked during the vote if anyone has a current fence they do not have to put in for a permit as it is before December 1, 2009. Councilmember Barker stated that is correct. Deputy City Clerk Jan Mason stated they must have the fence in before December 1, 2009. ORDINANCE NO. 1350, CASE AM -4-09, AMENDING THE CITY CODE, VOLUME II LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,CHAPTER 1 ZONING ORDINANCE,BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5 DEFINITIONS,ARTICLE 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, AND ARTICLE 20 PARKING, LOADING AND INTERIOR OR PRIVATE STREET STANDARDS )Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 14 OF 35 Councilmember Wilson commented under the additional requirements, currently if someone parks their trailer, RV or whatever in their side yard, there is no requirement to have a 6' fence there. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct, except the current language requires an RV to be in a rear yard.The ordinance currently states that one travel trailer that shall not be used for any purpose may be parked or stored in a rear yard in a residential zoning district.It does not say side yard.This change would allow a person to park an RV or semi -trailer next to their house as long as it does not protrude beyond the front façade of the house and under the condition that the front and side be screened by a 6' high opaque fence with an opaque gate. Councilmember Wilson commented he has a problem with that.He lives on a large lot and he represents a lot of people that live on large lots. Putting a 6' fence on the side of the house to the property line is a requirement, he feels, that is not really needed.Their RV, motor home, semi or anything that will be parked behind that will not be hidden by a 6' fence.It will be seen beyond that anyway.He does not think it is accomplishing anything other than putting in a stipulation that they will have to have a fence and gate that would create a double fence. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias commented the example he described with the 6' fence in front of the RV and out to the side property line is probably going to apply to the smaller properties.On a large lot property they do not necessarily have to extend that fence all the way to the property line.There may be a lot of room there.This provision proposes to enclose the immediate area where the RV or rig is parked.The commission recommended this, with these amendments being recommended by a vote of 6-1, because of some of the examples around town.We do have a lot of properties where people park their RVs.The properties that screened look nicer than the properties that do not screen them at all, even though you do see the top of the unit. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 15 OF 35 Councilmember Barker asked how the language in this exempts the larger properties he was speaking about. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated it says an exception may be granted for recreational vehicles/semi-rig to be stored or parked on the side yard if there is adequate space in the side yard where such vehicle does not encroach beyond the front façade of the dwelling and only if said vehicles are screened on at least the front and side by a 6' high opaque fence.It does not necessarily say the front to the side property line.We are talking about the screening of the vehicle, not necessarily enclosing a yard. Councilmember Barker stated she was visualizing a house with a very open area and this little two-sided thing sitting there hiding with the top of the RV staring over the top.She thinks they should put eyes on it so that it looks over the top of the fence.She has to agree with Councilmember Wilson that it does not make sense. Councilmember Wilson commented he remembers when they had the property maintenance hearings.Two of them were at the high school.At that time the original proposal was no parking in the front yard of anything.The people came out and voiced their opinion against that very heavily to the point where it was left that the RVs were the ones that went to the backyard and everything else was allowed.He received some information concerning a boat storage facility off of Meridian and University that charges $45 a month for a 20' boat, with larger boats being charged more up to over $100 a month.They currently have some property maintenance rules that they went through with some pain with a little while ago and he does not want to repeat that same problem where they have more people come in when they discover they cannot park their boat in their front yard. Vice Mayor Eck commented he chaired that subcommittee.It was extremely difficult to make any changes to the current code.There was public outcry. There were three of them on it and it lasted for months.It was extremely difficult to get the public support on the boats as REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 16 OF 35 they wanted to be able to store them on one side of the driveway. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated when they went through the public hearings on this item with planning and zoning, they only had one citizen come to the meeting and his concern had to do with not taking away people's livelihood by disallowing the parking of semi cabs and trailers on residential property.That was the only comment heard in contest to these regulations.But they are right; in the new regulations, in paragraph A, it limits items in the front yard to decorative water features, operable vehicles that belong to the owner or lessee of the property, and a basketball court. Everything else, the jet skis, boats, the motorcycles, the utility trailers, and the other assorted items would no longer be allowed to be stored or parked in a front yard. Vice Mayor Eck commented he would have to admit that some of them are horrendous -looking. One of the nicest yards in his neighborhood has a boat, a pool and an RV and the rest of the yard is immaculate.He has a difficult time. Councilmember Coleman asked if currently boats and RVs are allowed in the front yard. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they are.The property maintenance standards talk about junk and debris and other assorted wood piles, things that are normally considered trash in a front yard.It addresses inoperable vehicles, but not motorcycles, jet skis, utility trailers and things like that. Councilmember Coleman commented it does not address people having 4 Volkswagens parked in their front yard. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated if they are operable vehicles they are allowed. There was general discussion by the council about there actually being 7 Volkswagens there. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 17 OF 35 Councilmember Coleman commented he hears complaints about that from all over.The reason they have these kinds of restrictions is for the aesthetics and property values in the area.He still remembers when they threw up the chain link fence and started parking RVs where the current Chamber of Commerce is.These are unsightly in your neighborhood and bring down property values, so you will bring them to downtown Apache Junction and park them there.He does not have quite as hard of a problem in seeing that what we have now is a problem, as far as trying to clean up the appearance of our community.He is sorry for those that are truck drivers, but he does not see how it is helping him if they are parking it next to his house, which, if being done in the side yard, it is not only in that side yard but also his side yard.He would not support loosening things up in anyway.If this ties up some of those things he would be in favor of it. Councilmember Serdy commented Councilmember Coleman makes a lot of good points.One of the joys of being a landowner is being able to not have to put things in storage.He who finishes with the most toys wins, and they want to have their toys.It can cost thousands of dollars to rent storage.Of course, that is business in Apache Junction; we have lots of storage and people make extra money that way.But it costs people money to have to use the storage. He has mixed feelings about it.It can be ugly. Councilmember Coleman commented they need to get a place with a bigger backyard if that is what you plan on doing.He wishes those Volkswagens were in the backyard.He received a letter from the city when he had his travel trailer parked at the side of his house.He had to move it to the back.It was not a huge deal.He does not think he was targeted.He had it parked on the side when it should have been in the back. Mayor Insalaco commented you can go by some yards and see a boat parked out front or on the side with a cover on it, and then go a couple of doors down and see the same thing only with inner tubes flying out and ice chests left on the ground.One looks good, but how many look bad.It is a tough thing. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 18 OF 35 Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated if they want to incorporate some of the changes, please specify that in the motion. Mayor Insalaco opened the public hearing on the item. Ms. Denise Moulson, 2094 W. Windsong Street, Apache Junction, addressed the council.She commented on the problems she is having with the property across the street from her.She showed photographs of all the vehicles parked in that front yard, which included an RV, a school bus, flatbed truck, a car, a water truck, a horse trailer, a mini van, and a box truck.Usually there is also a pick-up truck, another mini van, two hearses, a Mercedes, a Toyota and a Nissan.This is on .35 of an acre.They have no room in the backyard because of other junk in the backyard consisting of travel trailers, 2 semi truck trailers and other stuff.There are only 2 adults in the house.She suggested limiting how many cars can be in the front yard. Mr. Eric Messina, 2623 E. 4th Avenue, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He stated he is not sure an RV, boat or motorcycle is a large concern.People bought large properties in order to keep their things on their property, but maybe not necessarily in their front yards.He believes the foreclosures and empty houses are killing the house values, not what is in their front yard.He agreed that something should be enforced at the location shown in the pictures previously presented.The average person with a few toys should not be targeted. Mr. Elliott Fisher, 547 E. Quail, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He stated 2-3 years ago they had hearings on this issue and they had recently approved a boat and RV storage with a large number of spaces. They are saying after December 31 six foot fences would be denied if they do not have it by then.They will have to put the RVs into the backyard.He does not see a large public outcry to fix the problems with RVs and boats on the side of the property.He will review this after they pass it and if he thinks they are trying to do the same thing as last time he will refer it.They need to make it clear as to where the fences REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 19 OF 35 need to be.He thinks they may be trying to force people to put the boats and RVs into storage facilities. Mr. Louis Babin, 2191 S. Belair, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He stated his neighbor cut back the block wall in his backyard to install a larger gate so that he could get his larger things into his backyard.The reason why a lot of these things are parked out front is because the alleyway is so narrow that the 10' gate is not wide enough to make the cut to get it into the backyard. That would be an expense, so the council should consider that. He thinks it would be reasonable to have a length limit for the boats, trailers and RVs to be allowed in the front yard. Mr. Wayne Standage, 1920 E. 20th Avenue, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He commented on the lots getting smaller over the years.People want to attract businesses and investments that can weather a financial storm, and they need to consider these ordinances.A friend who works for a national hotel chain advised that a three star hotel would never come out here with the current situation. Some of it has to do with how the properties are maintained as they may not be able to keep the same values as what they bring in.Every city in the East Valley has gone through the same thing we are doing now.He would like to see us get something that would attract those businesses. Mayor Insalaco closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak.He reopened the item to council discussion. Councilmember Coleman asked if the ordinance as presented reflects the recommendations of the planning and zoning commission. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated the draft ordinance reflects those recommendations.The strikeouts and gray highlighted areas of the cover memo are the additional suggested changes from concerns heard at their work session a couple of weeks ago. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 20 OF 35 Vice Mayor Eck asked if the example they were shown earlier with the 8-10 vehicles is a legal property. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated he did not know.He would need more information.He was looking for license plates on those vehicles.He did not see license plates on all of those vehicles, so those would be items that are not supposed to be in the front yard.They are supposed to be operable, licensed vehicles.If they are all property -owner owned, operable and registered, they would be legal to be there. Vice Mayor Eck commented he is trying to compare his neighbor's property that has a boat and toy hauler that is beautiful to what they were shown.He asked if there would be no storage of any boat or toy hauler under this ordinance in the front yard. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct under the ordinance as proposed.It is hard to draw that line, so more often than not they have to make the line definite. Vice Mayor Eck commented he has a difficult time with that one because he sees these properties that are okay.He would like to address the picture of what they saw.He thinks that is horrendous, but this covers everything from small to big. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct. Councilmember Barker commented the original reason for bringing this up again was the fact that we have a fairly high number of properties on which there are many vehicles of many different sizes and shapes stored in the front yard.It does make your property value go down, she knows that for sure.Her daughter just bought a house.She went.arouncLto all the -homes -with the real estate agents and they would tell them if they wanted -something cheap to go to certain neighborhoods where these RVs, boats, cars, etc. are parked in the front yard.Those properties are anywhere from $8,000 to -$15,000 less than the properties they REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 21 OF 35 were looking at elsewhere.It definitely does something to property values.It seems to her that the major reason for looking at this is because we want to create a community that has had a wonderful ambience.Some people are already doing a lovely job of it.But unfortunately they are the few.That is sad, but they are.She thinks that however this comes out, the reason it was brought up was to take care of an entire problem, not one or two people and not a single complaint.This is to take care of a large problem.It was done one other time about 19 years ago.An ordinance exactly like this was written but for some reason or another it was deemed unenforceable.Under that ordinance, before it was deemed unenforceable, she moved her RV from the front yard as she was told to do, and her son moved his boat and camp trailer from his front yard as they were at that time told it was enforceable.As a result, some of the neighborhoods cleaned up real nice.But then they were told it was unenforceable, they stopped enforcing it, and things have built back up again.She thinks they need to do something.We cannot do it halfway.They need to say they want to do this, we want to clean this up or no we do not care.It is a yes or no thing.Although she does understand the problem with the screen there.As far as the gates are concerned, her things come out of her side gate which is an 8.5' gate.It would not accommodate a 10' wide, but it does accommodate an 8.5' wide. They come from the backyard through her side gate.That is doable.Addressing somebody else's comment, they are not trying to sell spaces in the local RV place.That is ridiculous. Councilmember Wilson commented there are a lot of people that have a boat or a toy hauler in their front yards right now that have kept their yards basically quite well.We are trying to make an ordinance for things like Wayne was showing us back here on the smaller percentage of the problem.He knows the property maintenance rules state it has to be legally registered, insured for the road, and if not and they are stored in the front yard, they are underneath the current violation of the current rules.They are complaint driven; they go out and follow up on complaints.They are not actively going out and pursuing people.He thinks if they pass this ordinance the way it is currently written, if it is not going to be enforced, he wonders what they have done.He remembered the struggles they went through with the property maintenance rules.He remembered the discussions.He REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 22 OF 35 remembered a short, young lady who represented the city at one of the meetings who became very inundated with statements about the parking of trailers in the front yard.He is talking about utility trailers.He remembered how many people came to those meetings.One of the things he thought they were initially working on was to limit the number.They were going to put an arbitrary number down but that never occurred.He has concerns with what they went through in the past. Councilmember Barker asked him if he is asking for this to go back to planning and zoning and for numbers to be put on the quantity that could be there. Councilmember Wilson stated he would like to see that.You do have some people that have some very nicely kept up property and they have a boat parked on the side but in the front of the house.He has a problem with making that illegal when it is currently legal and looks very well. Councilmember Coleman commented it is unfortunate but if you allow the nice looking ones, they pretty much have to allow the trashy looking ones, because you cannot say when they ask you why you allow another person to have it that you like that person or because his is nice.It is like when kids ask if they can go to the rest room. He has kids that are chronic and have the nurse's permission, so he lets them go.Others ask him and he cannot.They ask why because he let the others go and he always says it is because he likes them.Sometimes they get it and sometimes they do not. They ask if he does not like them, and he tells them he did not say that.He just said he liked that person.But that is kind of like what this is.He thinks that what they need to do is set the general policy of if they want these in the front or not.That is what the policy decision really is.In his opinion, it would help them as a community in trying to attract economic resources into the community that they say they do not want them.They have a provision that allows an RV or semi in the back or on the side, if it does not extend out past the structure.He thinks that is good, but generally speaking we do not want to have them parked in the front.That is his opinion and he thinks that is what this ordinance says. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 23 OF 35 Vice Mayor Eck asked if they could set a number, saying one boat or one motor home. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they could do that.They do not have to go back to the planning and zoning commission.They can send it back there if they like, but this is before the council and it has been agendized.He thinks they could add anything they wanted. Vice Mayor Eck commented there are different tiers of this.If they had a number that said one RV and one boat, or no more than two items, it might solve what they are really trying to address, which is the real blight property. Councilmember Coleman commented the question is if they want to allow them in the front, no matter what they look like.To him, they do not.If they are on a property that does not have adequate space on the side or in back, then they need to find somewhere else to take it.He does not think they want it here. Councilmember Wilson asked if the definition of the front yard is where the buildable area begins. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias asked if he meant where the front setback is. Councilmember Wilson stated he means where you can actually start constructing your house. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated it would have to comply with the minimum front setback. On a 1.25 acre property it might be 30' to 40', on a smaller property it will probably be about 20' before you can put up your gate and your side fence with the RV or semi behind it. Councilmember Wilson asked if they could modify this to say they cannot park this in that area. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 24 OF 35 Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias asked if he meant the front yard setback area. Councilmember Wilson stated that is correct, as it is currently worded as not being able to put them in the front yard. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated it says "Items that are not allowed to be located in front yard" is in the first sentence of paragraph C.They are back to what if the house is set back farther than the front yard and if these things can still technically be located in front of the house.The answer to that is yes.He might have misspoke, as the new definition of front yard shall mean the area between any building and the front lot line.If we read that interpretation very strictly and apply it to paragraph C, then they would have to be as far back as the house. Councilmember Dietz commented if they allowed that in the front yard area, then they would get into what the young lady brought up and showed us that is parked along the side yard.They would then not be addressing that. Councilmember Wilson stated they would not be allowed there because that is in the build back area, assuming the house is in the build back area. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated they might be able to solve that problem by saying items that are not allowed in the front setback in residential zoning districts. Councilmember Barker asked for a rudimentary drawing of a street, setback and buildable area. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias complied with the request and designated where the buildable area is. Councilmember Barker asked where would they be able to put things if what Councilmember Wilson requested was substituted in there. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 25 OF 35 Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias showed where they could park it with the new definition. Councilmember Barker asked where the RV could go if the house was set back at the back of the lot. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated under the current language it would still need to be behind the front of the house. Councilmember Barker asked where it could be located under the language proposed by Councilmember Wilson. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated if the house is set far back, it could be anywhere behind the front set back, including before the house. Councilmember Barker stated that would only apply to a larger lot for the most part.It would be pretty difficult in most residential areas to do that. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated it would be more amenable to the large lot properties. But even a 10,000 square foot property has plenty of room. Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1350 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilmember Wilson SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. Deputy City Clerk Jan Mason read the ordinance by title only. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 26 OF 35 Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1350, AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK, BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilmember Coleman SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:5-2 (Vice Mayor Eck and Councilmember Wilson voted in opposition.) Vice Mayor Eck commented during the vote that as much as he hates the property in the picture, he has to support the people in his neighborhood and say no. The motion carried. short break. meeting. Mayor Insalaco called for a Mayor Insalaco reconvened the ORDINANCE NO. 1352, CHANGING PENALTIES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE ZONING CODE FROM CRIMINAL TO CIVIL )Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item. Mayor Insalaco openedthe public hearing on the item. Mr. Elliott Fisher, 547 E. Quail, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He commented on being able to speak at Call to the Public and finish what you are saying !without being judged and cut off.He questioned why they are changing criminal to civil as it seems civil cases are more costly and prolonged, instead of having a mixture. Mayor Insalaco closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak.He reopened the item to council discussion. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 27 OF 35 Councilmember Wilson commented they are keeping the second offense within a consecutive 24 month period at a penalty of $250.He asked how the time frame is determined; if it would be like the class that you can do for a speeding ticket which is one every two years. He asked how they would be tracking that. City Attorney Joel Stern stated he had talked to Mr. Steinke about this.There is a way that they can track so that they will be enforcing this every 24 months.They do have the software to do it.It would be tracked from the conviction date. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated there is a whole process before the property owner is cited.There is the initial contact with the property owner with the explanation of what the problem is and which hopefully achieves voluntary compliance.If compliance is not achieved, they write a letter which gives them 21 days to bring the property into compliance.There is then another inspection.If the property is not in compliance after 21 days, then the civil sanction would be applied.A file can be kept open for up to 24 months if there are multiple violations.That is where this concept of preponderance of the evidence versus a criminal violation that they have to approve every time enters in.That is the difference between the two codes. Councilmember Wilson commented they currently keep it on file. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated the code officers do keep files, even if they have been closed.They keep them for a certain amount of time under the Arizona records retention law.Under this new process, basically a file can, in effect, be kept open for two years. Councilmember Coleman commented this does become criminal with the fourth offense. Senior Rlanner Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 28 OF 35 Councilmember Coleman commented it is a combination of the two.The reason they are changing the first ones to be civil is because of the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated because of the preponderance of evidence. City Attorney Joel Stern stated the fourth offense is a fine of $1,000.For a first time class one misdemeanor, it is really $2,500.But this is modeled directly after the property maintenance code.They did it lower in there, so that is why they followed this model.But it is still a crime. Vice Mayor Eck commented personally if he got a complaint it would concern him, but if it said civil he would be much more relaxed about it then having the first complaint say criminal.It seems kind of severe. Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion with no more comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Dietz MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1352 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilmember Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Deputy City Clerk Jan Mason read the ordinance by title only. Councilmember Dietz MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1350, AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK, BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilmember Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 29 OF 35 VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS REAPPOINTMENTS/APPOINTMENTS TO LIBRARY BOARD, MUNICIPAL PROPERTY CORPORATION, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION )Councilmember Serdy commented this is a strange process and he does not like the way they have to do it.If he votes no on certain people, he is not necessarily against that person; it just might be that he wants someone else later.He is not being negative on anyone he votes no on. Councilmember Barker commented she believes they all feel that way. Councilmember Dietz MOVED THAT LORETTA NIELSEN AND JON LOKENSGARD BE REAPPOINTED TO THE LIBRARY BOARD FOR TERMS TO EXPIRE OCTOBER 31, 2011. Councilmember Wilson SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Councilmember Wilson MOVED THAT WAYNE STANDAGE BE APPOINTED TO THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY CORPORATION FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE OCTOBER 31, 2012. Councilmember Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 30 OF 35 VOTE:5-2 (Mayor Insalaco and Vice Mayor Eck voted in opposition.) The motion carried. Mayor Insalaco commented there are three positions for the parks and recreation commission. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT WAYNE STANDAGE BE REAPPOINTED TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WITH A TERM TO EXPIRE OCTOBER 31, 2012. Councilmember Wilson SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Councilmember Wilson MOVED THAT ERIC MESSINA BE APPOINTED TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 31, 2012. Councilmember Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: i 3-4 (Mayor Insalaco, Vice Mayor Eck and Councilmembers Dietz and Coleman voted:in opposition.) The motion failed. Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT STEPHEI\LAMRHEIN BE REAPPOINTED TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR A -TERM TO EXPIRE ON OCTOBER '31, 2012. Councilmember Dietz SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 31 OF 35 Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT TESS NESSER BE REAPPOINTED TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 31, 2012. Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE: Unanimous. The motion carried. Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT GAIL EVANS BE REAPPOINTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE OCTOBER 31, 2012. Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:5-2 (Councilmembers Wilson and Serdy voted in opposition.) The motion carried. Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT COLLEEN HILL BE APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 31, 2010. Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Councilmember Wilson MOVED THAT JASON RUSSELL BE. APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 31., 2012. Councilmember Serdy SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:5-2 (Mayor Insalaco and Councilmember Barker voted in opposition.) REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 32 OF 35 The motion carried. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES, TIMES, LOCATIONS, AND PURPOSES Councilmember Dietz MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5:45 P.M. AND A WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. BE HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2009, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, RESPECTIVELY; AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 5:45 P.M. BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM. Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. CALL TO THE PUBLIC: None. ADJOURNMENT )Mayor Insalaco adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1. Acceptance of Agenda. 2. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 6, 2009. 3. Consideration of award of bid PW 2009-15 to Norwood Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $198,730.50 including tax for a chip spreader. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 33 OF 35 4. Consideration of a third amendment to the cable system license agreement between Mediacom Arizona L.L.C. and the City of Apache Junction. 5. Consideration of Resolution No. 09-44, approval of an intergovernmental agreement to transfer a used police vehicle from the City of Apache Junction to the Town of Miami. 6. Consideration of Resolution No. 09-50, reaffirming Mayor and City Council interest in annexing fifty acres located in Section 8, Township 1 South, Range 8 East, for the Elliot Avenue realignment, East of Meridian Drive. 7. Consideration of Resolution No. 09-51, authorizing the City to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Arizona Department of Public Safety for use of the Arizona Criminal Justice Information System. 8. Consideration of Resolution No. 09-49, authorizing the City to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Department of Transportation for a grant to fund the Safe Route to Schools Program. 9. Consideration of an amendment to lease agreement with Verizon Wireless for location of communication equipment on City property. ACCEPTED THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009. HN S. INSALACO ayor REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 34 OF 35 ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, held on the 20th day of October, 2009.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 28th of October, 2009. KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 2009 PAGE 35 OF 35