Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-02 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2007 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, was held on October 2, 2007, 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 7:06 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 Dietz Councilmember Serdy Councilmember Severs Councilmember Wilson Staff Present:City Manager George Hoffman Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Joel Stern Public Safety Director Glenn Walp Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell Finance Director Keith Lewis Development Svcs. Director Brad Steinke Interim Public Works Dir. Doug Dobson Others Present:Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 1 OF 51 CRU Coordinator Suzanne Strong Assistant Planner Yanet Ochoa Planning Manager Fred Baker Assistant City Attorney Mary Ann Coyne Rec. Superintendent Liz Langenbach Economic Dev. Dir. Steve Filipowicz Grants Specialist Roger Hacker Clerk of the Court Shelly Fulcher Recreation Coordinator Jay Reynolds Finance Manager John White Asst. to the City Manager Matt Busby ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED; AND THAT APPROVAL BE GIVEN FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN EAST VALLEY SENIOR SERVICES, INC. AND THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION FOR THE RIDE CHOICE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,960; AND THAT AUTHORIZATION BE GIVEN FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 07-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN ITS FISCAL YEAR 2008 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUND II PROGRAM, BE APPROVED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO. 07-42, A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA, ESTABLISHING THE OFFICAL LOCATIONS FOR THE POSTING OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS OF INTEREST TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BE APPROVED. Councilmember Dietz SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL , OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 51 Mayor Insalaco read a proclamation designating October as "Crime Prevention Month" and presented it to Community Resource Coordinator Suzanne Strong. City Manager George Hoffman presented Finance Director Keith Lewis with his 25 year service award. Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell presented Recreation Superintendent Liz Langenbach with the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association "Young Professional of the Year" Award. Ms. Kathy McEwen of The Genesis Project gave a presentation on their efforts to provide food and shelter to the homeless. Councilmember Barker requested the city clerk make sure The Genesis Project receives the information about health and human services funding and its cycle. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Mr. Steve White, 105 N. Delaware, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding the upcoming free family community art shows. Mr. Mitch Pugh, 1998 S. Stardust Drive, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding unwanted solicitors, newspapers and trash in his neighborhood. Mr. Ernest Imbeault, 2835 W. Cody, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding the fun community art shows. Mr. John Kantowski, 835 W. Windsong, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding land purchases by the city and downtown development. Mr. Scott Taylor, 657 E. Linda, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding the Apache Junction Art Festival and gave a financial update on the private event benefitting the community. Mr. Noel Benoist, 900 N. San Marcos #35, Apache Junction, addressed the council regarding state and federal funds for local projects. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CURRENT EVENTS REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 51 None. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager George Hoffman introduced new Assistant to the City Manager Matt Busby, filling the position vacated by Janine Hanna-Solley when she was promoted to Business Advocate.He was previously a fiscal analyst for the Arizona State Joint Legislative Budget Committee.He briefed the council on his previous job responsibilities and his education.He added there are three new recruits that will be entering the academy in November, four laterals in the final testing stages and two laterals in the background stage.This would fill all the current vacancies plus three council -authorized overfill positions.The council's budget package was a key element in allowing the department to compete with others.He commented the Parks and Recreation Commission is seeking input on Silly Mountain Park; the public participation process will begin at the regular meeting of October 3, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the old council chambers on Idaho.The commission is welcoming suggestions from the community on how Silly Mountain Park should be developed.They are also extending an invitation to our Gold Canyon neighbors to offer some input on something that lies between the two communities.There are still 9 slots available for the next Citizens Leadership Institute starting November 15; interested city residents should contact Community Relations Manager Pat Brenner.Apache Junction is getting an emissions testing station; he thanked Representative Pete Rios and Senator Rebecca Rios for their work on that.The city has been trying to get that for several years now.Another person who worked behind the scenes to make it happen was Pinal County Supervisor Sandie Smith.On September 22, 2007, Mayor Insalaco helped out the Habitat for Humanity people here in our community which resulted in a front page story and photo in the AJ News.Grants Specialist Roger Hacker procured a picture and had it framed for the mayor. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE BY SUPERSTITION MOUNTAIN ROTARY CLUB #1246 FOR A MUSIC FESTIVAL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 4 OF 51 )City Clerk Kathleen Connelly briefed the council on the item.She stated it is for a music festival that will be held Saturday, November 3, at the rodeo grounds.There are reports in the packet from internal staff and the fire district, all recommending approval.The applicant has been notified to attend in the event the council has any questions. Mayor Insalaco requested the applicant address the council. Mr. Ron Knies, 11561 E. Kiva, Mesa, addressed the council.He was there to answer any questions.He commented they also do the Lost Dutchman Days and he will be back in a couple of months for that.This is an additional event they have been asked to do this year. Vice Mayor Eck asked if it is in conjunction with another event. Mr. Ron Knies stated it is Ben Johnson Days.It is an eleven -year -old event, but in the past there have been no beer sales.He believes it was previously bring your own stuff in.There was very little control. Mayor Insalaco opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing and opened the item to council discussion.There being no discussion, he called for a motion. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE SUPERSTITION MOUNTAIN ROTARY CLUB #1246 FOR A MUSIC FESTIVAL ON NOVEMBER 3, 2007, SUBMITTED BY RONALD KNIES, BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL. Councilmember Dietz SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous'. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 5 OF 51 The motion carried. ten minute break. meeting. Mayor Insalaco called for a Mayor Insalaco reconvened the RESOLUTION NO. 07-25, DECLARING NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE A PUBLIC RECORD/ORDINANCE NO. 1301, ADOPTING NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION AMENDMENTS BY REFERENCE )Planning Manager Fred Baker briefed the council on the item.He stated the ordinance encourages the preservation of native plants in the city.Staff has researched communities in Arizona that have implemented and worked with native plants.There has been a work session and public hearing with the planning and zoning commission and several work sessions with the city council on the issue.He gave a quick overview of the ordinance.A modified version of the original ordinance is in the packet reflecting the concerns voiced by the city council.They have deleted the provision that it does not apply to residential lots of 1.25 acres or less.The maximum fine per plant has been modified to $5,000. The plants deleted from the protected plants list are the Foothills Palo Verde and Blue Palo Verde with 4" calipers or less, Chain Fruit Chollas, and Desert or Engelmann Prickly Pear Cactus.He commented they received letters regarding these changes that agreed with the council concerns.Council was concerned about the 2 to 1 replacement of a plant dying during transplantation being financially equitable.Staff believes that replacement is very rarely used as plants are usually successful when being transplanted, and it is insurance that they will be transplanted correctly and that they will survive the transplant.More care would be given as they are aware the down side is replacing it with two plants.There is a different process for small home improvements such as driveways, corrals and garages on small lots.They would take a picture of the plant and do a small site plan as they would normally have to do. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 6 OF 51 Vice Mayor Eck asked how this would affect a developer coming in that has to use this process. He asked if there would be additional costs. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated there is no additional permit fee, but there will be additional duty for the landscape architect in regards to a native plant plan to work around or transplant those plants. Vice Mayor Eck commented in his opinion this ordinance would affect the project minimally. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Eck commented they were already doing part of this process anyway and only have to add a little bit to it by protecting native plants. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated that is correct.If there are native plants on .a site the state has a protected list, but they do not have an implementation measure and they do not enforce some of their rules.Most landscape architects will go out and identify all the protected plants because they do not want to get into trouble with the state and they want to make sure those plants do not end up in a nursery without a permit from the state to sell them. Vice Mayor Eck asked if this process would slow the developer down at all. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated it would not.We are not asking for a special permit like other cities are doing.It is being integrated into their requirements for any development proposal.Staff will review the native plant plan along with their landscape plan.The only extra burden is that staff will go out to the site one additional time to look at all of the native plants that have been tagged. Vice Mayor Eck commented he thinks it is a good idea and the ordinance has a little bit of REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 7 OF 51 teeth in it.There was no teeth in the current ordinance from the state. Councilmember Wilson commented they have said the plants would have to be identified when someone goes to clear an already developed property for something such as a corral.He asked what the cost of the permit to do that would be. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated it would be integrated with the building permit.That process is different than a bigger -sized project.He believes it is for 3 acres or under.They would take a picture of the plant and do a site plan that they would have to do anyway for the building permit.It would need to show the footprint of the corral and the architecture of the corral.They would know where the native plants are wherever they disturb the natural dirt. Councilmember Wilson asked if there is a current requirement to come in for a permit if one is putting in a corral. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated they do not.He was thinking of a covered facility. Councilmember Wilson asked what the fee would be if he had to move his corral to another area and he had to get rid of some of the plants. Planning Manager Fred Baker commented state law still allows him to destroy the plants if he wants to.Our ordinance respects that state law, but it is preferable for him to move the plant to another location on site.Most people would want to do that.A picture of the plant would have to be taken and a site plan given on where the plant would be put, especially a saguaro. Councilmember Wilson commented he could understand a saguaro but some of the others he does not see why they are doing it.He commented that in Section 9.0103 it states all other native plants less than 4" caliper trunk or 3' in height will be offered for salvage to REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 8 OF 51 nonprofit organizations a minimum of 30 days prior to scheduled grubbing and grading operations. He asked if that would slow someone down and does it include the palo verde or others that were eliminated. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated the marginal plants that are not transplanted on site should have a nursery or nonprofit organization come and get them because they believe they have value.It would have to be done before they get their grading permit and it usually takes more than 30 days to obtain a grading permit on any size project.He does not believe that would slow them down. Councilmember Wilson asked if the palo verdes less than 4" caliper are included in this statement. There was general discussion as to whether what was included in this section. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated they can modify that to allow whatever size plant they want that are ones they do not want to salvage and want to donate. Councilmember Dietz commented it has to be 4" of greater. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated they want them to protect 4" or greater plants.All native plants with less than 4" caliper are offered to salvage to a nonprofit organization.Those two types of trees are not on the protected list, but there are other types of vegetation that may be measured by the 30" height or the 4" caliper.If it is less than 4" or it is not healthy enough to transplant being in marginal conditions, those are the plants that would be salvaged by the nonprofit organization.The smaller plants are the ones they want them to donate to a nonprofit. Councilmember Dietz commented they are encouraging them, not requiring them. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 9 OF 51 Planning Manager Fred Baker stated that is correct. Councilmember Severs commented the wording is saying it is required.It states they are to be offered, instead of may be offered. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated the offer may not be accepted.They want the best effort to keep the plants alive and find a home for them. Councilmember Wilson commented on page 5 it states that 3 or more plants that are dead or dying will be replaced 2 to one.If they are going down to lots smaller than 1.25 acres, he asked if they could be exceeding the area where they would want to put them due to the replacement trees.The next paragraph states the replanted trees mist survive at least one year or be replaced at one to one.He asked if they would be looking at that tree again one year later. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated that is what they are proposing.There is a provision for overplanting a site that allows the discretion not to require those plants or any area to be overplanted.The landscape architect or plant specialist would make their case. They do not want to over-densify any site. Councilmember Wilson stated he did not see that in there. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated there is a provision in there. Vice Mayor Eck asked where it is located. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated it is 9.0107. Councilmember Severs commented who would be responsible for replacing the trees that do not survive. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 10 OF 51 Planning Manager Fred Baker stated it is the property owner. Councilmember Severs asked if it is the property owner or the developer. Planning Manager Fred Baker asked if that is after a year. Councilmember Severs asked if it was within a year. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated if the project site is accepted and the plant is healthy at that time, then the property owner or ultimate user of the property would be responsible.Once this ordinance is in place, any developer or land purchaser that would be occupying the new building would make sure that the burden would go back on the developer.It would be that they are accepting the landscaping but if something goes wrong with the protected plants, they could put the burden back on the developer. Councilmember Severs asked if he as a developer builds something, and something dies 11 months later, they can call him up and tell him he has to go back out and replant it. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated that is correct if he is the responsible party. Councilmember Severs commented as a developer he is already on to 2 or 3 other jobs after that.He does not have time for that. Planning Manager Fred Baker commented staff research showed that most developers do not get involved in this at all.They hire a landscape contractor. Most developers do not know the details of all these ordinances, whereas the landscape contractors know the details very well. That is where they get their cost estimates from and the impact to developers.It would probably be a call to a landscape contractor to replace the tree or cactus. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 11 OF 51 that would be for another year. stated that is correct. could go on for another 30 years. Councilmember Serdy asked if Planning Manager Fred Baker Councilmember Serdy stated it Planning Manager Fred Baker stated it would not.The attempt is just for one time. Councilmember Barker commented all trees that have been replanted for more than 1 year.That is forever.It does not say up to one year and if they die within that year's time they have to be replaced. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated they could reword the sentence to read all trees that do not survive for one year shall be replaced on a one to one ratio. Councilmember Severs commented he would reduce it down to about six months. Councilmember Wilson commented on page 6, paragraph 5, it states no disturbance within these boundary lines, no plants within this protected area shall be salvaged.He asked what they are supposed to do if it needs to be thinned out.They might have a bunch of cholla growing within the boundary.He has had too many experiences with cholla and a lot of them have.Cholla you do not want.This is saying to him that he has to leave them and he cannot touch them or remove them. Mayor Insalaco stated the chollas are out. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated cholla has been removed from the protected list. Councilmember Wilson stated is states that no plants within the protected area shall be REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 12 OF 51 salvaged or destroyed.He asked if it meant just the protected plants or no plants at all. Planning Manager Fred Baker read the first part of the sentence, which involves natural open space.He stated if they want to protect the natural open space on their plan, and they are not touching any of the plants, and of all those plants there are 5 that are protected, it is the applicant that identifies the area as natural open space.There is developed open space where they could develop the whole site and then come back in and replant it. Councilmember Wilson commented if they have an area that they want to keep as natural open space they still would want the opportunity of removing some of the unwanted plants out there that you do not want exposed to children or adults.He is worried about the wording in there saying no plants shall be salvaged or destroyed. City Attorney Joel Stern commented he thinks that could be interpreted as those plants that are identified within the ordinance. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated they could say all protected plants. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Councilmember Severs asked how much more they are doing than the state does. Planning Manager Fred Baker commented the state allows the plants on private property to be destroyed.On public lands, the state has a lot more protected plants than we have on our list.In both instances, the state has no funding and no staff to inspect.They accept people at their word on what is on the property and being removed, sold or destroyed. Councilmember Dietz commented that is what happened at Tepee and Plaza.They had done all the paperwork, waited the 30 days and the state never inspected it. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 13 OF 51 The state does not have the staff to go out and inspect every job.They then bulldozed all those perfectly good saguaros. Mayor Insalaco commented on Thunderbird behind his business there is 1.5 or 2 acres in property that had at least 20 trees on it.This past week they have all been cut down and piled up into one pile.It is a vacant lot.There had been pretty trees back there. City Attorney Joel Stern stated he could put a slide up that summarizes what the state does. Mayor Insalaco requested he do so. City Attorney Joel Stern commented the state says they can destroy them but they have to do everything on this list. Councilmember Severs stated it is not commercial property. City Attorney Joel Stern stated it is private landowners.If the land is in private ownership, the plants are not transported off the land or offered for sale, and the department of agriculture is notified of the intended destruction, and meets the criteria for the amount of acreage, and the protected plants are destroyed within one year of the notice given to the department, according to the state law it is legal.This ordinance tells people they cannot just destroy them; they have to do some additional things.The city can do that. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly commented page one of what was shown on the overhead states it does not apply to residential lots of 1.25 acres or less.On page 1 section 9.0102, the last sentence, states only it does not apply to 1.25 acre lots.It does not say or less. Vice Mayor Eck and Councilmember Dietz advised theirs was lined out. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 14 OF 51 City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated hers was not. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated at the work session they had two ordinances.One was recommended by the planning commission and it was with what they thought were the recommended changes from the first work session.Tonight they have a recommended one by the city council with highlighted areas for the changes made from the planning commission recommendation.Joel was showing one in the packet that has actually been highlighted.There are two other changes in here that are highlighted or have delete or add. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly commented by deleting this it applies to 1.25 acre lots or less. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Eck asked if there were several palo verdes in the trees that were cut down behind his business. Mayor Insalaco commented there were quite a few. Vice Mayor Eck asked if they would have been following what we currently have in Ordinance No. 940 even with what we have in the new ordinance when they cut down all those young trees. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated they would be seeing a proposal with a new development or redevelopment of a property.This ordinance would be part of that proposal.If an individual on private property decides to cut down their plants, and they happen to be protected by the state, then the state has an issue with them.Mostly the state does not inspect that kind of thing.If they only wanted to cut down the trees, had no project that the city ever saw, there was no notion that they were going to build anything and they destroyed state -protected plants without a permit, they could be in trouble with the state. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 15 OF 51 Vice Mayor Eck commented he could see them wanting to do that for either a building or to keep the transients away.We are big into keeping lots clear and not having abandoned vehicles and that. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated there are two permits in the city.One is a grubbing permit where they clear the property and a grading permit.They are hoping to catch most all new development with the grading permit.When they come in for the grading permit, they would have already had an entitlement on the property, whether it be a rezoning or a building permit project proposal. Councilmember Severs commented he thinks this is a little too much for a person who wants to come in and build a home on their land, especially if they are eliminating the 1.25 acre lots or less.When he bought his lot it was covered in chollas, prickly pears and palo verdes.You could not drive a car on the property.He cleared them.It is his property and he wanted to build his house.He will be paying taxes on the property for the rest of his life. He thinks he should have the right to go in there and clean it and make it look better and safe for his dogs and his kids to run around and play.He thinks it is wrong for the council to mandate this.He did not cut down any of the saguaros.We are the only state in the nation that has them and he wanted to protect them.They are pretty.He thinks they are going too far on private property.If somebody wants to come in and they are doing a development, the city needs a few things and we have Ordinance No. 940.We are telling people they have to plant this many of certain plants.We are covering that as we are making them plant stuff and beautify the land.The guy behind the mayor's shop evidently felt it was necessary for him to go in and clean his lot. Mayor Insalaco stated he did not clean his lot.He just chopped them down and left them there. Councilmember Severs commented he thinks they are making it too difficult.It is more than what the state requires.He thinks they are going a little too far on it.It needs to be simplified. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 16 OF 51 Councilmember Wilson commented a citizen asked him about a saguaro that is close to his house.It has grown to the point now that they are worried about it coming down on his house.Every time the wind blows it bangs into the house.They have contacted several companies to see about taking it out.They have been told it is too close to the house.They could not get it out safely.He wants to cut it down.If this passes, he will cut it down this weekend.He asked if there should be provisions in here if there is a saguaro too close to the house and the cost would be tremendous to move it away.He asked if it could be done without penalties. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated it could still be done even with this ordinance.They have to seek a state permit to destroy the saguaro; that right to destroy a saguaro still remains in place even with this ordinance. Councilmember Wilson asked if they would have to contact the city to get an additional permit from them in order to do this. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated they would not. City Attorney Joel Stern stated there is an exemption under state law for properties under 10 acres.If it is already built on, they do not have to go through the process that he presented them. Councilmember Dietz commented they would still have to get tags or permits to move it or whatever they are going to do with it. Councilmember Wilson commented he understands that he would have to have a tag if he is going to remove it, if he is going to take it down with his truck. City Attorney Joel Stern stated he believes that is correct.If it is 10 acres or less REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 17 OF 51 and he is going to destroy it, he does not think he needs a permit if there is previous construction there, such as a house. Vice Mayor Eck commented he could legally cut it down. Councilmember Wilson asked if he could remove it without any problems at all if this is passed. stated he could. where it says that. stated it is in state law. Planning Manager Fred Baker Councilmember Severs asked Planning Manager Fred Baker Vice Mayor Eck commented it does not have to say it in our ordinance. Councilmember Barker commented Councilmember Wilson brought up a point that in a specific spot it said native plants and did not say protected native plants.As she went through the ordinance, she found that it happens over and over again.She asked if that could be added to the definition.Native plants by definition are anything that grows native here according to the definitions in the back.If he was just talking about native plants, he was right.He would have to put the word protected in front of it, and it happens everywhere throughout this ordinance. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated he has Table 6.1-7 that identifies protected native plants.They distinguish between abundant native plants and specifically protected plants. Councilmember Barker commented that was his point.In some places it just says native plants and when he asked his question it was said that he meant the protected plants.They would have to be very specific in this ordinance as to which places they were talking about all REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 18 OF 51 of the plants that grow in this environment versus those that come under protection.She sees several cases just on page two. One states in no case shall any native plants be removed.She questioned any native plants.Yet in number four it says protected.It goes back and forth.She asked if they need to say protected plants in all of these areas. Planning Manager Fred Baker stated the ordinance intends to address the list of protected plants. Councilmember Barker asked if they would have to add protected to all of these. Planning Manager Fred Baker commented it should say protected in the appropriate places. Councilmember Severs commented this ordinance is not ready to be adopted tonight. Mayor Insalaco commented he sees too many loopholes. City Manager George Hoffman asked if there is an appropriate process for staff to get a sense of the concerns and modify the ordinance and bring it back.He is unclear if they want to do 1.25 acres.It was a commission recommendation. Vice Mayor Eck commented he thought it started at 3 acres. Councilmember Severs commented the state law says 10 acres and we are going to zero, as it is being deleted. City Manager George Hoffman asked what he wanted. Councilmember Severs stated he wanted it left at 10 acres. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 19 OF 51 Vice Mayor Eck commented they have a lot of smaller parcels.He would like to see it at 5 acres. Mayor Insalaco commented he would not go any more than 5 acres.He thought it had been at 3 acres. Vice Mayor Eck commented it was 3 acres, but they have 1.25 acres.It would be better if it was 2.5 acres. Councilmember Barker asked if they are going all the way back to the planning and zoning recommendation. City Attorney Joel Stern commented the council can make a list after the public is heard on this.They can then bring it back with changes.They could make a motion with the general changes and they could bring something back that addresses everything.Or they can take a vote on the original ordinance. Vice Mayor Eck commented they cannot create language and have it correct.They need to stop complaining and specifically tell staff what they feel needs to be revised so they know what will need to be changed.When they bring it back it will have the provisions that the council stated. Councilmember Severs commented if they deleted everything except the saguaros, he would be happy. Councilmembers Barker and Dietz stated that is not going to happen. Councilmember Wilson suggested they put a definition up front stating that when they are talking about native plants, they are talking about only the protected ones in this ordinance.They would not have to go in and make all the changes where in one place it says protected plants and in another it states native plants.It would stop REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 20 OF 51 the bouncing back and forth.They can take care of it with the one step up front. Councilmember Barker commented they could say one thing in the beginning that says the intent of this ordinance is those native plants that are protected under this ordinance. Vice Mayor Eck commented that would be easier than trying to go through each and every item. City Attorney Joel Stern commented that is one point out of many made tonight.It might be better to have a list and then vote on the list and they will continue it and bring it back to a date certain after they have a public hearing on this tonight. Councilmember Barker commented on page five, bullet three, that needs to be rewritten so that we know that it does not go for time eternal. Councilmember Dietz commented it would be for all trees that have been replanted for up to one year. Councilmember Barker added that would be for those that do not survive. Councilmember Serdy commented after two years the developer is exonerated. Councilmember Barker stated it is no longer the developer's responsibility at one year and one day. Councilmember Dietz commented on page six, item five, the last sentence would be applicant is responsible for maintaining this, and put protected in. Councilmember Barker commented protected goes in all over.It seems like if they just put an intent in the beginning it would be easier. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 21 OF 51 Councilmember Dietz suggested they put protected native plants throughout the ordinance wherever it is deemed necessary, and change section 9.0102, last paragraph, native plant preservation shall not apply to any parcel 3 acres or under. Councilmember Barker commented they would also need to do the one that Councilmember Severs brought up about the 2.5 acres that looks like it would go on page one. Vice Mayor Eck commented he said 2.5 acres since they have a lot of 1.25 acre lots here. Councilmember Barker commented on page two, number one, about the third line up from the end of that paragraph should say may be offered instead of are to be offered. Councilmember Severs commented it also says less than a 4" trunk.It should be greater than. There was general discussion from the council about all the revisions. Councilmember Barker asked if they could have it repeated so that they know they have gotten everything. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated she could not as they had been all over the place so much.She is not sure as there were some comments from one end and contradictory comments from the other.She suggested they first do the public hearing and then one at a time say the changes they prefer to have. Mayor Insalaco opened the public hearing on the item. Mr. John Kantowski, 835 W. Windsong, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He requested REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 22 OF 51 the council send the item back to the planning and zoning commission along with the notes from this meeting. Mr. Noel Benoist, 900 N. San Marcos #35, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He stated there were some discrepancies between number thirteen and fourteen when he scrolled down the computer and they need to make sure that they agree before they are passed.He really appreciates all the extra work being done in putting this together and trying to get it right.It is more clear than it was. Mr. Robert Esposito, 3942 N. Rain Cloud Drive, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He stated they have to get this right and it is appropriate to spend a couple more weeks on it rather than to pass it and come back and amend it.It has come along way from where it all started.He would be careful about some parcels being different from other parcels and this is about preserving certain protected plants.Someone splitting a lot into two 1.25 acre lots would still be a developer, as is someone buying a 1.25 acre lot and building a custom home to spec it out.He commented if a plant is worth being protected, it is worth being protected on any size lot.He urged them to stand up for that. They need to be careful with some of the provisions, such as the 2 for 1 provision.If someone is moving things, they will be trying to do the right thing; an extra burden should not be added to make sure it is done right.He is also concerned about the one year thing.The tree could be hit by lightning, and developers will start making the buyers sign things stating they will take care of the plants.There is also the possibility of a plant being killed by the homeowner's dog and the developer would have to replace it.He is concerned about them pitting neighbor against neighbor, also. Ms. Tess Nesser, 1511 S. Cactus, Apache Junction, addressed the council.She is concerned about the 2 for 1 ratio for a year.She just bought a new home and since there is the possibility of having to replace these plants, she commented she may as well get the plants tagged now to say she will get rid of it all.If something dies, she can just get rid of it and not have to worry about REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 23 OF 51 replacing it.There are ways to get around things.Things should be reasonable for people to abide by, not difficult. Mrs. Pat Richmond, 3080 W. 16th Avenue, Apache Junction, addressed the council.She stated there is a property on Cedar Drive where they are building three homes.They destroyed at least 6 gorgeous cacti that had no arms and could have easily been removed.It is not 1.25 acres. The man rented a bulldozer and took everything out.She believes they need to not limit the size as the saguaro cactus is very important. Councilmember Severs asked if she turned him in. Mrs. Pat Richmond stated she did not. Vice Mayor Eck commented she could not as there is no ordinance right now. Councilmember Severs stated she turned him in. did not. it is state law. Mrs. Pat Richmond stated there is, but if we had our own ordinance in place, she would have.She agreed with Mr. Esposito.If the plant is worth saving, she does not care how big a piece of property the plant is on. Mayor Insalaco closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak.He reopened the item to council discussion. Councilmember Barker stated those had been very good comments, especially on putting a size on the lot.The more they talked the more she saw their point. She has not been happy with the 2 to 1 since the beginning. Vice Mayor Eck commented he was not happy with the latter either. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 24 OF 51 Councilmember Barker stated she could live with it if she thought the rest of the council wanted it in order to get the ordinance done and in place. Vice Mayor Eck asked if they could just eliminate the 2 to 1 and make it 1 to 1.He commented 1 acre lots will cover the CR-3 and the general rural. That would cover what Pat and Bob were talking about.He does not think the person who buys the home should have the responsibility of protecting the plant unless they are fully aware of that, as in a saguaro dying in four months after the buyer bought the property six months ago.He was more concerned with the beautiful saguaros on lots like Pat was referring to. City Attorney Joel commented they have another item on the agenda that may take longer than this.He suggested they go down the line and make their comments, referring to the page number, and then make a motion that the comments be incorporated into another draft.They can then bring back the item for a vote on November 6. Councilmember Serdy commented he would like to see them concentrate on the notes already taken. Councilmember Wilson stated he would like see a statement in there regarding their not being responsible for a natural occurrence, whether it be wind blowing it down or some other natural act destroying the plant.If someone owns a house and something happens, whether they eliminate the 2 for 1 or replace it with one, there is still a cost.They have tried to keep the plant alive and have done everything in their power to do it.There should be a provision or an appeal process. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they do have an appeal process. Councilmember Wilson commented that it just states that you have to replace them. Mayor Insalaco commented on the corner of 10th Street and Lawther he had a tree split in REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 25 OF 51 half a couple of weeks ago from lightning.He does not want to have to replace that 25' tree.There has to be something. Councilmember Barker commented she would like to see an intent clause that informs those who read it that references to native plants were protected native plants throughout this ordinance.Any references of 2 to 1 should be changed to 1 to 1.On page 2, number 1, the third sentence from the bottom of that, should have R-2 stricken and the words "may be" added.On page 5, bullet 3, should be rewritten so that the intent is clear. Mayor Insalaco agreed. Vice Mayor Eck agreed with that and that an act of God should be in there. Councilmember Serdy commented he believed the term is act of nature. Councilmember Dietz commented he would like to see the 4" caliper blue and foothill palo verdes put back in. Councilmember Barker commented she thought they already were. There was general discussion regarding the palo verdes.It was found that they are already in the ordinance to be protected. Councilmember Severs commented he would like to see the intent made clear.The intent is to save some of these plants, not to cause an undue burden on the developers.He would like to see it simplified in any way possible.They are saying it will not be a big expense for a developer.For a developer to stop what he is doing to call somebody to correct a problem from a tree that he planted 9 months ago or 6 months ago is a very big expense.It could easily be a $2,000 or $3,000 tree, depending on what they developer is doing at that point in time.He would like to see it where the buyer assumes responsibility.It should not come back on the developer. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 26 OF 51 City Manager George Hoffman asked if they resolved the acreage issue. There was general discussion on the acreage issue.The council consensus was there would be no size limitation; it would be for any lot. City Manager George Hoffman asked staff if they saw any other issues that they talked about for potential revision that they are not clear on the direction and it might not pass with the next revision. Planning Manager Fred Baker commented he thought they had covered everything. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated there has been a lot of focus on residential, but it also applies to commercial.If a plant dies on commercial property, he asked if they would make a developer replace it. Councilmember Severs asked who owns the property now. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated it does not matter.It would be whoever owns the property at the time.If the developer has built the property and moved on, then whoever has bought the property would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping.That is in the landscaping ordinance now, but it is not in the native plant preservation. Mayor Insalaco commented they would not be changing that. There was general discussion by the council.The consensus was that they would not be changing that. Planning Manager Fred Baker commented he wanted to clear up residential developments for track maps.Most developers will not put a protected plant on private property; it would be put in the common open space or perimeter landscaping.On site plants would be maintained by REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 27 OF 51 the homeowners' association.It would be a rare occasion where a protected plant would stay on a private residential lot in the case of a subdivision entitlement. Councilmember Dietz commented when he purchased a new home all the trees and things were guaranteed for a year anyway.One died and the builder came out and replaced it. Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion with no further comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Dietz MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 07-25 BE BROUGHT BACK ON NOVEMBER 6, 2007 WITH THE CHANGES SO GIVEN. There was general discussion on whether the motion for the resolution and ordinance had to be separate.It was determined they could be in the same motion. Councilmember Dietz AMENDED TO ADD ORDINANCE NO. 1301. Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly commented this public hearing will be continued until November 6, 2007. Mayor Insalaco stated that is correct. Councilmember Dietz commented it would be for Resolution No. 07-25 and Ordinance No. 1301. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 1302, AMENDING ARTICLE 9-1 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BY ADDING NEW SECTION 9-1-5 CARGO REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 28 OF 51 CONTAINERS )City Attorney Joel Stern briefed the council on the item.He stated there is a draft dated 9-21-07 in their packet.It has some shading and strikeouts taken from the last discussion.He read off the changes.He commented that if this council passes Ordinance No. 1302 with the residential component, then the next item, Ordinance No. 1309, is needed to change the square footage of the container.They had talked about 120 square feet; it will actually be 160 square feet for an 8' X 20' cargo container.If they have any questions on that, there is a memo in the packet or they can talk to Brad Steinke about it. does not know how many containers per lot, but he would hate to see of the one lot in Maricopa County Vice Mayor Eck commented he they have listed as maximum the city go in the direction near the city limits.They need to address the color if they are used in the city.He showed a picture of a mobile home that does not have a side to it and the people are living off the scrap aluminum from the mobile home.They have 1,500 code cases and they will be continuing with even more.He showed some other pictures of homes and cargo containers.He showed a picture of one lot that had a car cover on a vehicle and commented he thought those had been addressed in the property maintenance standards. Apparently they were not.He would like them addressed as well as the cargo containers.Other pictures were of lots with dead trees and too much stuff on them.People are asking why the city wants to cover cargo containers; he believes they are trying to go in another direction and they are trying to clean the community up.He was concerned about a label he found on a cargo container that stated how they are created and how to make garages out of them.That is not the intent of this ordinance, but that is what was on the container.He asked Jay Reynolds to come up with a screening design.He got with a bonded general contractor who does fencing.They looked at 12' fencing as that is as high as the cargo containers are.The fence would look to ugly.They came up with a 4' stem wall and an 8' iron fence with wood slats.For an 8' X 20' container it would cost about $3,000 for the installation of the gate and fence.Masonry would be extra.If it was straight masonry, they would be looking at $8,000 for the fence.He thinks it looks really good, and he had Joel write up the language for the provision. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 29 OF 51 It would basically protect the city by making sure the wood is taken care of.He read the language written by the city attorney.He thinks the wood fence would be a good alternative for people to use.He believes they should be screened if they are to be allowed.He has seen some communities where they are not screened.Earlier Councilmember Wilson sold him on the residential with his great presentation.Since then, he has changed his mind on the residential and he does not think they should be allowed on residential.The only municipality in the area that allows them on residential is Buckeye.No one else does.They are now working on a code amendment to not allow them anywhere.The screening is the thing that will keep them if they are allowed in the city. Mayor Insalaco opened the public hearing on the item. Mr. Mark Graham, Mobile Mini, 7420 S. Kyrene, Tempe, addressed the council.He stated he obviously has a vested interest in the storage container business.Mobile Mini is the world's leading provider of containers.They have about 180,000 in their fleet across the world.He brought some handouts for the council.The first page emphasizes some of the facts and misunderstandings about the container business that he feels are significant.He fears a lot of misinformation is out there.They are trying to make provisions to things that do not apply.Residential represents about 10% of their business; 90% is commercial application.In addition, 90% of their business is rentals as opposed to outright ownership.The residential is small but get the most attention.It has the most visual impact and must be considered.He asked that they consider the containers in a permanent as averse to a temporary situation.The modifications they are suggesting would make sense for a permanent application.He advised council not to go too far with that. Often things added to the containers will blow off in the wind. Containers can be stuccoed but it is not a very good application.If they rented a container from them, it would need to be returned to them in the condition and color that it was formed.He wanted them to know that they do business with virtually every type of business that is out there.It is mostly temporary, and 60% of the containers used are 40' containers.The smaller 20' container is often used in REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 30 OF 51 residential areas but is mostly used for smaller building products and smaller applications.Provisions need to be made for larger containers as that is the reality.He believes the council fears that they will find containers virtually everywhere if left uncontrolled.The reality is that this is a business based upon needs and what the customer needs is something temporary to fill a temporary need.Containers allow businesses to do business in a profitable and productive manner in order to generate tax revenue.He had included a chart in the handout which shows how many containers are typically used in applications, how long they are used plus additional details. There is a need in the city for these containers. Vice Mayor Eck asked if the city is considered one of the more user-friendly communities for storage containers when compared to other communities Mr. Mark Graham stated a lot of communities are addressing this.The reality is that no matter what laws or ordinances are in place, the containers are still there.There is a need for them.He believes the council is trying to achieve some teeth in order to address those concerns where they have gotten out of control, if they have gotten out of control.His expertise is acquisitions; he buys companies throughout the country.Part of the process is to go out into the field and find the cargo containers that the businesses have.Apache Junction is no different than any other community.He applauded the council for trying to get a handle on it.Left uncontrolled, it could become a mess.The reality is the customers need them for a short period of time when they need them, and they could not imagine all the applications where people use these. Vice Mayor Eck commented the ordinance mainly pertains to permanent structures.They expect the minis to be used in many areas because of the slight amount of time which is usually 7 to 14 days. Mr. Mark Graham stated that is a different business.It is more of the moving type of a business; theirs is more commercial, business and industrial applications. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 31 OF 51 Vice Mayor Eck commented they had something in there for floods or emergencies. Mr. Mark Graham stated they can bring containers out to help homeowners in the case of emergencies.They can store their furniture and things like that.Most of the applications are for longer terms, averaging 18 months.They are sometimes as short as a month. Mr. Noel Benoist, 900 N. San Marcos #35, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He cautioned there was a conflict between number 15 and number 16 as far as things that were stricken and altered.They need to make sure the two of them agree once they are made into law.He commented the presentation by Councilmember Wilson was excellent.Nobody wants a container situation like the one pictured on the front of the AJ News, including the graffiti. Everyone he knows that has one wants to enhance them and use them to enhance the property.They have to do this according to the law as far as reasonable use and not preventing reasonable use or making things economically infeasible.There are facades that look like wood, rock and brick.They have held up under hurricane winds.They can be decorated much cheaper than building a screen wall.They have their safety factors and are more or less burglary proof. Mr. Conrad Pisinski, 1069 W. 14th Avenue, Apache Junction, addressed the council.If they want these containers, they should be in the larger areas, such as the horse properties.They do not belong in the residential area.These things need to be covered up.There is an ordinance on metal buildings; they must have three-quarters of it covered.If they do not do the same with the containers it might not stop a person from challenging the other ordinance they have on the construction of metal buildings. Mr. John Kantowski, 835 W. Windsong, Apache Junction, addressed the council.He was in the issue before he received a letter from the city.He has since removed his container and erected a steel building.The last time the council heard this they set up a 90 -day moratorium on enforcing this.A lot of letters went out but none of them received a second later advising them of what council was doing. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 32 OF 51 He thinks someone should have sent letters out to advise people they had a 90 days.It would have been a good way to communicate what the council was doing.He looked the containers up on the internet and gave the council some facts and figures on them.He commented there is 7 million of them with a trade in balance from China.Only 2 million have gone back.It is cheaper to build them and leave them here and find uses for them all over.There is a need for it someplace, whether or not the council accepts them for residential. Mayor Insalaco closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak.He reopened the item to council discussion. Councilmember Wilson commented when they proposed this it was for half acre and larger lots.A 7,000 square foot property will not be included in this group.One of the conditions states there are to be no city code violations whatsoever on the property.He knows that he himself has some things in violation on his property.When he purchased the property, he did not know they were.He is not out there trying to break the law.He is a homeowner that has a floodlight that lights up his arena that does not meet the dark sky rules.He asked if they could change the condition to state that if there are some found that they be corrected instead of taking the $100 and walking away and saying no because they have violations on the property. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they can change anything they want in the ordinance.It could be changed to there are no city code property maintenance violations or all code violations shall be corrected within 30 days of the granting of the permit.It is up to him. Councilmember Wilson asked what a parapet is. Development Services Director Brad Steinke stated it is an architectural term which is a roof element that runs like a band across the top of a building, oftentimes hiding the flat roof tops.In this particular ordinance they may have a parapet as sort of a top or cap to the structure itself. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 33 OF 51 Councilmember Wilson commented on page 3, G, it states it is located behind the main structure in the backyard.Some of the large lots have the houses located in areas where the backyard can become confusing. If someone lives on a north side road and the house is supposed to face west but it has been turned backwards so they can look at the Superstitions, it becomes confusing as to what is the front yard and what is the backyard.He suggested adding "if possible or be properly screened if located in the front yard behind the setback requirements." Vice Mayor Eck commented this actually started with the first motion for commercial, industrial, schools and church areas only, also known as quasi- public.In talking with the general contractor earlier about the screening, he felt like the city would be better off building something around them rather than connecting something to them.It would be safer. Councilmember Severs commented on page 2 it states the purpose and intent.He read the language.He asked what the intent is here.They have already determined that there is a need for these in our community.There must be a need or they would not have approximately 300 of them in the community right now. Vice Mayor Eck commented three hundred, it keeps going up. Mayor Insalaco commented it keeps going up. Councilmember Severs commented that is the same number he has been using since the beginning.There is 180 of them are rented.There is approximately 300 of these in the community.He has taken a picture of over 120 of them already.We have approximately 300 people in our community that will be affected by what we do tonight.The intent clause states it is to strike a balance between use and aesthetics.The whole thing was brought up so that the people who need these things, which are usually the people on larger lots, the equestrian people for the storage of food without being eaten by rats, would be able to keep them and REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 34 OF 51 use them.The other people who do not like looking at them would not have to.They could be made aesthetically pleasing. It seems as though this council has completely not heard any of that.They have not heard any of the balance between use and aesthetics.There is a way for everybody to be happy.There is a way to help the citizens that need this without hurting the citizens that do not want to look at these. Vice Mayor Eck asked what that way is. Councilmember Severs stated there are several options.They can enforce the screening. They can use his ideas on the screening.The fence that he put there is beautiful.They can façade them or paint them to match a house or enhance them.They already have all the language that is needed.It is under the metal structures.If they have a metal building in the community, three-quarters of it, or 75%, has to be covered with other materials such as stone, wood, brick or stucco to make it more aesthetically pleasing.The language is already there, whether it pertains to a box that is delivered and set down or a box that you build.There is no difference.What they are doing tonight will affect people. They need to find a way to help the people that need it without hurting the people that do not want to see that.We can do that if they start thinking outside the box, start being creative and start thinking about why they are here.They are not here to punish people in the community for doing something they did not know was illegal, to punish them for doing something that they need.They passed the property maintenance standards.They do not want anyone storing anything outside.They do not want buildings that are dilapidated, rusting, have trim falling off, rotting wood or with shingles falling off.Those pictures showed by the vice mayor are all in violation.He was right about the one where he said they have too much junk and it looks terrible.But they could have all that stuff stored in a container that has been made aesthetically pleasing. Vice Mayor Eck commented it is a 7,000 sq.ft. lot. Councilmember Severs commented that it would not apply there.He asked what about REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 35 OF 51 the people that live on different lots where it would fit, the people who already have them and need them. Vice Mayor Eck commented the point he was trying to make on why they should be screened is that there are currently 1,500 violations out there that staff is trying to work on.It would split the community because they want to clean up.He is just saying that if they are allowed, they be allowed under certain guidelines. Councilmember Severs commented exactly.He would like them to give the community another tool to clean up.He would much rather look at a cargo container that has been made to look better than to look at stuff stored outside all over the place. Mayor Insalaco commented he thinks they are still missing the point.If anybody in this council chamber or in the city does not think we are being watched by other communities, they have another guess coming. The city is hoping to get the Superstition Vistas land to the south.There is a mayor from west of the city who had a meeting with him and asked if the cargo containers had passed.That is all they are waiting for, to find out if the cargo containers passed.All they would have to do is go to State Land and ask if they would like the land down south to look like boxcar junction like Apache Junction has over there.We have more than just 150 people to worry about.We have the whole community. There is 35,000 people living here.They are hoping to get more land and we will have boxcars in Apache Junction.He asked if they wanted to have two Apache Junctions, the old and the new. They are trying to keep it one.He commented Councilmember Severs stated there are 300 containers in the city.He asked how many of them are actually residential property. Councilmember Severs stated about half of them.He just talked about someone missing the point.Everything that he just said was looking at a boxcar. They are not looking at a boxcar.They are looking at a storage shed that has been made to look like a storage shed.He asked if Quonset huts are illegal in the community.They are out there and have not been made aesthetically pleasing. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 36 OF 51 Mayor Insalaco commented he does not think this is going to go anywhere. Vice Mayor Eck commented he is still waiting for the answer from Councilmember Severs.He sounds very passionate about it but he does not understand what his answer is. Councilmember Severs stated the answer is very simple.There is a way to allow this to help the people that need them and make them more aesthetically pleasing.He asked if anybody heard what he just said. Mayor Insalaco stated they did. Councilmember Severs commented that they just refuse to listen. Mayor Insalaco stated that is not correct. Councilmember Barker commented or they just disagree. Mayor Insalaco stated they just disagree; they are not refusing to listen. not correct. commented or they just disagree. Councilmember Severs commented they are refusing to listen that they can be made aesthetically pleasing. Councilmember Wilson commented they are not talking about leaving them the same except for in emergency situations.He is talking about making them look so that they will enhance the property.They could be allowed so that they could be put in there and be used.There is a use for them.He had mentioned the fact that he would not want to store hay in them.He could see where he would not want to.In his situation, the amount of hay he gets would not fit into one.It still comes down to their being very strong, usable, and will protect whatever they have in them.They can make them enhanced so that they are pleasing to look at.They REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 37 OF 51 are not just stating that they want to have cargo containers in the city all over the place.They are putting rules towards them. Councilmember Serdy commented the mayor to the west probably just read the headline and does not realize they would be made invisible. Vice Mayor Eck commented no one would recognize that until they do it. CourIcilmember Serdy stated people might want to follow us if we come up with something. Councilmember Severs commented they are all over already.If they do something to create a way to make them look nicer, he would be right. Councilmember Serdy commented he does not think any of them want to see boxcars anywhere. They want to see them with facades. Vice Mayor Eck asked what he meant when he said facades and if he agreed with the wood and masonry fence. Councilmember Serdy stated that looked good, but a lot of people could not afford that.If they could not afford that, they would not be allowed to have one. Councilmember Wilson commented a cargo container is going to be quite expensive to start out with. City Attorney Joel Stern commented that when a motion is made, he would like the changes that are listed in draft 9-21-07 and any additional things they may want to add.Also, they need to change the one by removing it from I and putting under the commercial to make it more clear. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 38 OF 51 Vice Mayor Eck asked where that was. City Attorney Joel Stern stated it is on page 3 of 7, but it is not listed here as it came up as a last minute item. Councilmember Severs commented they have a printout presenting the other jurisdictions at a glance.He stated they are allowed in Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Pinal County, Coconino County, and Yavapai County.They all allow them except for Gilbert. Mayor Insalaco asked where. Councilmember Severs commented it may be different as to where but that is because of where we are.He asked if Avondale has a large equestrian community.It does not.None of them do because they have all driven out the horses.They have driven out most of the large lots.They have driven away the people that have a use for these things.He asked if they would do the same thing to them. He hoped they would not.We are unique.We have people that have a need for these things.Let us be leaders and do something unique; find a way to take a situation and make it work.We always talk about a win/win situation.The picture behind them George described as a vision of what we are as a community.We are a community that likes to help people. Mayor Insalaco agreed. Councilmember Severs stated we are not helping people tonight if we do not vote for this. Councilmember Barker commented in the beginning of this whole thing, after she came on board, she was willing to compromise and go 1.25 acres and industrial and commercial.Now the containers are bigger and the lots are smaller.She cannot do that.She has no intention of driving horse people off.She wanted them to be able to have it, but she will not go any smaller than 1.25 acres.She thinks REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 39 OF 51 that he should listen to them, too, because they did try to compromise here. Mayor Insalaco commented that it kept changing. Councilmember Wilson commented that they allow horses and livestock down to a half acre. Councilmember Barker stated she said that 1.25 acres was as far down as she would go. Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Wilson MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1302 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilmember Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read the ordinance by title only. Councilmember Wilson MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1302, AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK, BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:THAT PARAGRAPH 9-1-5-3(D) AND 4(D), THAT IT READ THAT ALL CITY CODE VIOLATIONS BE CORRECTED WITHIN 30 DAYS BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PERMIT; 9-1-5-3(G) TO ADD "IF POSSIBLE AND BE SCREENED FROM VIEW"; 9-1-I, THAT "I" FROM THE RESIDENTIAL BE MOVED OVER INTO THE COMMERCIAL, STOPPING AT THE CITY PRIVELEGE LICENSE. Councilmember Severs SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:3-4 (Mayor Insalaco, Vice Mayor Eck and Councilmembers REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 40 OF 51 Barker and Dietz voted in opposition. (Councilmember Dietz stated "I think there are other alternatives with the input I have gotten from the community and from the League of Cities and Towns, so I am voting no.") The motion failed. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1302, AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK, BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:31 BE MOVED FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL; OTHERS LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED AND THE LANGUAGE IS STRICKEN; STRIKE SECTION 9-1-5(3); MAKE SURE THAT IT IS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES AND QUASI -PUBLIC AREAS; AND THAT THE APPROPRIATE SCREENING SHOULD BE REQUIRED AND NOT ATTACHED TO THE CONTAINER BUT RATHER SURROUNDING THE CONTAINER, WHETHER IT IS THE ALTERNATIVE USING THE FENCING ABOVE THE STEM WALL OR IF THEY PREFER TO BUILD A COMPLETE WALL. Councilmember Barker asked if he had stricken number 3 on page 2 of 7 which goes clear to the top of page 4 of 7. Vice Mayor Eck commented he was just trying to remove the residential. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that would do that.It would be renumbered. Vice Mayor Eck commented he thinks the screening should surround them rather than someone having to paint them or add stucco.There is an engineered way for the occupant to come in and get this without having to get an engineer to design the wall.It would be a simpler process. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly commented the vice mayor had referenced a definition of the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 41 OF 51 alternate screening that talks about maintaining it.She asked if he wished to include that. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED TO AMEND HIS MOTION BY ADDING TO INCLUDE AS AN ALTERNATE TO AN 8'6" HIGH BLOCK WALL, THE CARGO CONTAINER CAN BE SCREENED WITH A METAL FRAME FENCE WITH WOOD SLATS AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS REQUIRED FOR THE BLOCK WALL NOTED ABOVE.SUCH BARRIER SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND REPAIRED AS NECESSARY TO AVOID BEING CHARACTERIZED AS BLIGHT, AS DEFINED IN APACHE JUNCTION CITY CODE SECTION 9-1- 2(C). City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated she understood he wants to strike section 9-1-5 clear up to the top of page 4 of 7. City Attorney Joel Stern stated it should only be subsection 3, not the entire section. Councilmember Severs asked if they are deleting everything for temporary use on residential. Vice Mayor Eck stated they are not.Temporary use is still in there. Councilmember Severs commented it states in section H that if it is for more than 60 calendar days the homeowner shall comply with the permit requirements set forth in section 5.That is being deleted. City Attorney Joel Stern stated if subsection 3 is going away, then H is going away, too. Vice Mayor Eck AMENDED HIS MOTION TO REMOVE EVERYTHING FROM SECTION 3 EXCEPT SUBSECTION H AS THAT IS FOR THE EMERGENCY ACCOMODATION. Councilmember Barker stated that is H and I both. Vice Mayor Eck AMENDED HIS MOTION TO REMOVE EVERYTHING FROM SECTION 3 EXCEPT SUBSECTIONS H AND I BOTH. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 42 OF 51 City Attorney Joel Stern stated they go to residential. Vice Mayor Eck stated they are only for temporary. City Attorney Joel Stern asked if he wanted H and I to apply to commercial, industrial, public and quasi -public properties. Mayor Insalaco stated it should also apply to residential in case of an emergency. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated that use currently exists now. Councilmember Severs commented they need to get rid of the last sentence which states it is in set forth in subsection 5 below.There should be something that states that they can apply for a 30 day extension.If they cannot get it done in 60 days, it does not apply to subsection 5 if it is gone. City Attorney Joel Stern asked what is on the floor. Vice Mayor Eck commented he has item 3 which strikes everything except H and I. Councilmember Barker commented they would have to put a period after calendar days, or a comma, as a resident could apply for an additional 30 day extension. Vice Mayor Eck AMENDED HIS MOTION TO ADD THAT ON H, AFTER THE TIME PERIOD OF 60 CALENDAR DAYS, THAT A HOMEOWNER CAN APPLY FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION IF NECESSARY. Councilmember Barker commented they still have references to 3(A),(B),(D),(E), and (G)in H. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 43 OF 51 City Attorney Joel Stern stated since they do not exist they can clean that up. Councilmember Barker stated it is also in the end of I. Councilmember Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:3-4 (Mayor Insalaco and Councilmembers Barker, Dietz and Wilson voted in opposition.) (Councilmember Severs stated "I would like to say something before I vote.When the residents of this community that voted for us come in and have to take these things off their property, I would like for you guys to look them in the eye and screw them like you are doing tonight, not make staff do it.I vote yes.") (Councilmember Wilson stated "I want to make a quick statement.If we are going to not allow them in residential, and we are going to allow them in commercial, that is saying that we are not following the people that have voted for us and to represent us.I really think that we lost an opportunity for our residential people that live on the large lots that have a legitimate use for them.I am going to vote no.") The motion failed. Councilmember Severs commented that basically everybody that has them in our community has to take them out and get rid of them.He asked if that is just what happened. Mayor Insalaco commented something is wrong because that is not what he wanted. City Attorney Joel Stern stated he can call for another motion. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 44 OF 51 City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated with the two votes they have just taken, it means that Ordinance No. 630 stands as it is. Councilmember Barker commented it just reverts back to the original ordinance. Councilmember Severs asked if they all have to go away. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated they do except for the two or three that were made legal in 1988. ORDINANCE NO. 1309, AMENDING ARTICLE 7-1 BUILDING AND TECHNICAL CODES SECTION 7-1-2 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (1997 EDITION), CHAPTER 3 PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS, SECTION 301.2.1 BUILDING PERMITS ) )City Attorney Joel Stern briefed the council on the item.Because this is on the agenda there should still be public input on it even though this was contingent to the previous item being passed.He believes there should also be a vote on this item. Mayor Insalaco opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing and opened the item to council discussion. City Attorney Joel Stern stated if there is no motion that takes care of the item. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated if there is no motion and no second it just dies. Councilmember Severs asked why this was put on the agenda.He does not understand why if they were going to allow a shipping container or a cargo container that they would have to change the size of our building permit requirement.He does not understand how they go hand -in -hand.In light of the fact that people will have to REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 45 OF 51 remove their cargo containers, they will have to be building a storage shed.Maybe they should consider increasing the square footage so that they do not have to go through the whole permit process to be able to build a shed to put everything in of what they are going to have to take out of the cargo containers. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated the language in here is specific to cargo containers. City Attorney Joel Stern repeated he could call for a motion; if there is no motion the matter dies and we go on to the next item. There was general discussion about whether they wanted a motion or not. Councilmember Severs MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1309 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilmember Dietz SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read the ordinance by title only. Councilmember Severs MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1309, AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK, BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:THAT THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 120 SQUARE FEET BE MODIFIED TO 320 SQUARE FEET. Councilmember Wilson SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:3-4 (Mayor Insalaco, Vice Mayor Eck and Councilmembers Barker and Dietz voted in opposition.) The motion failed. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 46 OF 51 OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH IEG,LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE AND LONG-TERM SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM )City Attorney Joel Stern commented they have already started the contract and they are working with the council.He has a meeting with them at 9:30 tomorrow morning and they are starting to negotiate the contract. City Manager George Hoffman stated someone who knows what is going on needs to address that. He thought they were seeking council approval to potentially advance this item. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated it says council direction to staff but anticipation because the contract was not to the approval of the city attorney.In the event the council did say yes, it would be getting done. Councilmember Dietz commented they have been working out the contract language because of the price we got some time ago.We want to get going with it in order to hold that price. City Manager George Hoffman commented he believes that an integral component of making this approach work is the staff commitment that the consultant recommended.If they are desirous of doing that, they can make it work internally.Phoenix is laying off, separating from service and not hiring to fill vacancies about 100 people in their development services department in response to the housing REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 47 OF 51 slowdown.They run that as a enterprise fund; Apache Junction does not.This is not an item that they budgeted for.He is the self -designated defender of the contingency fund so he wants to discharge his obligatory role.He is cautious about the economy.On the other hand, if they want to grow a revenue source, this is the way to do it.It is their policy call. Councilmember Dietz commented it is just an opportunity to grow revenue with a sponsorship. City Manager George Hoffman stated it is a long-term approach.He may have to hit the brakes in a short-term financial response later in the year. They do not have a good read on revenues right now because we have changed how we are collecting taxes.We had a great month but they think it is an artifact of the tax collection system. They do not really know where they are in terms of revenues. Councilmember Dietz commented he feels the time is right for us to proceed with this.This was listed as a council priority for the first quarter. Vice Mayor Eck asked how much it will cost. City Attorney Joel Stern stated it is about $105,000. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell added it is also the full time position.He and Brad have worked on operationalizing the plan. Councilmember Dietz asked if they can make that happen. Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell stated they can. Councilmember Dietz asked if staff is looking for direction to proceed. City Manager George Hoffman stated that is correct. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 48 OF 51 Councilmember Dietz stated he thinks it is a good opportunity with the land south of the freeway starting.If they can get this developed and going, the return on the investment was anywhere from 12 to 18 months approximately.They do not know for sure, but that is the average return that they see.He thinks they need to get going and that it will be additional funds for the city in the long run.The time is right. Mayor Insalaco closed the discussion with no further comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Dietz MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH IEG, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE AND LONG-TERM SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM:TO PROCEED. Councilmember Wilson SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:6-1 (Councilmember Barker voted in opposition.) SELECTION OF MEETING DATES, TIMES, LOCATIONS, AND PURPOSES Councilmember Dietz MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M. AND A WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M. BE HELD ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2007, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, RESPECTIVELY; AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M. BE HELD ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM. Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. ADJOURNMENT the meeting at 10:32 p.m. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 49 OF 51 )Mayor Insalaco adjourned Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1. Acceptance of Agenda. 2. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 18, 2007. 3. Consideration of Professional Services Agreement With East Valley Senior Services, Inc. for the Ride Choice Program for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 4. Resolution No. 07-37, authorizing submittal of Fiscal Year 2008 Local Transportation Assistance Fund II grant application. 5. Consideration of Resolution No. 07-42, Establishing the Official Locations for the Posting of Public Documents and Other Materials of Interest to the General Public. ACCEPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 16TH DAY OF OC KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 50 OF 51 ill 0-1,1V4iz2N 5: INSALACO ayor ER, 2007 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 2nd day of October, 2007.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 10th slay of October, 2007. KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2007 PAGE 51 OF 51