Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-07 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 7,2006 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on March 7,2006,at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Coleman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Councilmember Insalaco gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Sippel led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present:Mayor Coleman Councilmember Dietz Councilmember Insalaco Councilmember Severs Councilmember Sippel Councilmember Waldron Staff Present: (Vice Mayor Eck was out-of-state for a medical appointment.) City Manager George Hoffman Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Joel Stern Public Safety Director Glenn Walp City Engineer Ron Grittman Library Director Pam Loui REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 1 OF 48 Others Present: Community Relations Manager Patrick Brenner Business Advocate Amy Malloy Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias Sergeant Gary Elkins Associate Planner Charles Beck Youth Services Librarian Liz Burks ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Councilmember Dietz MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED:AND THAT RECEIPT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT TO THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2005,BE ACKNOWLEDGED:AND THAT APPROVAL BE GIVEN FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE , CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION AND GREG MAREK FOR CONSULTATION SERVICES FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,961.75:AND THAT AUTHORIZATION BE GIVEN FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT;AND THAT APPROVAL BE GIVEN TO CONTINUE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION AND RICHARD+BAUER FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING WORK FOR THE LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $387,000;AND THAT APPROVAL BE GIVEN TO CONTINUE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION AND PINNACLE ONE FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT WORK FOR THE LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT,INCLUDING MANAGING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIBRARY EXPANSION,IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $189.700:AND THAT APPROVAL BE GIVEN TO INCREASE THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIZED PAYMENT TO NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION (NIC)TO COVER ADDITIONAL EXPENSES OUTSIDE THE ORIGINAL SCOPE OF WORK ADDRESSING BUILDING SAFETY MEASURES IN THE CITY HALL/MUNICIPAL COURT COMPLEX IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $29,650;AND THAT APPROVAL BE GIVEN TO INCREASE THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIZED AMOUNT TO CORE CONSTRUCTION TO COVER ADDITIONAL EXPENSES ADDRESSING MAJOR CHANGE ORDERS RELATED TO UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS,PROJECT ENHANCEMENTS,AND REDUCED OR OFFSET COSTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $316,782. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 2 OF 48 Councilmember Waldron SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Community Relations Manager Patrick Brenner announced that there will be 154 graduates of the Citizens Leadership Institute with the conclusion of the most recent institute.Mayor Coleman presented Certificates of Achievement to 21 graduates of the Eighth Citizens Leadership Institute. Library Director Pam Loui gave a presentation on the "Hand -in -Hand Early Literacy Center".The center is being funded through an LSTA grant for $25,000.The library has an agreement with Burgeon Group for $23,500,the designers and fabricators of the intensive learning center,being created for children ages birth through age 5.I t is designed to help them learn reading readiness skills.Staff has been pleased with the design seen thus far.They have been offered some options that blended well with the center,which were also presented to the Friends of the Library group whom has agreed to help fund them.The option added will cause them to exceed the $25,000 already approved.They intend to come back with an addendum to the agreement for council consideration at the next council meeting.She commented the Friends of the Library president,Shirley Dewey,will be presenting a check to the city to assist in funding.She stated they hope to have the center in place by the end of the second quarter of this year.They will receive an invitation to the opening. Friends of the Library President Shirley Dewey presented the city with a check for $4,000 to assist in funding the center. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Mr.Elliott Fisher,547 E.Quail,Apache Junction,Greater Apache Junction Association for Effective Government,addressed the council regarding the fees for the Multi -generational Center.He claimed he never got a reasonable answer for his perception of the center being $2 million over budget,and he believes the fee is helping to pay for the construction of the center. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 3 OF 48 Mr.Zel Gernhart,3700 S.Tomahawk #19,Apache Junction,addressed the council regarding the grading of the space between Quail Run Park and Apache Villas East on Tomahawk.He thanked the city for cleaning up the mess between the two parks today.He had been requesting i t for a couple of years.He had talked to a Pinal County supervisor 3 weeks ago who stated he was going to talk to Apache Junction about a cooperative effort but nothing happened.He appreciates the city taking care of the county's and city's responsibility. He added his home was burglarized on January 16 after a truck backed up to their wall,broke into their house in the city through property in Apache Villas East in Pinal County,and took $3,000 to $4,000 in materials out of their house.A dump truck driver suggested to him that the city put a gate or chain on both ends of the controversial space between the two parks to prevent any traffic going through.Their manager has filed a written request to both jurisdictions requesting such.He has not had a response.They need both ends blocked off to prevent any more burglaries. Mr.Dan Wald,560 N.Rennick Dr.,Apache Junction,addressed the council regarding heritage.He commented on the University of North Dakota hockey team being called the Fighting Sioux and the National Collegiate Athletic Association not liking the name.He added the city is the last bastion of the real West.The city does not have to advertise that,unlike other communities.The city does not have the problem of trying to maintain its identify like Chandler,Queen Creek and Scottsdale.He suggested they drive to Queen Creek to see why they are losing their identity.He commented they would be looking at PZ-20-05 later tonight.which was rejected by the planning and zoning commission and rightfully so.Originally the developer wanted 20 units and he has revised it to 18 units,none of which are 1 acre to 1.25 acres.Three fit the criteria,and according to our general plan that criteria was not listed.He suggested they bring i t to the citizens for comment before they vote yes on the rezoning.He reminded them there had been 550 petitions signed against this rezoning and there is an election coming up. Mr.Dan Taylor,Executive Director for Mesa Senior Services,addressed the council.He read a letter from the president of their board of directors informing the city of its selection to receive their Big Heart Award for 2006. It is given to a business,organization,agency or professional group that has provided generous support for programs for older adults throughout the East Valley.The 10 -year relationship with the city was recognized,growing from a minimal program the first year to the current senior center housed at the new Multi -generational Center,accommodating their staff offices,classrooms,and REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 4 OF 48 a full -service kitchen.Funding from different sources supports programs and services for older citizens,including congregate and home -delivered meals, outreach services,transportation,etc.He commented the city is worthy of this award because i t recognized that as people age,older adults need a senior center to receive services and programs to help them live independently in their homes in the community they choose to live in.He invited everyone to their appreciation event on April 6 to say thank you for serving older adults living in Apache Junction.He then gave the council the letter and the invitation. Mr.Skip Aragon,457 S.Lawson Drive,Apache Junction,addressed the council regarding the kennel noise and smell from the dog track.He and his wife have been requesting the city do something about the kennels for 13 years.Live racing at the dog track has ended but the city allows the race track to board dogs now.They board hundreds of dogs in the kennels which are 20 feet from their and their neighbor's properties.The smell is terrible,there are flies and diseases;his dogs have contracted distemper twice from the boarded dogs. They and the neighbors have met with the city several times and felt strongly the city would do something about this,but it was quite the contrary.Animal control sat out front of their house for a month in 2003 to monitor the wind to determine the smell,but at those times the wind was blowing in the opposite direction.He feels the city is trying to bandage the situation and make them feel like they are doing something about it when they are really not.He begged the city to do something about the kennel.They would like to build a home there and take off their mobile;all the homes on the dog track perimeter are mobiles.He commented he likes the name of the city and heard that one of the reasons someone wants to change the name is because the city is known for mobiles.He encouraged the city to do something to help the people with mobiles be encouraged to take the mobiles out and build homes.A lot of people in the neighborhood are doing that.He would like to take out his septic and get on the sewer system,but they need the city to do something about the kennels. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 5 OF 48 LICENSE BY SUPERSTITION H.O.G.CHAPTER INC.FOR A SUPPORT COMMUNITY AND ARIZONA BIKE WEEK TO BE HELD MARCH 31,2006 )City Clerk Kathleen Connelly briefed the council on the item.She stated this is an application filed in conjunction with Arizona Bike Week,a one day event at the end of the month. The packet contains responses from the fire district and the planning division,neither of which has any objections to the issuance of a license. The applicant has been notified of tonight's public hearing and asked to be present in the event of questions. Mayor Coleman requested the applicant address the council. Mr.Mark LeResche,2910 W.Apache Trail,Apache Junction,addressed the council.He stated Arizona Bike Week will be the biggest motorcycle event in the state for the month of March.He commented their advertising and marketing director,Sabrina Miller,was in attendance,along with their H.O.G.chapter director,the chairman of the event.They are requesting this license to serve beer for four hours,from 4 p.m.to 8 p.m..on March 31 for this event. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion.There being no discussion,he called for a motion. Councilmember Insalaco MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE BY SUPERSTITION H.O.G. CHAPTER INC.FOR A SUPPORT COMMUNITY AND ARIZONA BIKE WEEK SUBMITTED BY MARK ALAN LE RESCHE BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL. Councilmember Severs SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.1260,CASE PZ-20-05,REQUEST REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 6 OF 48 BY FRANK DELL'ARMI TO REZONE A 20 ACRE PARCEL FROM R1-43 TO R1-43/PD,LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TOMAHAWK ROAD AND LOST DUTCHMAN BLVD.,FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A SUBSEQUENT SINGLE FAMILY HOME SUBDIVISION )Associate Planner Charles Beck briefed the council on the item.He stated the applicant is asking for a rezoning at this time subject to the concept plan and stipulations.A more detailed preliminary and final plat process will follow if approved.This is an infill land proposal.The parcels are undeveloped and there are several topographic and flood zone features throughout the site.To the west is Arizona state land zoned GR with a minimum of 1.25 acre parcels,northwest is the rodeo grounds which is Bureau of Land Management land zoned R1-43/PD,and north is Arizona State Trust land zoned R1-43/PD zoned and designated minimum 1 acre parcels.East is property zoned CB -1 and south is R1-43 single family homes.On February 22 the applicant revised the landscape plan and buildable areas.The applicant is now proposing to provide sewer to the development,to provide a disclosure statement within the development's covenants,conditions and restrictions concerning the adjacent city rodeo park,and allow two-story homes only on lots 9,10,14,15 and 16.He is also reducing the original proposal of 20 lots down to 18 lots.Citizen petitions have been attached to the staff report and attached to the memo.Protests have been filed and the code requires the signatures of 20% or more of the real property owners adjacent to within 100'of the subject site in order to cause a three-quarter vote of council approval.To date,four owners comprising 17.69%have filed a protest.State and federal land staff have not replied,therefore the case does not comply with the 20%and will not be subject to a three-quarter vote. Following the work session,the stipulations have been revised,including stipulation 17 which calls for the disclosure of the proximity of the rodeo grounds.Other stipulations are that they be custom homes of southwestern architecture and be no smaller than 2,500 sq.ft.,all applicable development fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits,the undulating, decorative masonry/wrought iron fence reflecting the design on the submittals will be on the property,the development shall include one exterior and one interior equine trail,horse privileges are permitted but there shall be no commercial boarding,equine structures include corrals,barns,and shades must be in the lot buildable areas of usable space with barns being setback at least 40'from any property line,only split rail fences shall be permitted along property lines aside from development perimeter walls,and developers REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 7 OF 48 shall record on each parcel in the covenants,conditions and restrictions,an additional note on the recorded final plat and provide to the public report submitted pursuant to Arizona statutes a notice of close proximity of city rodeo park which shall include the map and the advertisement shall read "due to the proximity of the Apache Junction Rodeo Park to this property, prospective owners are placed on notice that such public facilities will in all likelihood create noise and odors due to the presence of animals, including but not limited to horses and bulls,night time lighting,use of loudspeakers,heavy traffic,congestion,and restricted traffic flow and dust, all of which are normally associated with rodeo park activity.The city,in the near future,plans to expand the rodeo park facilities and activities as a rodeo park center,which will result in more activity and may inconvenience and/or annoy nearby property owners and residents who are expecting a quiet surrounding area.Prospective buyers should consider such nearby activity before deciding to purchase property in this subdivision."In addition, developers will incorporate in the design and construction of the residential buildings built on any parcel in this subdivision sound attenuation standards, including but not limited to the following:a minimum of R-18 exterior wall assembly,a minimum of R-30 roof and ceiling assembly,dual glazed windows, and foam -filled fiberglass or metal doors to the exterior or a building design -certified by Arizona registered architect or engineer which assures the maximum interior noise level of 45 decibels at the time of final construction. The preceding sound attenuation requirements shall be condition precedence to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each residential unit built in the subdivision. Mayor Coleman commented i t is quite a list of stipulations.He asked if the owner had agreed to the stipulations. Associate Planner Charles Beck commented these stipulations were arrived at during a meeting with their attorney and our attorney. Mayor Coleman commented there was an impassioned letter to the newspaper the other day which asked people to help save their rural lifestyle.The letter was by Mrs.Polesky.She listed quite a few concerns.He looked at the letter,went through each of the items and then tried to compare them to the current zoning with what is being requested. The first thing she mentions is paved roads.Under the current zoning,which is 1.25 acre minimum,they can pave the roads. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 8 OF 48 stated they can as a subdivision. rezoned,it would be required. stated that is correct. Associate Planner Charles Beck Mayor Coleman commented if it were Associate Planner Charles Beck Mayor Coleman commented if it was not subdivided under the current zoning but became a wildcat subdivision,the final owners might be able to get away with having a dirt road rather than a paved road.He gave as an example someone splitting i t 3 ways without going through the subdivision process where one owner buys a 5 -acre piece and creates 3 lots,2 of which are 1.25 acres and one 2.5 acres.Another person buys the 2.5 acres and splits that so that it turns out to make four 1.25 acre lots,but i t is not a subdivision. Associate Planner Charles Beck stated they could i f it was done three at a time,but i f i t is platted as a subdivision originally,and they come in with a plat for 16,the road would have to be paved to standards.But if they only split into 3 lots at a time, the roads would not have to be paved. Mayor Coleman commented i t is up to the owner as to how that is developed.It could be a wildcat subdivision where they go in and do what he had just described.The problem is that the city is in a PM10 area where particulates are of concern and the city may be required to pave those roads at some point in the future. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct,and it would be with no assistance from the homeowners. Mayor Coleman commented it would be at taxpayer expense rather than at developer expense. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct if it is developed that way with land splits.They could be unpaved roads that could be required to be paved within 5 or 10 years,or sooner,if the stated forces the city to pave them. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 9 OF 48 Mayor Coleman stated another concern was two-story,5,000 sq.ft.homes along Tomahawk.Those would be allowed under the current zoning.In fact,under the current zoning,all of the homes could be two-story homes. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct.There is a 25'height limit. Mayor Coleman commented under the rezoning request it would be limited to the approved lots of which there are only 5. is what has been recommended. be lots 9,10,14,15 and 16. is the stipulation. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that Mayor Coleman stated it would just City Attorney Joel Stern stated that Mayor Coleman reiterated that under the current zoning they could build all of them two-story. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct if they are no higher than 25'in height. Mayor Coleman stated another concern was a homeowners association,stating they are not in keeping with the rural lifestyle.Those would also be allowed under current zoning,as well as with the rezoning. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman commented the rezoning would have no effect on the homeowners association.There was also an engineering concern regarding the FEMA flood plain.It will require engineering whether i t is built under the current standards or the rezoning. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 10 OF 48 City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman commented they could also,under the current zoning,build up to 16 homes that could all be on septic systems. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman commented that under the rezoning,they could be built with septic systems unless sewer is a condition of the rezoning. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct.However,in that case,it would be good to get the developer to agree to that stipulation. Mayor Coleman commented that he believes in their letter that they have agreed to that.I t states in the letter that they have removed the septic tanks and each lot will be provided with sewer,so they could add that as a stipulation. City Attorney Joel Stern commented he believes they could put that as a stipulation,but they may want to ask the applicant when they get up to give their presentation. Mayor Coleman reiterated that under the rezoning,certain lots could be limited to one-story:under the current zoning they cannot stipulate. City Attorney Joel Stern stated i f it does not pass tonight there would be no limits. Mayor Coleman commented they can limit with the rezone. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 11 OF 48 Mayor Coleman commented there is also the architectural style.Under the current zoning,the city has no say in what the homes look like.They could build it to look like the glass medical center down the street.He is not saying anyone would build a house that looks like that,but the city has no say if it is developed under the current zoning. City Attorney Joel Stern stated currently the design guidelines are just guidelines:they are not mandatory on residential. Mayor Coleman commented the suggested stipulations state that custom homes reflect elements of southwestern architecture on all 4 sides.That can be made a stipulation of the rezoning,and the homes will look southwest. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman gave as examples Superstition Harley,which he thinks •is a beautiful building,and the Chamber of Commerce,the Feedbag,and the recent developments that did choose to develop with the southwest themes. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman commented he thinks most of the people in the audience tonight are concerned about the equestrian part of this development.He thinks i t is interesting that Mr.Aragon got up to talk about the dog track this evening when the dog track has been there since the 1950's and he is still suffering from the odor.He thinks they need to see what they can do with the property rights and zoning that they have there.But he believes this is a concern here,because of the subdivision going in and their complaining about the smell,the noise,and all the activities going on at the rodeo park which the city hopes will increase.The city is looking at expanding the rodeo park into a regional facility in the future.Under the current zoning,there are no noise abatement walls required to protect the rodeo grounds. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 12 OF 48 City Attorney Joel Stern stated i f they were land splits,there would be no walls.If it is a subdivision, particularly by this developer,there could be a wall required,and it could be a straight block wall or whatever else they want to put in there. Mayor Coleman commented with the rezoning they could ask for noise abatement walls and sound attenuation standards for the homes.These were borrowed from airport flyover zones to mitigate the sound problems for the homes that are in the flight path of airplanes. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman stated these would include minimum R-18 exterior wall assembly,minimum of R-30 roof and ceiling assembly,dual glazed windows and foam -filled fiberglass/metal doors to the exterior.As an alternative,they could have a building design -certified by an Arizona registered architect or engineer which ensures the maximum interior noise level of 45 decibels.The city can ask for that under the rezoning. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman commented there are two equestrian trails guaranteed in the rezoning;one through the property. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman commented one of them is on the outside of the property.With the current zoning,they do not have to provide any equestrian trails. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman commented the horse property is guaranteed.Under both the current and the rezoning,they could REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7.2006 PAGE 13 OF 48 form a homeowners association and the covenants,conditions and restrictions could be changed to disallow horses.He asked if that could be done. City Attorney Joel Stern stated he believed a zoning ordinance would override a covenant,condition and restriction. Mayor Coleman asked as long as i t was zoned for horses,would it have to be 1.25 acres minimum. City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t does not i f i t is a stipulation,as they would be allowing smaller lot sizes. Mayor Coleman commented as long as i t is stipulated as horse property in the rezoning,then they can guarantee that i t is horse property,and that covenants,conditions and restrictions cannot override that. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman commented another concern was people buying a lot and not knowing that there is a tractor pull once a year and a rodeo.He thinks the disclaimer was very well written,and they are willing to provide that in 3 different places.There will be a record on each parcel in the covenants,conditions and restrictions,there will be a note in the final recorded plat,and it will be provided in the public report.The notice talks about the public facilities that will in all likelihood create noise and odors due to the presence of animals,included but not limited to horses and bulls,night time lighting,use of loudspeakers,and heavy traffic.They are being warned about all of those things.Under the current zoning,they have no obligation to do so.They are asking for an increase in lots,rather than 16,in order to get those things.However,he is not saying all of those are buildable.They may not be.and with straight zoning they might have only gotten 14 lots.They are rezoning for 18 lots, but unless the engineering handles the water flow,they may not get that many. It depends on the engineering in both cases.They are only talking about the addition of 2 homes to guarantee all the other things.The big question is how they value 1.25 acre lots.If they were coming in and asking for this on 1.25 acre lots,it would not even be questioned.The real issue that faces REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 14 OF 48 this council tonight is are the noise abatement standards,the disclosures to future owners,the guarantee of horse privileges,equestrian trails,and most lot sizes being about one-half acre with 3 over one acre valued more than the 1.25 acre lots.That is the question he would like to hear input on from the public.He is struggling with it because his gut instinct tells him the way to preserve the equestrian nature of that area is to rezone.If they want to preserve the 1.25 acre lots,then they should vote no.Everyone has to realize that if they go out tomorrow and start blading that we take our chances.They had a rezoning request for San Marcos and Broadway where the people were proposing a day care center on the south end of the property.The property owners that lived kitty-corner to the south end were up in arms and did not want it.They were told other things could go on the property since it was already zoned that way.They decided to take their chances and there is now an elementary school there.It did not cut down on their traffic concern or their noise concern.And that is his concern.He looks at this, has read the impassioned pleas,walked the property and taken a look at it, and realized there are a lot of water issues that will have to be engineered out of there. Councilmember Severs commented he had also walked the property and he believes there are maybe 10 buildable lots.He does not know if they can create an engineering miracle and get 18 lots.He asked if they could get 10 to 18 high quality homes of what they want,or could they get 16 of whatever they want to put there.That is the real question.He believes it could be a good thing for the community,but i t could also be a bad thing i f i t is left alone. Councilmember Sippel commented they had been shown a picture at one of the work sessions of what could go in there in the current zoning.He asked Rudy to put on the overhead projector a picture of what could go in there,what the property could look like tomorrow. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated the drawing represents sixteen 1.25 acre gross lots which could result either through straight zoned subdivision under the existing R1-43 or with roads that would come through a city -initiated subdivision process,or they could be sold off as individual parcels and proceed through a series of land splits.I t would have no rules.Because of the existing federally patented easements, when you take away the easements,there are only 4 lots that are 1 acre net; all the rest are less than an acre when done with straight zoning at R1-43. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 15 OF 48 City Attorney Joel Stern asked what the process is i f it were developed as 16 lots. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated if the developer wants to create all 16 lots they would have to go through a plat process,including preliminary plat and final plat.Staff would only be reviewing for minimum compliance on those plats when i t is straight zoning, such as minimum lot sizes,provision of streets,subdivision regulations and the landscape code which would call for a perimeter wall.They could also ask for some of these road easements to be abandoned and they could have lots backing up to each other.That would cut down on the infrastructure and i t could be done on the septic systems.It would be a plain Jane subdivision. City Attorney Joel Stern asked what the process would be if it is not done as a subdivision but is done by individual lot owners. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated currently cities are allowed to regulate the division of properties 2.5 acres or smaller.There are four 5 -acre lots owned by the applicants.They could be sold to someone not a business partner,family member or friend and they could be split into two 1.25 -acre and one 2.5 -acre properties.They could then be sold and whoever gets the 2.5 -acre property could go through an administrative land split and get two 1.25 -acre properties.It could result in four 1.25 -acre parcels created through a series of land splits.Current land split regulations do not allow the city to exact public improvements on administrative land splits. City Attorney Joel Stern commented it would just be a building permit issue at that point. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct. City Manager George Hoffman asked i f there would be a public hearing. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated there would be a public hearing for the preliminary plat and the final plat that is correct. there would be a public hearing. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 16 OF 48 but they would only be reviewing for minimum compliance.No special zoning conditions would be on it as talked about earlier. City Attorney Joel Stern commented that they would not be creating a subdivision because it had been split so many times.They would just be individual property owners trying to get building permits. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman requested the applicant' address the council. Mr.Ralph Pew,1930 E.Brown Road, Mesa,addressed the council.He stated he was there on behalf of Frank Dell' Armi,the applicant,and Bob Esposito.Their civil engineer,Duran Thompson, was also present.He commented i t seems a little unusual tonight that there is such a number in the community here over what amounts to 2 residential lots.There is more behind it as to the philosophy of that and the character of the area,but i t is the difference of 18 lots,revised down from 20, compared to the different processes that would be taken if no rezoning occurred.The real issue is if this rezoning request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the general plan.This area is designated for low density residential development with a target density of one unit per acre. The plan being brought forward tonight is actually less dense than that so i t clearly meets the intent of the general plan as i t relates to density.The area has been designated as an equestrian area.This applicant has committed to allow equestrian uses on these lots,meeting another criteria of the general plan.The general plan also encourages lower density and larger homes,especially homes to move up to.That has been a goal of the city for some time.This is an opportunity to do that.They believe they comply with the general plan in 3 specific areas.They are asking to develop an R1-43 property through the planned development process which allows the council to extract concessions,development standards and criteria from the property owner that they deem appropriate in exchange for allowing lot sizes to vary and not be uniform in size or rectangular in nature to allow certain other development deviations for modifications from the standard criteria.He commented they think their new plan is a better plan.Following the work session,they have reduced the plan to 18 lots,making all the lots larger, REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 17 OF 48 making the plat look better,i t looks more comfortable and appropriate for the area,and they have added the conditions allowing horses and every lot can accommodate corrals or barns or other necessary outbuildings to accommodate equestrian uses.This was an issue of concern.It will not look like something situated on 2 or 3 acres.It will be a little smaller but they will be able to do that.They have agreed to allow a trail system to permeate through the project from Lost Dutchman Boulevard down to the southern boundary and it will go along some of the perimeters,some wash areas,some open spaces,and along some of the interior roads that will allow horses to traverse across the subdivision.They have agreed to provide a horse trail along the outside in the right-of-way area on Tomahawk and Lost Dutchman.He thinks one of the main issues is notifying buyers of the noise from the rodeo grounds.They are aware of the rodeo grounds and the city's desire to expand the rodeo grounds and make it a regional community -wide asset that is important to the history and tradition of the community.Buyers will know and understand what they are buying next to.They have agreed to limit two-story houses to the five lots on the western boundary.They have agreed to have natural area open spaces that will exist in the landscape tracts and between units.They have agreed to a minimum house size of 2.500 sq.ft.They concur with the stipulations presented this evening.He would like to have stipulation 17 clarified if the council votes to approve this evening.There is a sentence in there that deals with foam -filled metal doors or fiberglass doors.He would also like to add solid wood doors.It was not their intent to cause such an uproar in the community and he hopes everyone understands about the horse privileges.One of the issues is that the property is zoned R1-43:i t is not truly 1.25 acre zoning.I t is a one -acre zoning category. Roughly 16 lots could be yielded in a normal plat or lot split.If this property owner decides to sell this property after deciding that the battle is over and someone elsecan deal with the property,i t is possible someone could put a restrictive covenant on the acreage to prohibit horses.There would be no public input or an issue for the council.I t is ironic to him to have people come up and urge them not to approve the rezoning and then wait to see what happens with another owner or developer.They are trying to do what is right for the community and the area.They do not feel 2 additional lots is a major burden on the city,area or citizens.He urged their support.He added there is one issue he needed to clarify.They wrote a letter approximately 10 days ago on behalf of the applicant with a revised plan and a commitment to several things.They are doing all they can do with respect to the sewer issue:i t is taking them longer than they thought to determine all the due diligence items and the risk factors and uncertainties that might exist there. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 18 OF 48 They cannot state tonight they can unequivocally do the sewer as they have learned about a couple of facts that cause some uncertainties such as soil condition and third party issues they cannot control.They would be agreeable to a couple of more weeks time and continue this to the next meeting in order to explore this issue further and get a more definitive answer.They are agreeable to all the other conditions and request their support. Mr.Duran Thompson,the engineer, addressed the council.There are 2 issues that have come up tonight.People are under the impression that these are half -acre lots.The reality is there is not that much difference between their product and the one Rudy showed under the straight zoning.There are several lots that .are larger than anything they could do if they were to split these up into one -acre lots. There are a few lots that are smaller,but generally they are looking at three-quarters of an acre or a commercial acre.If you look at net acreage, the product is similar.The difference is the open space area between lots 16 and 18 that is a retention area.That would not be required with the straight zoning.They feel like they are adding to the openness of the area,reducing the number of lots,and allowing the channels and washes to run as they currently are and to allow the area to remain as natural as possible.The smaller lots are due to the geometry of where they are placing the lots,but those smaller lots are next to open space areas where they can share that area.Another issue raised was drainage.They are not creating or displacing water.They are allowing the water to come through.Those engineering issues have been addressed;the city engineer will confirm that they have looked at this intensively.They have also looked at the placement of the lots and i f they cannot get 18 lots physically to work and still meet all the criteria, they will reduce the number of lots.Also,their client does wish to put sewer to the site.The third parties are State Land and the Arizona Department of Transportation and the restrictions they have.They are still working through those.It would be a disaster to commit to a sewer if they find out later i t cannot be done.They are having problems contacting the appropriate personnel;they are not interested in answering questions on these issues until a set of plans are in place.This is a rezoning,not a preliminary plat. Mayor Coleman asked if he thought they would have a firm yes or no if they put this off to the next meeting.It would be a plus to have the sewer but they are allowed septics.However, there are people who are concerned about the wells in the area. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7.2006 PAGE 19 OF 48 Mr.Duran Thompson stated because of the density there is no requirement to have the sewer system.Septic is available and i t is what is required for this type of development.They will not know if they can have the sewer until the Arizona Department of Transportation gives an approval,and they do not know when that will be. There are other alternatives as to where the sewer line may go,but none of them pencil in very well.They involve bringing in a lot more sewer line. They will have the opportunity to bring this back to them in the pre -plat stage where these concerns can be addressed. Councilmember Waldron asked if they would have to be dealing with the Arizona Department of Transportation where it would cross State Route 88. Mr.Duran Thompson stated that is correct.They would not be crossing it but would be running up the side of it.They have an alignment and the survey is done,so physically i t is possible to run the sewer,but there are other issues involved that will determine whether i t is feasible to run a sewer line 1.25 miles for 18 homes. Councilmember Sippel commended staff because the product in front of the council that day is completely different than what he saw at the planning and zoning commission meeting.A lot has happened.He commended the residents because a lot of these changes occurred because of the amount of people that are in the audience today.He commented he is also teetering on whether to pass this or not and he wants to know if the people are willing to wait,not have them do the 2 extra lots,and that they would be okay with something different and knowing what it could end up looking like,then let him know.He recalls a gentleman commenting at the planning and zoning meeting that the city is not listening to them or supporting them:he does not want them to feel left out on this issue. Councilmember Severs commented that this is a rezoning only.They would be guaranteeing their control over what happens on this property,whether it be this project or any other project in the future.If it is not rezoned,the city and residents would have no control over what goes in there in the future. Mayor Coleman asked if the current zoning is for 1 acre net. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 20 OF 48 Senior Planner Rudy Esquvias stated R1-43 reads that the minimum lot size is one acre gross in areas with federally patented easements or one acre net in areas without easements.This area does have federally patented easements so i t is at 1.25 acres gross including the streets. horse property either way. that is correct. hearing on the item. Mayor Coleman commented it would be Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated Mayor Coleman opened the public Mr.Hux Russell,4431 N.Wolverine Pass,Apache Junction,representing the Goldfield Ghost Riders,addressed the council.He is also a member of the Superstition Mountains Promotional Corporation and an NHA mounted ranger.He commented that once they start chopping up the property like that,they will be opening i t up to every person to come in and cut i t up all around the whole city.They will say a precedent has been set and question why they cannot do it. Mr.Jim Swanson,5274 E.32nd Avenue,Apache Junction.addressed the council.He stated he is impressed with the input,and if he did not know what he knows,he would be for the plan.However,he brings to the council tonight 35 years of facts on things he has learned on horse -related issues.Many people do not like horses or horse owners.He supports that;they have a right to like or dislike whatever they want.The key is to keep them separate;horse owners in one area and non -horse owners in another.I t is good planning and always has been.He was on the first committee to draw up the general plan.He added they do have something to fall back on along with the general plan;i t is the equine ordinance.This ordinance calls for 1.25 acres minimum lots for horse owners right in that area.They can fall back on that;they do have the precedent. The key to everybody in the community getting along is the proximity;do not put them together.If you mix lot sizes,you will have conflict They can sign a stack of disclaimers,but in a court of law they are not worth the paper they are printed on.All someone has to say is they did not understand it was going to be like that when they signed it,and it becomes useless. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 21 OF 48 They have lots of good ideas,but no substance.He urged them to keep them separate.There are 18 lots in the proposal and only 3 of them are large lots of about an acre.The rest depends on their point of view.If it is a 1.25 acres i t is not quite an acre but if it is a half -acre i t is a little bit bigger.There is a mixture of lot sizes and a lot of people who buy in there are not from here.They do not realize that summer in central Arizona is 6 months long.They do not realized that you do your activities early in the morning or the evening,and across the street is a rodeo park.He commented people will buy a half -acre lot and build a beautiful home and a swimming pool;he asked how many horses are they going to put on a half -acre lot.I t is not defined.They put in setbacks and may waive some of those.If they put 5 horses on the remainder of the lot next to someone who has never been around horses,he questioned what they thought would happen.He added they could be having a drink at their pool and see horse trailer after horse trailer creating dust going to the rodeo grounds,and they will see the lights from the rodeo grounds at night and noise will go on half the night as the horse people have fun.He encouraged them to stick with the equine ordinance which calls for at least 1.25 acres if zoned for horses and not let this nightmare become a reality. Mr.Donovan Gorny.1656 S.Stetson Court,Apache Junction,addressed the council.He had some questions about a property he currently lives on.When he bought the property before the house was built he needed an RV gate.He has a work truck and trailer that he needs to secure.It was all agreed to.The city engineer put a drainage off the right side of his house that,once they raised the land to build his house, made his RV gate useless.He almost flipped his truck trying to get into it. They are talking about putting horse rights on these small lots.His lot is roughly .25 acres.He has a 1.500 sq.ft.house.He knows that if he had to put a barn on a half -acre lot 40'from the property line,the only way he could do that would be, if he was willing to wake up in the morning and kiss his horse on the nose.Unless they can guarantee that there is still enough room around those borders to still allow the barn to go in legally without a city engineer coming in later on and saying they cannot put that there,there is another big problem.I t looks good on paper,but once the elevation has been done,the ground has been changed,the house has been done,and that is a 2.500 sq.ft.house almost twice the size of his,on roughly a quarter -acre lot.He could see restrictions on where they can put the barn up depending on where they place the house because it does not leave much room for a barn. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 22 OF 48 This is Arizona.If you have a horse,you better have some place to shelter it. Ms.Han Winn,S.Alba Circle,Mesa, addressed the council.She was at the last meeting and she asked about the wash,but she did not get an answer or any help.She called Sam Jarjice this week and he and her husband went out to the property where he tried to talk to him about engineering.She tried to get hold of Duran Thompson but he did not answer and did not return her call about what they were doing.She has never gotten an answer on how the wash is being engineered.The wash is shown running one way,but on the plan i t is shown going another way right through her land.She would like someone to tell them if they are doing the right thing or not.To her,i t looks like they are dumping the water onto her land. Mr.Chip Wilson,president of the Superstition Horsemen's Association.P.O.Box 2120,Apache Junction,addressed the council.He stated the trail through the development is not an issue.I t is too far east for anyone in the area to ride through.I t is a trail for the development itself.They have met with city zoning,reviewed the general plan and zoning rules,and they have met with the developer twice.They have been told what they are doing and what the changes are.After reviewing all the information,the board of directors,representing their constituents and the entire Apache Junction horse community,issued a resolution.He then read the resolution recommending the property remain 1.25 acre lots in order to maintain the continuity and direction that had been established for this area years ago and is evidenced by the design of the general plan and conforms with the equine ordinance.Anything smaller than 1.25 acres would be a disservice to the people purchasing the property and those surrounding the property. They are willing to work with anyone who desires to develop the property continuing the area's original direction and purpose.They are recommending the case be denied.He then advised that all the board of directors had signed the resolution and he handed it to the city clerk. Ms.Peggy Owen,353 S.Arroyo Road, Apache Junction,addressed the council.She owns a civil engineering firm and has 35 years of experience.She wanted to give her interpretation.They have done subdivision and drainage plans in Pinal County and the Apache Junction area.She has also dealt with Pinal County on septic tanks.She stated i t would not be cost-effective for the developer to bring in the sewer.She was also the vice president of the Professional Estimators of Arizona and has 30 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 23 OF 48 years experience at estimating.She estimates it will run $1.3 million for the sewer.That cuts out a lot of profit;she estimates the profit to be $600,000 if everything had to be brought in;she does not think they bought that property to go through all this and make only $600,000.She commented they put a nice plan up there but one thing they did not put on the plan are the flood zones and the tributaries.She showed them a plat map with the flood zones and tributaries colored in,including the tributaries they are going to divert and channel the water.It is her understanding that you cannot interfere with a Zone A flood plain.She stated there appear to be 2 single pipe culverts that are supposed to handle the drainage from that Zone A flood plain.She guarantees the flood plain is 15'wide and 4'or 5'deep. It handles a lot of water and the culverts are not realistic.She is dismayed that they have shown some of these methods of making this a subdivision that would be usable by putting in things that are not as they need to be.She listed a number of lots that they would not be able to put a 2,500 sq.ft.home on with a septic tank,which is probably what is going to happen because they are not committing to a sewer line.In dealing with the county,you not only have to provide room for the leach field and tank,you have to provide room for 100% expansion should the system fail.That is required.There is not room on those lots for that,nor is there room for barns.They do not even have a quarter acre to build the home and septic tank on.I t is not realistic.This should stay 1.25 acres as i t is zoned and as the people want it.They have 512 signatures,and there will probably be more.She hopes they will vote as the people want. Mr.John Kantowski,835 W.Windsong Street,Apache Junction,addressed the council.He stated he is a horse owner and has lived here for 5 years.He has seen construction going on at Broadway and San Marcos,but they ran out of money and the construction stopped, leaving a lot of garbage.He knows the city attorney was involved in getting the lot cleared off.He is hearing tonight if they can direct the water down, if they can run a mile and a quarter sewer,if they can do this or that they might go down to 17 or 14,he asked where do they go.If they zone i t for 18 and they have to go down to 14,he asked if they would have to be rezoned again.He asked who would clean this up if they find out they cannot do this. If anything goes wrong,he wants the taxpayers protected so that they are not paying for the clean up.I t is across the street from a 200 acre park the city is talking about expanding.He urged them to be careful in their decision and protect the taxpayers. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 24 OF 48 Mr.Elliott Fisher,547 E.Quail, Apache Junction.addressed the council regarding his being at an executive session,getting the developer's agreement to put in the sewer,sewer location,options for holding up the development,and his requirement to get a business license. Councilmember Waldron commented that Mr.Fisher was not at the executive session.He was at the work session. Ms.Nancy Koerner,1026 N. Goldfield,Apache Junction,addressed the council.She commented she rode her horse on the multi -use trail the other day and realized how lucky she was to be able to use the trail and have a large lot to keep her horses on so she would not offend her neighbors.She commented the city was lucky to have had the foresight to lease the Bureau of Land Management land for a rodeo grounds. a park and a trail.She has seen many changes since she moved here in 1969. There has been one consistency over the years,and that is people wanting large lots with or without horses.There is .a written record of this gathered from the public and found in the current general plan.She quoted from the general plan.She commented they can honor the desires of these residents and most of the people here by denying this application.She commented they did not know what would happen if this was not approved.She showed them pictures of some houses in the area and stated people are quite capable of building nice homes.These are basically one acre parcels. Mr.James Moyle,4896 N.Vista Road, Apache Junction,addressed the council.He stated they have recently read in the newspaper about the mining camp and how it is fighting for its existence. As neighbors move in,their underlying agenda is what they want.They will change it,they will fight for it,they will do whatever i t takes.They are saying that if they did not rezone this and kept the current zoning that they may have to go back in 5 years and pave the roads.He would rather pave the road in 5 years than see the destruction of the rodeo grounds in 5 years, which is what he believes will happen if this is passed.The people coming in will be very rich people and they will have their corporate lawyers working on it.They will change the laws and the covenants,conditions and restrictions. They will stop at nothing and destroy the rodeo. Mr.Noel Benoit,900 N.San Marcos. Apache Junction,addressed the council.He was the Tehema-Shasta Trinity REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 25 OF 48 Chairman for the Insulation Dealers Association in Northern California back in 1977 through 1980.An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.They have seen what has happened in schools when they took out moral and ethical teachings because you could only teach legal and scientific.When he was in school,the problems were throwing spitwads,minor kid fights and pulling a girl's hair.Nowadays i t is murder,mass murder,drugs and rape.The plan did not work too well.In his capacity as chairman,he has tested many materials.He has given the developer some of his time and advice for free. This project can be done with 16 lots and money can be made.I t is not about two more buildable lots.The fact is you have a more valuable piece of property with 1.25 acres:i t is premium property.The rest of the valley is driving out horse property and the newspapers are saying they are looking to the East Valley to become the new Scottsdale,the. place for the horse people to go.It has benefited Apache Junction and will continue to do so,unless the council and the developer make the mistake of not listening to years of wisdom.The developers and architects did not get a certificate stating they are all -wise when they graduated from college.Listen to the people who make up hundreds of years of experience for horse properties.People who know what people will pay for horse properties.The profit for the development is in this room.The profit for Apache Junction is in this room.It was established at 1.25 acres for more than one reason.There are percolation aspects.The sewage of horses and people produce nitrates.Back when it was calculated that you needed 1.25 acres it was also calculated that less than that produces too much sewage from horses and people and nitrates to saturate the ground and pollute the groundwater.Phoenix did not listen and has 17 national disaster areas for ground pollution.We all need to listen to our future,not our pocketbook. Mr.John Sheplar,944 N.Goldfield, Apache Junction,addressed the council.He stated he owns about 1.5 acres there.He does not have horses,but he believes in preserving the land for future people so they can.He sees overdevelopment happening,a land grab, and he does not know if it is the intent of the city council or the powers that be to make this the next Gilbert or Scottsdale,or the rich East Valley. He believes they should remain at least 1.25 acre lots.He has a corral up on his property but he believes if he had a horse there his neighbors would not be happy,and he can barely take care of a dog.He grew up in the intercity, and he does know about density and violence,and he can see what this town is going to be like in 20 years because of the overdevelopment.He lives across from Bureau of Land Management land and has a view of the Superstitions,but REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 26 OF 48 he wonders if this is passed if within 2 years he will have to deal with a Quickie Mart across from his house.He commented he grew up around a lot of people,that the lots should be 1.25 or 1.5 acres,and that if the houses are going to be 2.500 sq.ft.,they will be expensive houses.He questioned i f they cared more about the house or the land. Ms.Nan Sega.3742 E.Pioneer, Apache Junction,addressed the council.She commented a lot of information has been passed on tonight,but there is one thing that has not been mentioned.People here have a passion.They have a passion for the desert they have a passion for Apache Junction,and they have a passion for their horses.She asked them to please respect those passions. Mrs.Myra Polesky.1900 E.Windsong, Apache Junction.addressed the council.She stated she appreciated everything they have done,and they have talked to everyone.They can make an informed decision.She asked them not to buy into somebody else protecting that land. She is willing to take whatever is developed by whoever buys that land. Mr.Ray Fuller,1811 E.Windsong, Apache Junction,addressed the council.He agreed with Chip Wilson that they not rezone the land and maintain 1.25 acres. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak.He reopened the item to council discussion.He commented he would like to express why he raised the questions about what the current zoning allows and what the rezoning would allow.He commented Chip's letter was nice,but the closing paragraph was a little bit faulty when it states that they are willing to work with anyone who desires to develop property.Under the current zoning,they do not have that option. This country believes in personal property rights and they can go in under the current zoning and build what they want.They do not have to go to him,nor do they have to come to the council.He just wants that understood.A gentleman he talked to at church after the planning and zoning commission meeting and commented that they got them to deny it there,and he felt like the council decision was a no they do not build or yes they do build.That is not what comes in front of the council.It is a matter of the 1.25 acre lot size.His unofficial count of tonight was a lot of people who said they would take their chances;they want the 1.25 acres.However,the only way to require the noise abatement is through the rezoning.It will not happen any REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 27 OF 48 other way.They were talking about the rodeo grounds and the passion:he does not feel anyone feels more passionately about that than him.And nobody has tried to keep the "Y"area and to the north and east of the city low density and horse property more than this council.He is concerned,but that is okay. Betty Swanson's article stated the council needed to be reminded of who they represent.If they want the council to take the chance,then maybe that is what they ought to do.But he does not want them to come back to them in 3 months when they start putting 16 homes on and they start complaining about the noise from the rodeo grounds.It was mentioned that the disclaimers are no good,but what does i t look like when you go into court and you have not given them any disclaimers,because that is what happens under the straight zone.They will say they were never told about the piece of property over there that was causing problems,rather than the 3 notices that would have been required.They were talking about the precedent of cutting it up,but i t is 1.25 acre minimum right now.He thinks that is what is going to happen. There were some good points made regarding the wash and flooding,and he had not heard that 1.25 acre minimum is what you need for horses,people and septic.His home is on septic and he is on a city lot.As a people they want it,which makes an interesting statement about property rights of the owner. People have commented it will destroy the rodeo;he feels the rezoning would protect the rodeo.He believes they have the same ideas in mind,but he is concerned they are going about it the wrong way,as in the school now being there at Broadway and San Marcos where the gentleman wanted the council to resign because it was built and denied ever saying he never wanted the rezoning.They told him he had wanted to take his chances and that is what was built.The council has heard their message and he is concerned.The people may be willing to work with anyone who desires to develop property:he hopes the property owner is willing to work.He sees that as the key,because they do not have to. Councilmember Severs commented they are not voting tonight to allow this project;they are voting tonight to gain more control over the future of our land.That is what i t is coming down to. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion with no further comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Insalaco MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1260 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 28 OF 48 Councilmember Dietz SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read the ordinance by title only. Councilmember Insalaco MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1260,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE DENIED. Councilmember Waldron SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:5-1 (Mayor Coleman voted in opposition,explaining his vote saying he believes the rezoning is the way to protect the rodeo grounds.) The motion carried. Mayor Coleman called for a 15 min break. Mayor Coleman reconvened the meeting. Mayor Coleman called for a 15 minute Mayor Coleman reconvened the ORDINANCE NO.1261,CASE PZ-28-05, REZONING REQUEST BY WAYNE BARKER FROM C-3/PD TO CR-3/PD,5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BROADWAY AVE. AND SAN MARCOS DR.FOR A PROPOSED 16- LOT CONVENTIONAL HOMES SUBDIVISION )Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item.He stated in 1999 it was rezoned for a small commercial subdivision that never materialized.Mr.Wayne Barker recently purchased the property and he would like to rezone it to conventional homes by planned development.He described the surrounding area.There will be 16 lots with only 2 smaller than 7,000 sq.ft.and that is the reason for the planned development rezoning request.Other than that,all of the standard REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 29 OF 48 CR-3 regulations would apply.Staff is asking for a connectivity trail along the west side of the development.The general plan shows the area as medium density.There is a drain strip that runs along San Marcos so the conditions require the developer to provide that.Staff is also asking for some type of community amenity.Staff received one phone call and there was no opposition or negative comment.Staff believes this rezoning furthers the general plan land use goal number two which is to maintain consistency in land use decisions and encourage site -built housing.Staff is in support of the rezoning.This is not an area of special flooding hazards although there is a sizable wash that comes in at the north end of the property which they will divert and channel around their development.They have asked for the elevations to be presented at the time of the preliminary plat.He listed the standard conditions which included no homes smaller than 1,400 sq.ft.livable. Councilmember Dietz asked if the south side of lot 8 is where the charter school exits. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated i t is just north of the school playground. Councilmember Dietz asked if there is a setback between the school fence and the property line. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated this zoning normally requires a side setback of 5'or 10';you get your choice as to which is 5'and which is 10'.In addition,there is a 20'wide easement between them for the connective trail called for in the general plan. Councilmember Dietz commented there will be plenty of space in between. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct,and south of the lot is the ball field and the pool. Councilmember Sippel commented there is also another 10'for a wash that runs through before the ball field starts. Mayor Coleman requested the applicant address the council.The applicant declined to address the council unless there were questions.There were no questions.Mayor Coleman opened REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 30 OF 48 the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion.There being no further discussion,he called for a motion. Councilmember Sippel MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1261 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilmember Waldron SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read the ordinance by title only. Councilmember Sippel MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1261,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilmember Waldron SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.1262,CASE PZ-1-06,REZONING REQUEST BY BUTTRUM/HOLLAND FROM CI -1 TO CI-1/PD,ONE LOT LOCATED AT BASELINE INDUSTRIAL PARK TO ALLOW FOR A MINI- STORAGE BUILDING IN AN RV AND BOAT STORAGE LOT TO BE BUILT AT A "ZERO"SETBACK )Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item.He stated the property is about 6 acres in size.He described the Baseline Industrial Park and the zoning for it.The applicants are constructing an RV storage lot.The reason for the request is they would like to construct some min -storage units along the east border of the property.Everything else is covered RV and boat parking.He described REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 31 OF 48 the development plan.They would like to double up the back wall of the storage units with the wall that would normally be required on the property line.They are asking for a zero foot setback on the east perimeter.On the other side of the property is a 100'wide Arizona Department of Transportation drainage ditch.On the other side of the ditch is unincorporated Pinal County industrial property,other storage lots and landscape yards.Staff and the planning and zoning commission recommend approval.The only issue is that Mr. Holland would like to build storage units in the southerly drainage easement. The plat shows this to be a 20'wide drainage easement that appears to originate on the property.He would also like to put in another storage unit on the north side of the row which would normally require a 10'setback. Staff does not object to the unit on the north side,however,the development services engineer is concerned about the drainage easement.If it is shown on the plat,i t is there for a reason.The improvement plans reflect it.Staff feels that a plat amendment process or some other type of engineering study is what should be done before construction is allowed in that easement.Staff is amenable to amending condition 3 to allow encroachment into the north 10' setback.The facility cannot be used for contractor equipment or storage yards.He read off the remaining stipulations in the ordinance.The general plan shows the area to be employment retail opportunity area.The zoning allows the use outright;the reason for the planned development is to request setback deviation. Mayor Coleman asked what flashing color and colored panel mean on the map they were given. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated he would defer that to the applicant. Mayor Coleman requested the applicant address the council. Mr.Steve Holland,2462 E.Desert Lane,Gilbert,addressed the council.He showed them some pictures of what he is trying to do.The purpose of the mini -storage is for security.His fence is only 6'high.He could take a semi back there,and he does not think the police patrol the drainage ditch as there is no reason to.There is a road that accesses the drainage ditch from Baseline and possibly the freeway area. Anyone could drive a vehicle down it,jump the wall and get into the storage yard.He was asked if things could be seen from the freeway.The sheds will REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 32 OF 48 be 9'tall in the back,giving them a 7'wall and they will be 8'6"in the front.They slope into the lot.Any water that hits the roof will go into their lot.The drainage easement is for 50% of their lot and the remaining 50% goes into a retention area in the front.He showed more pictures of the yard and that you should only be able to see the canopies over the RV's.He was asked if anything could be seen from the freeway,but he does not believe so as you would have to look through some buildings to do so.He cannot see the freeway from the yard.You cannot see the back fence from the front as i t is a 7'wall.The drainage easement starts at the back of the property and runs from their property to the next property;i t is only a little 6"swell. There is one vacant property behind the next property that it will run through before it goes into a catch basin.He wants to put 2 sheds in the corner where i t starts.The sheds are 9'high and will prevent people from jumping over the fence.He will make more money off of the RV parking than the storage sheds;he is doing i t for the convenience of the people in the yard. They cost him more to build and they are more of a nuisance for him than they will be a profit.It would be better for him to throw up a canopy for more parking,but he is looking for the security.He does have 12 security cameras and they are all infrared.All the grading is done and they are getting ready to pave.He cannot get the paving grades done because he submitted a plan that has been engineered for the sheds to be in the drainage easement.The problem he has had is he started with Noel,then to Steve,and now Rudy,and , everyone has had a different idea.They have redlined the redlines.This has become a financial hardship on him as every time he does something he has to take it to an engineer,and their work is not cheap.Sam did not want him to take it to his engineer,where it has all been done and i t shows that no water even hits it.That is where i t starts.If the lot were 15'shorter,that is where it would start.If it rains for 3 weeks in that area and hits the shed, the water will run off the roof into that drainage and it will go where i t is supposed to go.The roof is sloped in that direction.He is just trying to secure his place and i t appears he is fighting the city to do things for the public.He cannot make things nice.Financially,by the time this is done, they will have to take things away just to operate.It will not be a nice place then.He has to quit going to engineers as his money tree is running out. Mayor Coleman asked if he wanted to build in the easement on the south end. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 33 OF 48 Mr.Steve Holland stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman asked if the city would have any liability and if it is just a drainage easement. City Attorney Joel Stern stated he is not an engineer. Mr.Steve Holland stated he is not either,but he has been a concrete guy for 30 years and he thinks he knows his drainage real good.Otherwise he thinks he would be in big trouble. City Attorney Joel Stern stated he would have to defer to engineers.I t is just an easement and if there is flooding there could possibly be a liability.He would defer to others on that. Mr.Steve Holland stated he has a set of engineering plans with him that clearly shows by arrows the path of any water.Nothing could hit that corner,and i t if does,it would run down the roof. Mayor Coleman asked if Rudy had looked at those. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated he has seen the plans;as far as they can tell there is some drainage that goes through this easement.As Mr.Holland mentioned,the easement is for the benefit of his property plus a couple of properties next door where i t all basically empties into a retention.basin.Sam's concern was that i t is on the easement that is on the recorded final plat.These are engineered drawings and i t is there for a reason.Staff is not necessarily disagreeing with Mr. Holland,but if he wants to change it,he needs to amend the plat and get the adjacent property owners to agree to amend the plat as well since the drainage feature may also affect their property. Councilmember Sippel asked if this is the southeast corner. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 34 OF 48 Mr.Steve Holland stated that is correct. Councilmember Sippel commented he is trying to determine the starting location. Mr.Steve Holland stated it actually starts there.If they pictured his lot being 15'shorter,it would start there.The lots behind him are probably a foot lower than his lot and he would probably never get any of their water.The drainage easement is not for their property,i t is for the back 50% of his property.The other half goes into the retention basin out front in the 25'easement.There is no reason for it not to start 15'in.If it hits the sheds,it will run down the ditch. He commented he may as well put a door there and say here is the way into the yard because you can see what is behind it.I t is hideous to think he would have to leave a 6'fence there.He cannot attach to the fence.He bought into this yard with a partner who originally wanted i t for a construction yard and wants to keep i t a construction yard.Mr.Holland is trying to turn i t into an RV and boat storage yard.He poured the footings on the wall and the city does not require them to have a permit for a 6'high wall.Noel thought they would be fine with a 7'wall,but he did not hear that from Noel,he heard that from his partner.He constructed a footing,and after he tried to get i t re -engineered,tried to see if they could put another section on,the engineer said it was not going to happen.He has tried every option he could to raise the wall and i t is not going to happen.He stated when the mayor asked about the color of the tins,i t is basically a metal that you would see in any mini -storage and i t has metal flashing going down.He puts it over the back of the wall,and he is going to do it with a color so that i t is not just black or tan;they can pick any color they want.They are trying not to make it all look silver or galvanized;that is what the color is about. Mayor Coleman commented about not having weird colors. Mr.Steve Holland stated he has not crossed that bridge.He does not know what color he wants to paint his building.He does not want to do a bright orange but some type of tan,but he is sure he will have a fight there,too. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 35 OF 48 Councilmember Waldron stated no pink or purple. Councilmember Severs asked if he said there is no way any water could flow from the properties south of him onto his property. Mr.Steve Holland stated they cannot as they are a foot lower;they would have to have a major flood.The subdivision was not designed to flow water onto his lot;the fence was already existing.He had to run 168'of fence to the west as the rest of the fence was already in.They are vacant lots right now and he is hoping whoever buys them will be wanting to secure their property like he did.It will be harder for someone to get over their front fence to get to his back fence.At least they could not back a truck up to take things out.People have $200,000 motor homes with televisions in them and everything else,and thieves like to take televisions and stereos and whatever they can get.If they have toy haulers in there,they will have quads and all -terrain vehicles and they would quickly disappear. Councilmember Insalaco commented he is saying that his wall will not be his wall anymore,it will basically be the front of the mini -storage units. Mr.Steve Holland stated the wall will be the back of the unit. Councilmember Insalaco commented instead of the wall being the back of the property,the back of the property will now be the front of the sheds. Mr.Steve Holland stated that is basically correct. Councilmember Insalaco stated they are 15'deep so it either starts here or i t starts there. Mr.Steve Holland stated that is correct.He can put the sheds in without being here tonight,but he would have to move them 10'in.He would then have a dungeon effect back there i f REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 36 OF 48 he put razor wire on top,which he thinks they are zoned to do.If someone jumps over and gets tangled up,they would probably smell the person before they know they are back there,and it would be the same with an animal or debris.Now they would have a fire hazard and they would be unable to get back there to clean it out unless they jump the wall.He cannot convince Sam so he thought he would try to convince them.He is trying to make the place nice and he does not know how to do it other than what he is doing now.He wants to make i t secure. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion. Councilmember Dietz asked if there was anything that could be done about the drainage on the south end. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated when something shows up on a plat,whether i t is a utility easement,a drainage easement or street easement,the city does not allow construction on top of it.The gentleman is claiming his engineer is stating it will not do any harm to construct buildings there.They need to go through the correct process to get that done.He does not believe that a matter of plat amendment is correctly addressed at a rezoning. Mayor Coleman commented he saying that this is just a rezoning. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is correct.They are really talking about an amendment or correction in that corner done to the plat drawing itself. Councilmember Dietz asked if he would be bringing the final plat back. Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated that is a question for the applicant on whether he wants to go through the plat amendment process. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly commented there is nothing on the agenda tonight regarding a plat amendment. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 37 OF 48 City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t is incorporated into this discussion on whether i t should be part of the rezoning so he believes i t is germane to the discussion. Councilmember Severs asked if they could waive a plat amendment. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they cannot.He does not believe the code allows it.The zoning ordinance requires a plat. a plat is recorded. that is correct. has to be recorded. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias stated City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t Mr.Steve Holland commented Sam does not want him to go to his engineer.He wants him to go to the architectural committee,get i t approved through them first to do this,and then he wants him to have the whole subdivision redesigned by the engineer that did it. They are not talking about the whole subdivision;they are talking about 3 lots.One lot is already done,they have their grades,and he has an engineer that has already done everything.It has been approved and stamped in the city. Councilmember Severs asked if they could approve this and have him take care of the paperwork later so that he can move forward. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they could,but they could also continue it to try to get more information from the engineer.They could have the engineer here to explain things more thoroughly from a technical standpoint. Councilmember Dietz commented i t is pretty straightforward. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 38 OF 48 Mr.Steve Holland stated if it comes back financially,i t is just not worth it. Councilmember Severs commented they are holding this man up.Unfortunately,there was Noel,Steve,Sam.Rudy and now us.He would like to see them find a way to make this happen. Mr.Steve Holland stated he would like to deal with just one person. City Attorney Joel Stern stated there is a plat amendment process that needs to take place.If that does not happen in this case,it could encourage others not to do it. Councilmember Severs asked if he had building permits yet. Mr.Steve Holland stated the building is totally up and is dry -walled.I t is ready for stucco. Councilmember Severs asked if he meant the storage units. Mr.Steve Holland stated he meant the office,not the storage units.The office has a livable above it;i t is 1,200 sq.ft.above and 1,200 sq.ft.below. Councilmember Severs asked if he had building permits for the storage units. Mr.Steve Holland stated he does not.That is what he is trying to accomplish here.He cannot get them until this is approved. Councilmember Severs stated they could, approve this now and not allow him to have building permits until the paperwork is completed. City Attorney Joel Stern stated i f he does not have a final inspection he could be in violation. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 39 OF 48 Councilmember Dietz asked if they could approve it this evening and have him add on the other two at a later date. City Attorney Joel Stern asked how far in the future he meant. Councilmember Dietz commented for however long it takes him to do whatever he has to do. Mr.Steve Holland stated i t still defeats his purpose.He is ready to just move them out or turn i t into parking. Councilmember Dietz commented they are just trying to get it through for him. Mr.Steve Holland stated he appreciated that,but i t is like a financial hardship that everybody is creating on this.It takes away from what he is trying to do. Councilmember Severs commented he does not understand why his engineer's drawings are not good enough.If it is from a licensed engineer and stamped by a licensed engineer,they should be good enough for our staff. City Attorney Joel Stern commented he could not answer that.Sam would have to be there to explain why.He does not know if he has seen them or looked at everything on it.He did talk to Mr.Jarjice a few days ago on the plat amendment issue and his opinion was he probably would need a plat amendment.They could make it a stipulation,and if he does not get it,he would be in violation.However,it would be difficult to enforce after the fact. Councilmember Severs commented he still has to apply for building permits.They could go ahead and approve this,then he gets his paperwork taken care of while the building permit process is happening,it could all fall into place and he could be on schedule. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 40 OF 48 City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t would be difficult to enforce if he does not follow through with the plat amendment once this is approved. Councilmember Severs asked if that was even if this was stipulated. City Attorney Joel Stern stated i t would take going to court to get the enforcement to do it.He could sell i t tomorrow. Councilmember Severs asked if they had a business license. Mr.Steve Holland stated not yet, but there is no reason to get it yet as they are not operating. Councilmember Severs stated they could hold his business license up if he did not follow through so he could not operate. City Attorney Joel Stern stated the business license is not premised on that.I t is premised on whether they have the correct zoning and other licenses.He does not think the city could hold up a business license because of his failure to get a plat amendment. Councilmember Severs commented i f they approved with a stipulation that he has to get a plat amendment,his business license would then be invalid because i t is not zoned properly until he has the plat amendment. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that would be one argument.However,it would be zoned because they would be passing the zoning tonight.The question is enforcing it. Councilmember Severs asked about the engineer's drawings. Mr.Steve Holland stated he has i t engineered,i t is stamped,and i t is in their office.The only problem is,i t does not show the sheds that they see there because he was told to take REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 41 OF 48 anything that says future on the plan off.If they would like a letter from his engineer,he could have it tomorrow.If you want him to go to the engineer that designed the subdivision and have him redesign i t again,i t is not worth it to him.He cannot make sense out of it.He will just put razor wire on the back fence and we will have to deal with the problems that will happen.And they will have to remember that they had this discussion.The sheds have 6"of slope on the roof,they are only 15'deep,and i f i t rained for 3 days it would still hit the roof and run right into the ditch.It has nowhere else to go. Councilmember Sippel asked how they would need to word the motion to get the 3 sheds in there. City Attorney Joel Stern commented he would recommend that they continue this to March 21st so they can get the city engineer to review this so they can be more informed.He is not an engineer and he would not know about this. Councilmember Sippel asked how they would word this if they do not want to do this. Councilmember Severs stated they need to apply a little common sense here.The water hits i t and starts there. He wanted to find a way to make this happen. City Attorney Joel Stern stated he thinks they could add a stipulation that the applicant agrees to file all applicable required plat •amendments by the city engineer and put in a deadline.He could put in the temporary remedies of the wire if he does not do it by that time. The council consensus was that they did not want to see wire. Councilmember Severs asked if they could do a temporary rezoning until the plat is approved. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they could not. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 42 OF 48 City Manager George Hoffman commented he supported the city attorney's position.Amendments from the floor have historically been very difficult to untangle later on.I t is a common sense request.I t is also common sense not to be building on easements and there is a recorded easement there. Mr.Steve Holland stated i t is a setback,not an easement. City Manager George Hoffman stated staff is telling him i t is an easement.His recommendation is to take the 2 weeks to work on this issue. Mayor Coleman asked if they had already had the public hearing on this. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they may want to reopen this since the applicant has had another opportunity to speak. Mayor Coleman reopened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to council discussion. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated there are other parts of the city where past councils have had the opportunity to deal with drainage problems and they were not handled appropriately.Mr. Blevins is suffering the consequences of that.She concurred with the city manager's recommendation. Mayor Coleman asked when they should continue it to. City Attorney Joel Stern stated Tuesday.March 21st.That is the next regular city council meeting. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion with no further comments and called for a motion. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7.2006 PAGE 43 OF 48 Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT ITEM NO.14,CASE PZ-1-06,BE CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2006. Councilmember Insalaco SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. PZ-29-05,A CITY -INITIATED REZONING REQUEST FROM GR TO R1-43 FOR TWO 1.25 ACRE LOTS AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AREA OF 4TH AVENUE AND ACACIA ROAD )Senior Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item.Staff is requesting that this case be continued to the April 4,2006 meeting.This case was advertised prematurely: they had not intended to bring it to the council tonight.A new intern was helping out on cases and he believes he gave him incorrect information.I t was unintentionally advertised for tonight.He is prepared to make a presentation if they desire. Mayor Coleman stated they would not hear the presentation tonight.As i t had been advertised,he opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and called for a motion. Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT CASE PZ-29-05,A CITY -INITIATED REZONING REQUEST FOR TWO 1.25 -ACRE LOTS,BE CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 4,2006 COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Sippel SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 44 OF 48 None. NEW BUSINESS None. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON ANY OF THE ABOVE LISTED AGENDA ITEMS None. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON OTHER PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS AMENDMENTS TO APACHE JUNCTION CITY CODE, CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS,ARTICLE 8-4 MASSAGE THERAPISTS AND MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS ) )Mayor Coleman commented that at the work session last night they had discussed asking staff to review and see what other communities are doing as far as home care,and whether it was required to be under a physician's or chiropractor's prescription.He asked if there had been another update. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated since this was adopted three years ago,it has been pre-empted by changes in the state law.We had adopted our own local standards and we can no longer do that.This would be the perfect opportunity to make that change. Mayor Coleman opened the item to council discussion.There being no discussion,he called for a motion. Councilmember Dietz MOVED THAT THE DIRECTION HE JUST GAVE TO _STAFF WAS. ABOUT WHAT WE WANTED (STAFF TO REVIEW AND SEE WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE DOING AS FAR AS HOME CARE AND WHETHER IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE UNDER A PHYSICIAN'S OR-CHIROPRACTOR'S PRESCRIPTION,AND THAT THE CITY CODE BE UPDATED TO THE CHANGES IN STATE LAW). Councilmember Insalaco SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 45 OF 48 The motion carried. 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,MARCH 20,2006,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,RESPECTIVELY;AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.BE HELD ON TUESDAY,MARCH 21,2006,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM. Councilmember Severs SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Mayor Coleman stated they had a very nice Lost Dutchman Days celebration.He thanked the Chamber and everyone involved with that. Mayor Coleman announced that he and Councilmember Sippel would be going to the National League of Cities and Towns Conference at the end of this week.The League is paying for him.He is very excited about it.They have 3 different events planned with the Arizona delegation and our congressional delegation. He is looking forward to those events. ADJOURNMENT )Mayor Coleman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows.: 1.Acceptance of Agenda. 2.Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 21,2006. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 46 OF 48 3.Acknowledge Receipt of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,for the fiscal year ended June 30,2005. 4.Consideration and approval of Professional Services Agreement with Greg Marek for consultation services for planning and development of the downtown in the amount of $25,961.75. 5.Consideration and approval to continue Professional Services Agreement with Richard+Bauer for architectural and engineering work for the Library Expansion project in an amount not to exceed $387,000. 6.Consideration and approval to continue Professional Services Agreement with PinnacleOne for project management work for the Library Expansion project in an amount not to exceed $189,700. 7.Consideration and approval to increase the original authorized amount to Network Infrastructure Corporation (NIC)to cover additional expenses outside the original scope of work addressing building safety measures in City Hall/Municipal Court complex in an amount not to exceed $29,650. 8.Consideration and approval to increase the original authorized payment amount to Core Construction to cover additional expenses addressing major change orders related to unforeseen conditions,project enhancements,and reduced or offset costs in an amount not to exceed $316.782. ACCEPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH ,2006,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH ,2006. DOUGLAS COLEMAN / Mayor ATTEST: e47e-,v_4 KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 47 OF 48 - 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 7th day of March,2006.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 16th day of March,2006. KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7,2006 PAGE 48 OF 48