Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-16 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16,2003 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on September 16,2003.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 - Vice Mayor Eck • Councilmember Insalaco Councilmember Milkey Councilmember Sippel Councilmember Waldron Staff Present: (Councilmember Dietz was absent.) City Manager George Hoffman Assistant City Manager Bryant Powell Interim Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Joel Stern Public Safety Director Robert Warner City Engineer Ron Grittman Public Works Director Doug Dobson REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 1 OF 35 Others Present: Interim Dev.Svcs.Director Rudy Esquivias Grants Specialist Roger Hacker CDBG Administrative Assistant Melinda Larson Associate Planner Steve Abraham Building Official Dennis Dixon ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Councilmember Milkey MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED;AND THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY BY THE FOLLOWING CITY EMPLOYEES:CITY CLERK SECRETARY BRENDA CHERRYHOLMES,DEPUTY CITY CLERK JAN MASON,AND CITY CLERK KATHY CONNELLY FOR THEIR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE ARIZONA MUNICIPAL CLERKS'ASSOCIATION AND THE LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS 2003 ELECTION WORKSHOP; AND; THAT THE AWARD OF BID FOR PROJECT NO.PW 2003-12,LIBRARY LIGHTING PROJECT,BE AWARDED TO FLUORESCO LIGHTING & SIGNS IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,810.02;AND THAT THE AWARD OF BID FOR PROJECT PR 03-02,LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE,BE AWARDED TO TRUGREEN LANDCARE FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FOR RENAISSANCE POINT,ARROYO VERDE,PHELPS DRIVE AND IRONWOOD COVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $61,698 PLUS 10%FOR CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,169.80 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $67,867.80;AND THAT THE AWARD OF BID FOR REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES FOR THE CITY HALL COMPLEX AND MULTI-GENERATIONAL/RECREATION CENTER AND ADDITIONAL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS BE AWARDED TO BLAYLOCK REPROGRAPHICS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000;AND THAT APPROVAL BE GIVEN FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH VISIONAIR SOFTWARE FOR VISIONRMS,VISIONCAD AND VISIONMOBILE FROM SEPTEMBER 30,2003 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 29,2004,IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,116.79. Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 2 OF 35 AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS •None. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager George Hoffman stated the police have arrested two suspects concerning last week's home invasion and homicide.He read from a new press release that an additional five individuals had been arrested on other related charges.All the suspects are from the Apache Junction/East Mesa area.The chief and his staff have been working on this around the clock for the past week.He commended them for their hard work and accomplishments. PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.1183,PZ-3-03, REQUEST BY OLD WEST HOLDINGS LLC TO REZONE A COMBINED 4.17 GROSS -ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM CB -2 TO CR-4/PD TO DEVELOP A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION )Associate Planner Steve Abraham briefed the council on the item.He stated this is on the northeast corner of Southern Avenue and Acacia Road.This is not a subdivision request but a request for approval of a rezoning plan.Off site issues and drainage will be discussed during the formal subdivision review process.He commented on the landscape setbacks on Southern and Acacia and two entrances into the site.He described the proposal.The development proposal features three floor plans for the condominiums:Unit A has 1,622 sq.ft.:Unit B has 1,645 sq.ft:and Unit C has 1,703 sq.ft.The elevations have been included in the packets. Staff has a number of recommended conditions of approval,namely the addition of a pool,ramada,tot lot,and barbecue grill in the centralized open space. The location could be discussed at the preliminary plat hearing if approved. The applicant would like to delete this stipulation and reword stipulation 7 and add an additional stipulation in lieu of building a pool.He would like to develop Acacia Road for the remainder of the distance from the north property line to Old West Highway.He showed the council a layout of the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 3 OF 35 proposed subdivision and the open space.The owners would own the dwellings themselves and the open space and remainder of the subdivision would be common area.The existing zoning is CB -2 which allows a variety of commercial uses, and it would allow such things as apartments,commercial storage,outdoor display and contractors'supplies.The applicant is requesting CR-4 zoning which would approve condominium use. Vice Mayor Eck stated he was confused about the stipulations.He asked which is the recommended motion. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated the staff recommended motion is in the staff report.The other motion is an alternative motion from the applicant. Councilmember Insalaco asked why the two end units were switched around. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated they were switched to avoid a hairpin turn. Councilmember Waldron asked if these are all separate units:they .do not share common.walls. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman requested the applicant address the council. Mr.Tom Goscicki,Old West LLC, addressed the council.He stated they have created 14 guest parking areas in the project,which exceeds the necessary requirements.Most of the things they have done exceed the zoning requirements.They are only required to have 5 play station requirements points,and they have 4 or 5 times that amount. He described the recreational and open space areas.The turning radii in the project meet or exceed standards.They originally thought they were going to do storage units on this site,then apartments,and then they decided to do condominiums, because of the location and the Superstition Mountain view.They appeared to be more attractive here.They are interested in the community. They will be putting in 1,000'of new sewer up Southern Avenue,from Cortez to REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 4 OF 35 past their project.They will be paving Southern Avenue and running the utilities in the street as designed.They will be improving Acacia and adding the necessary utilities in exchange for not doing a pool and not having stipulation 8 added.He commented if they did have to turn the units in the one location,the open space would be cut down from 3,500 sq.ft.to 2,100 sq.ft.It would eliminate a nice play area.In addition for not having to do the swimming pool,they are willing to pave the street from Old West Highway south to their property,and that is at a higher cost to them than the pool would be. Mayor Coleman commented he likes the idea of improving Acacia instead of having the swimming pool:however,it will cost them more to do the street than the pool. Mr.Tom Goscicki stated they are the number one state in the country for child drownings.He does not like a pool sitting there that will probably not be used for six months out of the year. The percentage of people using the pool even during the summer is small,and it would increase homeowner association dues for something that is not readily used.They could put all the gates up and have someone sitting there,but there is still the liability factor.I t is a combination of good sense and the possibility of a lawsuit for one child left in a pool unattended for six months.If it was a larger project,they would consider it,but not for this size. Mayor Coleman asked how turning the two end units cuts down the middle open space. Mr.Tom Goscicki stated they are wider than they are narrower. ,Vice Mayor Eck commented he would also rather see Acacia paved if that is the trade off for the swimming pool. He does not feel they have the right to tell him he has to have a swimming pool but he believes the intention was to get a better quality product.He was concerned because of the price difference between paving the road and building the swimming pool.He asked if he was determined to make that change to pave the road. Mr.Tom Goscicki stated he is. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 5 OF 35 Vice Mayor Eck -commented he believes that if they turn those two units there would still be the potential for a hairpin turn depending on which side they were coming from. Mr.Tom Goscicki commented even i f they turned it the other way,you could possible have a bit more difficulty making the turn.Another personal preference of his is that they have 18' wide drives instead of the 16'drives found in most other developments. Vice Mayor Eck commented he would much rather see this than a storage lot. Mr.Tom Goscicki commented Steve had stated they would prefer this. Vice Mayor Eck commented in a perfect world there would be different zoning so that there could be larger lots with beautiful homes and more space between them,but i t is a pretty good project for the type of zoning i t has. Councilmember Insalaco asked how they could get the right-of-way dedicated on Acacia from the site to Old West Highway. Mr.Tom Goscicki stated the people that own the land to the north also own the land to the west of Acacia.They wrote a letter in favor of the project and his paving Acacia. Councilmember Insalaco asked if he had that in writing. Mr.Tom Goscicki stated i t is up to his company to make sure they can come through. Vice Mayor Eck stated he was concerned about the timeliness.He believes the off site improvements should go at the beginning. Mr.Tom Goscicki stated he discussed that with Steve,Rudy and the city attorney.He has to deal with the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 6 OF 35 financing,also.They can do an overall encumbrance of the property and include the off sites during the building of the first three models.They will be given the permits for the first three models at the same time they are doing the street improvements.They cannot continue on with any more building until the street improvements are completed. Vice Mayor Eck commented he just did not want to see i t at the very end. Mr.Tom Goscicki stated he does not either as he wants people to be able to drive there and look at them. Councilmember Waldron stated his concern is that this is putting single family homes on very,very small lots. He asked how this is a condominium project versus a development of single family homes. Mr.Jerry Gagnepain,the architect for the project,stated this project could be assigned with minimum building size instead of square feet.They have asked for that exception in the approval process.They have reduced the minimum footprint building size. Each of the units could be combined into one,solid structure.They have spread the open space between the units to increase the quality of life by lowering it to one level and spreading the open space equally between all the units.The difference between a condominium and 'a single family home is that the homeowners association does not really own this.The homeowners own a prorated share of the entire property based on their particular footprint size.Every unit owns the air space in their unit plus a prorated share of the entire site.People representing the association actually own the property.In a townhouse,the owner owns the land underneath the building itself and owns,in common,the balance of the open space.The difference is whether you own the dirt underneath,or you do not own the dirt underneath. Basically they are building a townhouse project that is not a townhouse project.I t allows for a more affordable unit.I t is affordable in the price range of a condominium but without the unsightliness or density of condominiums.They have a freestanding unit with a double garage.The garage exceeds the size of most of the single family homes in the area,and also has setbacks between the units which exceed the single family setbacks in the area. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 7 OF 35 Councilmember Waldron asked what setbacks they exceed. Mr.Jerry Gagnepain stated they exceed the side yard setbacks between each unit for single family homes.The open space requirements are exceeded by about 200% to 300%. Councilmember Sippel asked what the . price range would be. Mr.Tom Goscicki stated he does not have one at this time.The market is constantly changing. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item. Mr.Joe Severs,1184 N.Starr Road, Apache Junction,addressed the council.He has seen a lot of housing development approved in the last six or seven months,and that is a good thing.He asked if they think the schools are a little overcrowded and at what point does anything have to be done towards the schools in ratio to all the new development. Mayor Coleman stated they tried to charge school development fees and lost on that one.At the high school level they still have some room to grow. Mr.Joe Severs commented he wondered if there would come a point in time where new developers would possibly have to build schools or contribute more to the schools. Vice Mayor Eck agreed with him and he believes the council would agree with him.He believes i t should be on a statewide level and that there should be a level playing field across the state,with a school development fee statewide.He believes that is the answer.Currently there is wheeling and dealing in each community for the land.I t is difficult. Mr.Joe Severs stated it may be a change they will see soon. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 8 OF 35 Vice Mayor Eck stated the city fought as hard as anybody for that change. Mayor Coleman commented the city attorney is stating we are getting off this particular item a little bit.He then closed the public hearing on the item with no one else wishing to speak and reopened the item to council discussion_. There was general discussion on the motion. Councilmember Waldron stated these are still single family homes on small lots,whether they are called town homes or condominiums or whatever.They have always tried to hold to 7,000 sq.ft.minimums for single family homes.This is a nice development and i t is well put together,but they are single family homes on small lots with private streets.Parking will always be an issue;he does not believe 14 guest parking spots are enough.The streets are narrower and the lots are smaller. He considers this a way to put a single family home on a -dinky"lot. Mayor Coleman stated he could not disagree with him,but in weighing the choices for what i t is already zoned, he would rather see this development here than the RV storage unit originally proposed or other uses that are allowed under CB -2 zoning.This is by planned development which afforded them some trade offs. Vice Mayor Eck commented he understands where he is coming from and he does not disagree with him.The key word is zoning.That is what is controlling this subdivision and where the compromise is.Zoning is the major issue on the majority of the infill property. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion with there being no more comments and called for a motion. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1183 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 9 OF 35 Councilmember Insalaco SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read the ordinance by title only. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1183,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:ITEM TIN THE CENTRALIZED USABLE OPEN SPACES DEVELOPMENT,THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A TOT LOT WITH PLAY EQUIPMENT, PLAYGROUND SYSTEMS MODEL NUMBER 350-0006,OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT,RAMADA WITH PARK BENCH AND TABLE WITH BARBECUE GRILL AS APPROVED BY THE CITY'S PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S PARK SUPERINTENDENT:AND ALSO STIPULATION NUMBER 13, THE DEVELOPER SHALL FACILITATE DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION THE ENTIRE PORTION OF THE 33'FEDERALLY PATENTED EASEMENT ADJACENT TO THE WEST OF PINAL COUNTY ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 103-21-041 AND THE 33'FEDERALLY PATENTED EASEMENT ADJACENT TO THE EAST OF PINAL COUNTY ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 103-21- 021:THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMPROVE THE EASTERN 33'PLUS 10',OF THE SAID PORTION OF ACACIA ROAD TO A CURRENT CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION STREET STANDARD SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER.SAID DEVELOPER SHALL.COMPLETE THE OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO THE j8SUANCE. OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR ANY DWELLING UNITS OTHER THAN MODELS;AND'ALSO STIPULATION NUMBER EIGHT OF THE STAFF REPORT,THE MCAP UNITS SHALL BE. ABLE TO BE LOCATED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE ISLAND TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. Councilmember Insalaco SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:5-1 (Councilmember Waldron voted in opposition.) PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.03-13,EX -2003-01, EXTINGUISHMENT OF FEDERALLY PATENTED EASEMENTS ON 22ND AVENUE BETWEEN ACACIA ROAD AND OLD WEST HIGHWAY AND SOLANA ROAD BETWEEN OLD WEST HIGHWAY AND SOUTHERN AVENUE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 10 OF 35 ' )City Engineer Ron Grittman briefed the council on the item.He stated this was presented at the last few work sessions.They look at three things when they recommend an abandonment of a federally patented easement:will it cause a landlocked parcel or future landlocked parcel:will the easement be used as a roadway corridor:and is the easement currently used or does i t have potential use by franchised utilities. The answer to all three is no and staff is recommending this abandonment.He commented the abandonment of the public utility easement has been included in the packet. Vice Mayor Eck asked if the abandonment could be done at any particular time. City Engineer Ron Grittman stated they need it before their plat can move forward.Otherwise,they are constructing within a public utility easement. Mayor Coleman requested the applicant address the council. Mr.Tom Goscicki stated all the utilities and owners involved have already signed and recorded the necessary extinguishment. 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. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that although they have the relinquishment of rights in the public utility easement and they have a recorded copy by the utilities,the city does not own the utility easement.The city has an easement for right-of-way.A yes vote would extinguish the roadway portion of the federally patented easement. City Manager George Hoffman stated this is the latest juncture at which the relinquishment can logically occur. City Attorney Joel Stern stated the extinguishment of the roadway easement is what is before the council.The utility easement relinquishment has already been completed and recorded.He REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 11 OF 35 believes staff could take the recorded copy and tell the developer he could build on it.If the roadway easement abandonment is not completed,the developer could take the risk of the council not approving i t later,which could create problems later if things were built in the roadway easement portion.There is the risk that the extinguishment is granted and the project is not built,making that land more valuable. City Engineer Ron Grittman stated they will require the developer to post an assurance bond for the city that will encompass all the improvements in the future. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion with no more comments and called for a motion. Councilmember Insalaco MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.03-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,DECLARING THAT PORTIONS OF PUBLIC ROADWAY EASEMENTS LOCATED ON 22ND AVENUE BETWEEN ACACIA ROAD AND OLD WEST HIGHWAY AND ON SOLANA ROAD BETWEEN OLD WEST HIGHWAY AND SOUTHERN AVENUE DESCRIBED IN EXTINGUISHMENT CASE EX -2003-01 ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC USE AS PUBLIC ROADWAY EASEMENTS AND ARE HEREBY EXTINGUISHED AS PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAYS,BE APPROVED. Councilmember Milkey SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:5-1 (Councilmember Waldron voted in opposition.) The motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.1186,PZ-6-03, REDUCING REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACKS FROM 10'TO 0'FOR LOTS 413 THROUGH 423 IN THE MERIDIAN MANOR SUBDIVISION )Associate Planner Steve Abraham briefed the council on the item.This is located on the northeast corner area of the intersection of Meridian Drive and Southern Avenue.This amendment would allow an expansion of the buildable area in those lots and patio covers in the other lots adhering to the setbacks.These lots are located in Phase 2 along the southern edge of the development.This request came to the city's REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 12 OF 35 attention due to another property not in this request whose owner wanted to construct a patio cover.Staff determined a permit could not be issued because of the required rear yard setbacks.All the -phases have the same setbacks.The person built the structure and an anonymous complaint was received by code compliance.Staff presented the lot owner with a variety of different options to obtain compliance; the owner decided to remove i t in its entirety and currently does not have a patio cover.During these discussions 3 more complaints were received,2 -of them in the subject area,for patio covers encroaching on the setbacks They met with the lot owners and presented them with -the options.The owner -outside the subject area reconstructed his to' compliance.The other -two,along with nine other owners, requested a planned -development amendment.Staff has determined that if this is approved,the 11 lots would have -0'setbacks and would still have to apply for permits.All other lots in the subdivision -would retain the 10'setback. If the request is denied,the 11 lot owners would have to remove any structures and bring them into compliance with the 10'setback.Some structures may require building permits.If zero setbacks were .approved for . all lots they would abut up against the open space.If this was approved with a 3'setback,it would keep 6'between structures and would be in compliance with the 5'minimum of the building code.If there were zero rear yard setbacks,they would require fire -rated walls between them.The final plat amendment will allow lots -adjacent to open space, retention areas toLextend side and rear property lines to the retention areas with the condition that the retention areas remain cle"arplo unobstructed..Council will need to consider fairness,usable yard versus personal open space and the resultant appearance of the subdivision.Staff has received a variety of situations, explanations,and interpretations for some -ofthe actions that have taken place:Staff urges council to consider the facts.This amendment would only affect 5.25% of all the lots in the subdivision.He recapped the facts of the issue.Staff respectfully requests that the council deny the request and require lot owners to properly go through channels to pursue zoning and building permits.Approval would give these lot owners a special privilege and he foresees where other lot owners could come forward with a similar request in the future.The planning and. zoning commission unanimously denied this request.Staff has provided options and conditions should council decide to approve this request.He listed the conditions. Councilmember Sippel asked what the current distance is for the back yard setbacks now. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 13 OF 35 Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated the building setback is 10 feet. Councilmember Sippel asked if they built the structures in the entire 10 feet. stated some did and some did not. their backyards are more than 10 feet. stated some of them are. setbacks are 10 feet. stated that is correct. all the backyards are just 10 feet. Associate Planner Steve Abraham Councilmember Insalaco asked i f Associate Planner Steve Abraham Councilmember Insalaco commented the Associate Planner Steve Abraham Councilmember Insalaco commented not Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated that is correct.Some of them have a deeper backyard. Councilmember Sippel asked what he meant by deeper. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated some homes have been built to the setbacks,some have not.He added the building official is here to answer any questions. Vice Mayor Eck commented one applied and was denied and one applied and was approved.He asked if he was approved with a zero setback. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 14 OF 35 Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated he believed the setback was 10 feet.One individual altered his plan to get i t into compliance. Mayor Coleman commented it was built in compliance. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Eck commented he is confused on the concept for building this area,knowing the setbacks and knowing what people would want when they buy something.The property owners were unaware of what the setbacks were when they purchased the property.They probably would have looked elsewhere if they had been. Councilmember Milkey asked if any of the other lot owners in this subdivision could submit an application to be approved or denied if this amendment is approved. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated they could. Mayor Coleman requested a spokesperson address the council. Mr.Rodney Johnson,2101 S. Meridian,#418,Apache Junction,addressed the council.He has lived in Meridian Manor for the last nine years as a winter visitor.He distributed some pictures of his patio.His yard measures 9'8".He commented there is a curb back there which he thought was the boundary but i t is not.His patio measures 8'.He commented he is sorry this has happened and that there is this type of problem in a development as nice as Meridian Manor.Four years ago he called the city and talked to a woman at the city named Laurie or Laura,told her about the project and asked if he needed to do anything.She asked if he was enclosing it,if it would be 10'deep or more,and if it was over a certain square footage.No was the answer to all of these questions. The conclusion of the phone call was that he would not have to do anything to proceed with his patio.He therefore constructed his patio.No one within the 300'radius of the amendment is against the amendment.Most everyone in REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 15 OF 35 the entire development is for the amendment.The reduction of a 10'setback could possibly affect development in Meridian Manor occasionally,but not in lots 413 through 423.These lots are all backed up to rock and the water retention center.All the homeowners take pride in their backyards and they even plant and do things in the basin to try to enhance their living space. He stated approval of the amendment would not affect the other residents of the subdivision.Last November a homeowners association was formulated and they now have a very structured and organized way of doing business.They look forward to eliminating any further problems regarding homeowner improvement.Since its inception,the subdivision has had many setbacks and "stormy"ways and i t is just now becoming a vital community.Rejection of this change would be viewed as a huge setback.Removal of the patios would represent a $30,000 plus loss to all the homeowners.The reason for a 10' rear setback is for fire,safety,and density of property.Common sense tells you that a 10'setback rule is completely neutralized in that their rear yards are adjacent to a water basin and there can never be development behind them. He requested approval of the development change. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item. Mr.David Jones,Meridian Manor #414,addressed the council.He lives six months of the year in Minnesota and six months in Arizona.He commented the neighborhood went with what Mr. Johnson had been told and he was sorry for all the problems.He put his patio up based on the information Mr.Johnson had been told.He thanked the council for listening to them on this issue.He was under the impression that if they did not exceed 10'or enclose it that thy would not need a permit.I t is an extension of their home and follows their architectural design.He does not believe the setback rule should apply here as there is 60'to 100'behind them.He commented on the Minnesota setbacks that vary according to the situation.He believes they should vary them here.They are in violation by the letter of the law,but not by the intent of the law.He encouraged them to vote yes on the proposal. Mr.Robert H.Williams,Meridian Manor #306,addressed the council.He does not have a patio cover at this time but is hoping to get a building permit to construct one shortly.He believes the ordinance should be passed as proposed.He does not feel any jealousy or concern over someone having a better patio than his.He just REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 16 OF 35 wants to keep the sun off his back door and have a place to shelter his barbecue.Prior to the homeowners association formulation,things were chaotic in the subdivision.He was unaware of the setback requirement prior to its formulation.He might have faced the same situation as these people i f he had put his up sooner. Mr.John Drenton,Meridian Manor #120,addressed the council.His house meets all setback requirements.He has looked at the applicants'houses and he can see nowhere where this impedes the requirements required by the setbacks.He commented the way most of the houses are in there,if they wanted to fight a fire with a truck they would have to tear down fences and knock over trees.These have added beauty to the subdivision and they take care of the landscaping behind their homes so they are not unsightly due to weeds.He urged them to accept the variance. Ms.Linda Young,Meridian Manor #413,addressed the council.She is one of the homeowners who helped fund the setback appeal.She requested they approve the zero setback because i t is a 55 plus community and is a positive for Apache Junction:the people there have chosen the city as a perfect place for their retirement years:and i t has had a challenging history not caused by the people who lived there yet it affected all of them.Many of them have spent their money to move in and found out after the fact that everything was not as i t should be.She and her husband moved in during July 2001 and talked to someone on the architectural committee in early 2003 on constructing an arbor.They followed his advice,received permission from the homeowners and constructed the arbor.They soon received notice from the city that they were not in compliance.Mr.Davis had complained on someone else and gotten them by mistake.Mr.Davis was having a disagreement with the homeowner association.They thought they followed the rules,spent over two thousand dollars,and found that they were not in compliance.They are asking the council to consider the matter with an open mind and a sense of fairness,and vote to permit all the structures along the retention basin at a zero setback.I t is not a matter of insubordination to the city,i t is a matter of their not knowing what was required and/or misinformation.Approval of the appeal would reduce the stress and fear of being cited,the homeowners board could move forward,and they can enjoy what they came here to do. Mr.Lester Favor,owner of Lot 417 in Meridian Manor,addressed the council.He commented they are not uncaring REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 17 OF 35 and intentional lawbreakers asia newspaper article made them out to ,be.He: added:that3 years ago the scene,if not the code; was slightly different. There was no Meridian Manor. Homeowners Association and they had only encouragement from Great Western..They thought they were doing things . properly after a telephone call to -the ,cityjoffices for permits:They now know that was not true.They need the zerd-Setbacks and requested council approve the appeal. Mr.Harold Maynard,Lot 122 in Meridian Manor,addressed thecouncil.He is in favor of approvinvthe zero setbacks.He has lived therefor 6 years and they try to ensure that the residents follow the rules.They have to make out a form if they are going tO do anything to the exterior of the house.The subdivision has .beenHn a lot of turmoil since 1997;they need to put an end, to it.Some of them haveHa large investment in ,thesettomes and they would like the turmoil to stop.He, requested the council approve the setbacks in this appeal. Ms.-Mary Sparks; tot 103 in Meridian Manor;addressed the council.She .moved in about 3 years.ago and, they had the choice of living where the residents appealing live but they chose not tO and they are happy where they are:They have no problem with.the:setbacks.She commentedTthe residents that live ,along the drainage.ditch go out in the heat of the summer and pull weeds from the drainage ditch.They take pride in that area and they try to keep it neat and nice. Ms.: Agnes Mae Murphy;Lot '313 in Meridian Manor, addressed the council.She moved from Illinois 2 years ago. It does, not bother her: that these people have: patios:She thinks it is great. The people in the: community are wonderful and welcoming.She,belleves: they deserve the patios and she is in favor ,of the appeal. Mr.Dick Vance addressed the council to state he is in favor of passing the amendment. Ms.. Pat Barr,Lot 14 inMeridian Manor,addressed the council.She stated the area is an asset;she Cannot see where i t needs to be changed in any way.She is in favor of the amendment Ms.Barbara Horton,Lot 21 in: Meridian Manor,addressed the 'council:She commented it is a beautiful area REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 18 OF 35 and the people have worked hard on their patios.She requested the council vote for the amendment. Ms.Diane Freda,Lot 24 in Meridian Manor,addressed the council.She requested the council vote for the amendment: Mr.-Darrel Hallenkamp,Lot 372;in Meridian Manor, .addressed the.council.He lives across the street from those with the patio covers.He cannot see them and he has no problem with them. He requested approving the amendment,.He added the person who tore -down the patio cover had -come to the architectural committee,of which he is a member, and the committee denied his request to put up a patio cover because his house is 12'from the property line and he did not have enough room.He stated the man said he knew a city council member who would help him to get it through and he was going to go ahead and do it.The man was told ahead of timeAhat he could not do i t and he did i t anyway.He was not operating in the blind and had no reason to believe he could do it,except he thought someone could help. him. .Another member of the architectural committee addressed the council to state he would have personally approved the change. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak.He reopened the item to council discussion. '•Vice Mayor Eck comMented this is an unfortunate situation.They have,codes and ordinances and he understands the vote from the planning and zoning commission and what staff has done.He added if he was buying this property he would assume he would be allowed to build something there.He believes the buyers should have been notified somewhere through the process that they could not put something up.He does not believe it was the, intention of the owners to do something wrong.He does not see the fire safety and density situation here.He would support the 11 lots,but no others in the future.They are going outside the intention of the code.He does not see having someone tear something down.Staff needs to go through the permit process to determine if they were built properly.They need to avoid situations like this in the future. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 ' PAGE 19 OF 35 Councilmember Insalaco commented two wrongs do not make a right.They were wrong in what they did and they are not denying it.They thought they were doing right.He agrees with Vice Mayor Eck on allowing the 11 lots but no others to have the patio covers.He does not like to go against city staff,but these people have been hurt enough. Councilmember Waldron asked the city attorney if they would be setting a precedent,or if it would change the zoning on any of the other parcels. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they are looking at this group of applicants only:not for any future or past applicants. Vice Mayor Eck asked if another group comes in a year later with a similar request they can say the council did approve it that time but they are not going to do it this time. City Attorney Joel Stern stated they may do that. Mayor Coleman asked if there were others built on the other side. Interim Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated they have not been built yet. Councilmember Waldron agreed with Vice Mayor Eck.It does not seem this was done to thumb their noses at the city and they are nice structures.Staff is doing their job in denying this and so was the planning and zoning commission. Councilmember Sippel commented i t has been a rough road but this has brought that subdivision together as a family.He commented "kudos"to them for the volume of people who showed up, including one from out of town. Mayor Coleman commented he believes that if this is passed anyone who violates the building codes or does not apply for a permit for an addition to their structure may want to have the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 20 OF 35 same process.It worries him that they will say they did not know and that they will then buy the permit.He believes it will be used as a tool to circumvent the code.The pictures are beautiful,and he wishes the retention had been considered part of the lots.They could have been built then.The only problem they would then have is not having gotten the permits before instead of after construction.He asked staff if it was a possibility of changing the lots so that the basin could have been included in the lot size. Interim Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated that is an option.They have approved a number of other subdivisions lately where the retention basin was incorporated into the lot with a caveat stating it could not be built upon,used for storage or park anything on it.There is the possibility of extending the lot lines for these lots adjacent to retention areas all the way to the wall.The retention area would become part of their backyard and it would require a final plat amendment. Councilmember Sippel asked if that was number 6 on this. Interim Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated that was one of the options presented today. Councilmember Waldron asked who would have to present the final plat amendment. Interim Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated they would have to hire an engineer to draw a subdivision plat reflecting changes in lot lines.They would be required to go through the review process.The subdivision is already built so it would not be as extensive a platting process as a new project would.I t is an appropriate avenue for them to pursue. Mayor Coleman asked if it would create any problems for care of the retention basin. City Engineer Ron Grittman stated i t is cared for by the homeowners association. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 21 OF 35 Councilmember Waldron stated option 6 would take care of the mayor's concerns about someone else coming forward with a similar situation and knowing they would have to extend property lines into the retention basin with a final plat amendment before they could come to the council with an appeal to have zero setbacks.It would create an additional step to eliminate the zero setback problem. Councilmember Insalaco commented they would be cleaning their own lot instead of the retention basin. Councilmember Sippel commented they should look at the positive of having more property. Vice Mayor Eck asked what the difference was between option 1 and option 6.He asked if option 6 would protect them more in the future. Mayor Coleman commented the question is good because principle -wise i t is still the problem of getting approval after the fact.He does not want that to become a big problem in the community.He believes there is enough of that going on where people go ahead and build in hopes that they will not get caught. Vice Mayor Eck commented he understood his concern. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion and called for a motion. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1186 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilmember Sippel SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 22 OF 35 City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read the ordinance by title only. Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1186-,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF ITEM -ONE,THAT THE APPROVED REQUEST,THOSEELEVEN LOTS WOULD HAVE A ZERO FOOT SETBACK AND STILL NEED TO APPLY FOR PERMITS AND PROVE STRUCTURES ARE SAFE.ALL OTHER LOTS WOULD STILL HAVE A 10'SETBACK. Councilmember Insalaco SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:5-1 (Mayor Coleman voted in opposition.) The motion carried. Mayor Coleman called for a ten minute break. Mayor Coleman reconvened the meeting. PROPOSED ANNEXATION AN -1-03,CITY- INITIATED ANNEXATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND FREEWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 34,BETWEEN TOMAHAWK AND GOLDFIELD (APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES) )Associate Planner Steve Abraham briefed the council on the item.The area currently contains a mobile home park and freeway right-of-way.The annexation is a reflection of people who wanted to come into the city.Additional area was requested,but enough signatures were not collected and that annexation request died.The mobile home park included is Four Peaks Mobile Home Park.The petition has been filed and recorded according to Arizona law.Tonight's hearing is to gain community input on the issue. Councilmember Sippel asked what the total property was. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 23 OF. 35 Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated i t is 100 acres. Vice Mayor Eck,asked for the location to be shown on the map.He commented it does not include the piece that goes to Tomahawk. Associate Planner Steve Abraham! stated i t does not. Mayor Coleman asked if they could get signatures on 4A without the Burger King so that i t could be included.He is talking about the undeveloped land. Associate Planner Steve Abraham asked if he meant it to be part of this annexation. Mayor Coleman stated he knows i t cannot be part ofthis annexation.He asked if they would have to go back and start again if they wanted to include that piece:He:does not think there is enough adjacent land!to ever get that annexed.' Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated they would have to file another petition with a new legal description. The requirements are that it cannot be more than twice as long as i t is wide. If it is not done with this one,they would have to find some other way to meet the statutory requirements,such as Raindance to the south or another way.He stated they could not go across Tomahawk without including Burger King as i t is not wide enough,and Burger King has a high assessed value. Mayor Coleman stated he has a couple of problems with the whole piece.His understanding was that Burger King would come in when the sewer was available. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated that is correct. Mayor Coleman stated i t is now available and they will not come in. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 24 OF 35 Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated the owners advised they did not want to come in.There is a development agreement with the county on file where they said they would come into the city once the sewer was available.At the time staff presented this, they said no. Mayor Coleman asked if they could enforce that agreement. City Attorney Joel Stern stated that is a stipulation between the county and the owner of Burger King.The county would have to enforce it.They would have to look to see i f i t is legally valid.They would also have to look at the assessed valuation issue,of which estimates would be pretty high compared to the others parcels in the area,as most of them are undeveloped,other than Four Peaks which has 20-30 mobile homes and infrastructure.However,the Burger King valuation is still much larger. Mayor Coleman asked if the pieces that want to come in all support annexation. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated they do not know.There are only 3 signatures required and 2 of them are from utilities. Councilmember Waldron asked how the assessed valuation of Burger King compares to Four Peaks Mobile Home Park. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated he is checking that now. Interim Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated Burger King has an assessed valuation of $915,000. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated using that valuation,parcel 1 is $207,823 and parcel 5 is $56.825. Mayor Coleman asked about 4A only. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 25 OF 35 Interim Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated that is residential. Mayor Coleman asked if this was for action tonight. Interim Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated tonight is just a public hearing.They request valuations from the county and the state department of revenue whenever they do annexations.He does not know if they have received the latest figures. They will circulate the annexation petitions in a few days.Once they have all the necessary number of petitions,they can schedule the annexation for a public hearing and decision.They have one year after the 30 day waiting period to collect the signatures. City Manager George Hoffman stated i t is unclear if they have exhausted all the remedies with the county regarding Burger King.They would have time to look at that. Interim Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated if they wanted to change the configuration they would have to start a new process.Once they record a reconfigured petition, they would have to have another discussion within 30 days of the recorded date to consider a different annexation.They are not in a hurry to get the signatures. Mayor Coleman commented he is concerned because he believes 4A may eventually be commercial. Interim Development Services Director Rudy Esquivias stated the owner's son has talked to them and advised that the owner eventually wants to do a commercial subdivision.He does not want to be annexed now due to the development fee issue,and he does not want to do a commercial subdivision now because he does not want to have to pay commercial property taxes on it. City Manager George Hoffman commented if council wishes staff to revisit the issue with some of them, staff might seek to appeal to some of the private sector partners to convey REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 26 OF 35 council's desire for a larger annexation.They might be able to help in speaking private sector to private sector. Mayor Coleman commented he would just like to have them look at it. Vice Mayor Eck agreed,and suggested having the city attorney talk with the county to look at the contracts to see if they are legal and could be upheld. City Manager George Hoffman stated there may be some advantages the parties may want to consider in terms of agreements that might be reached to their advantage in regards to future expansion. Associate Planner Steve Abraham stated he had found the valuation for 4A,and i t is $54,430. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item. Mr.Jack London,Phoenix,addressed the council.He stated he has the mortgage on 1 and 5 and they are about to foreclose on them.He will be the owner and he would like to see them come into the city.He would like to assist in getting Burger King included in the annexation.He has already given his business card and some information about his companies to the city attorney and he would be happy to help. Vice Mayor Eck commented he hopes he understands that the city does want him. Mr.Jack London stated they would like to be here.They are thinking of converting this into 351 homes,which would bring the city a lot of taxes. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak.He moved on to Item Number 12. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.1158,AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 10 OFFENSES BY ADDING A NEW REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 27 OF 35 ARTICLE 10-7 MOTORIZED SKATEBOARDS )Public Safety Director Robert Warner briefed the council on the item..The only change in the original ordinance was pursuant to council direction.The speed limit for prohibited use of this particular type of mode of transportation was changed from 25 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour. Councilmember Waldron commented they are starting to.see more and more of the electric scooters with a seat on them.He asked if these wouldbe included under this definition.He has seen them going down the sidewalk with people trying to move out of the way. Public Safety Director Robert Warner stated he believes they will be under the definition in the ordinance.The motor can be electric,gasoline or diesel. Councilmember Milkey commented the children that are riding the Barbie Jeeps and Tonka Trucks will now be age, restricted. Public Safety Director Robert Warner stated they will be if they ride on the streets. Councilmember Milkey commented the purpose and intent talks about, the widespread impact of accidents.He asked. if there were any statistics regarding current accidents with motorized skateboards. Public Safety Director Robert Warner stated they do not that informatiOn.They have had some injuries resulting from people falling off of these devices.He could not give statistics on actual collisions.Typically the injuries are a result from falls. Councilmember Milkey asked if it was correct to categorize i t as widespread. Public Safety Director Robert Warner stated that is a matter of semantics.If it involves your child,it may be. I t is not widespread in regards to speeding traffic or many other issues. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 28 OF 35 'Mayor Cbleman opened the public hearing on the item. Ms.Carol Urich,201 E.Southern, Apache Junction,addressed the council.She has seen some of these and they have tried to race her in her wheelchair.Some of them do not have lights on them at night.She asked if there was anything in the ordinance requiring lights. Councilmember Milkey stated the ordinance restricts night-time use of these.He commented they have discussed this 3 or 4 times and there is always an instance of someone having witnessed dangerous events.Since the last meeting,he has seen 3 motorized skateboards in use in town and each time they have been operated in a safe manner.He feels they are enacting another law that will create restrictions he is not sure they need. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing with no one else wishing to speak.He reopened the item to .council discussion.He added he was concernedabout where they would be allowed, and where they would not.He understands their having, to wear a helmet,but he is not sure the speed limit is adequate. Vice MayorIck,commented it will depend on how it will be enforced:He iagrees with CounclImember Milkey -on how biga:prOblem there is,but when there is a problem there:is not something there for the -officers to use This should not .mean that you cannot ride a scooter around Apache Junction. Mayor Coleman stated he was also concerned that no person under: the age of 14 could use one.That leaves out the:kids at the middle schools. Councilmember'Sippel stated he likes the 16 and under. Mayor Coleman commented if they strike those two it may take the teeth out of it. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 29 OF 35 Councilmember Milkey commented he does not think it takes the teeth out of it.It gives officers the power to enforce no external fuel packs,the hours of operation,and the modification of the structure.He would hate to see the 10 to 13 -year -old kid that is properly supervised and has all the good intentions to get to and from school get penalized.They must walk i t until they get to a ao miles per hour road. Councilmember Waldron commented this is an opportunity for the city to be proactive and prevent these injuries.He does not think a motorized skateboard should be going down Idaho or the other four and five lane roads.A 35 miles per hour speed limit would allow that, and there has to be an age at some point. Mayor Coleman commented he runs down Idaho and Delaware and feels safer on Idaho because the street is wider.He has to be more cautious on Delaware which is 25 miles per hour. Councilmember Milkey commented speed limits are proactive against speeding and accidents.People that are going to speed will still speed.Children that are reckless on these motorized skateboards will be reckless regardless of the law.He would appreciate their considering removing the age restriction and the miles per hour restriction. Councilmember Waldron commented i f you remove the speed limit restriction,he feels that renders this law worthless.They would not be preventing anything other than the gasoline backpacks. Councilmember Milkey commented they would be regulating the hours of use,operating them in a manner to cause excessive noise,the alteration of the original structure,carrying any packages or articles preventing both hands from being on the steering mechanism,operation of while attached to another vehicle,passengers, yielding right-of-way on pedestrian and bicycle paths,and operating at a speed greater than reasonable and prudent. Councilmember Waldron asked what defines reasonable and prudent. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 30 OF 35 Councilmember Milkey commented i t is based on what the officer witnesses.He finds i t hard to believe that an officer does not have any kind of influence without this ordinance. Vice Mayor Eck commented they need some type of ordinance.He added 12 might possibly be a better age as that is when the children start middle school.He cannot see anything else being changed in it. Mayor Coleman commented they could always bring i t back if it turns out to be too restrictive as far as the accessibility of the roads. Vice Mayor Eck commented he would like to see the results six months from now.They have had no public input, but if it is enforced to where they are not used,they might hear something from the users. Mayor Coleman commented he could go along with the 12 -year -old age restriction.He closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1158 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. -Vice Mayor Eck SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read the ordinance by title only. Councilmember Waldron MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.1158,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT:UNDER SECTION 10-7-4 GENERAL OPERATING RESTRICTIONS, THAT SUBSECTION A READ "NO PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF TWELVE SHALL OPERATE A MOTORIZED SKATEBOARD". REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 31 OF 35 Councilmember Insalaco SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:5-1 (Councilmember Milkey voted in opposition.) The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS 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 IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)STATE SPECIAL PROJECTS (SSP)LOCAL CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN (LCPP)AND PROVISION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION IN ITS ROLE IN PROGRAM )CDBG Administrative Assistant Melinda Larson briefed the council on the item.Staff is requesting direction to begin the immediate implementation of the plan and provide technical assistance to the health and human services commission regarding its role in the program.She added the food bank expansion/construction is complete. There will be a ribbon cutting ceremony in October and invitations will be going out. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker commented Sandra Brown,staff liaison with the Department of Commerce,is in attendance this evening.She has helped them walk their projects through, including a project submitted for this process last year,that being the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 32 OF 35 mobile command unit.He receivedliotification today-thatthe grant for that unit has been approved and funded. Vice Mayor Eck complimented Roger Hacker on a job well done.It was his upderstanding:that-they were outof the running..He asked if the CDBG money was still open for everyone,including public works if they have a project. Grants Specialist Roger Hacker commented last time they essentially had two lists of projects .;one that was social service projects and the other was for infrastructure and other items. The health and human services commission can only make recommendations on the social service projects.There will be the opportunity for department heads to suggest projects also. they go back to ,their :stated they can'during,this process also. and called tor a motion. Vice Mayor Eck asked :if that is when. .Grants Specialist Roger Hacker Mayor Coleman closed the:discussion Councilmember!Milkey MOVED THAT, STAFF BE. GIVEW THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION::THAT THEY IMMEDIATELY BEGIN THE IMPLEMENTATION.OF ,THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -BLOCK GRANT:STATE:SPECIAL PROJECTS LOCAL CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONHPLANANDPROVISION .OF TECHNICIAL-ASSISTANCETft THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSIONLAS THEY UNDERTAKE THEIR'ROLE IN THE LCPP. Councilmember Waldron SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES,TIMES,LOCATIONS,AND PURPOSES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 33 OF 35 Vice Mayor Eck MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.AND WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M.BE HELD ON MONDAY,OCTOBER 6,2003,IN THE CITY CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RESPECTIVELY: AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.BE HELD ON TUESDAY,OCTOBER 7,2003 IN THE CITY CONFERENCE ROOM. Councilmember Waldron SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Vice Mayor Eck announced that he has a golf tournament Saturday that everyone should be at. ADJOURNMENT )Mayor Coleman adjourned the meeting at 9:35 pin. Consent Agenda Items areas follows: 1.Acceptance:of Agenda. Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Meetioj of September 2,2003. 3.Recognition of Outstanding Service to the Community by City -Employees: Brenda CherryhoTmes:Jan Mason:and Kathy Connelly. 4.Consideration of Award of Bid fori3roject No.PW 2003-12,Library Lighting Project,to Fluoresco Lighting & Signs inthe amount. of. $37,810.02. 5.Consideration of Award of Bid for PR 03-02,Landscape Maintenance,for landscape maintenancefor Renaissance Point,Arroyo Verde,Phelps Drive and Ironwood Cove to TrUGreen LandCare for $61,698 plus 10 ,or $6,169.80,for contingency for a total not to exceed $67,867.80. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 34 OF 35 6.Consideration of Award of Bid for reprographic service for the City Hall Complex and Multi-generational/recreation Center and additional new construction projects to Blaylock Reprographics in an amount not to exceed a total of $50.000. 7.Consideration of continuance of software maintenance agreement to September 29,2004,with VisionAir Software for VisionRMS,VisionCAD and VisionMobile in the amount of $38.116.79. ACCEPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2003,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2003. ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk DOUGLAS CQtEMAN Mayor 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 16th day of September,2003.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 6th day of November,2003. KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 16,2003 PAGE 35 OF 35