Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-04 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 4,1997 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on February 4,1997,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 Surra gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmember Barker led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present:Mayor Coleman Vice Mayor Richmond Councilmember Surra Councilmember Urich Councilmember Durbala Councilmember Hendricks Councilmember Barker Staff Present:City Manager Curtis Shook Asst.City Manager George Hoffman City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Glenn Gimbut Public Safety Director Robert Galloway City Engineer Gordon Grandy Public Works Director Doug Dobson Development Services Director Larry Harmer Others Present:Associate Planner Kate Morris Associate Planner Rudy Esquivias ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED;AND THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY BY THE FOLLOWING CITY EMPLOYEES:HOUSING & GRANTS COORDINATOR JOHN PETROFF;HOUSING REHABILITATION SERVICES EMPLOYEES;PATROL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 1 OF 31 OFFICER DANA STERRETT;THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT;AND PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES JAKE LUCERO AND FRANK SUBIA;AND THAT APPROVAL BE GIVEN TO ENGAGE THE SERVICES OF MARK LASSITER AND ROBERTS,ROWLEY & SMITH,LTD.,AS ATTORNEYS FOR LITIGATION IN ARCARO VS.CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION. Vice Mayor Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous.(Councilmember Barker voted yes with the exception of the minutes as she was absent from the last meeting.) The motion carried. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Coleman stated he had two plaques which he had intended to give out that evening,however,the recipients were unable to attend.Gil Verley was scheduled for surgery and could not attend,therefore the mayor would deliver it to him.The other plaque was a memorial plaque for Grace Hagner to be presented to Lee Hagner.Lee is also ill and could not attend.He requested it to be rescheduled to the next meeting. Mayor Coleman presented a proclamation for Lost Dutchman Days to Apache Junction Chamber of Commerce representative Elaine Schrader. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Mr.Robert Langley,Government Relations Manager for Triax Cablevision, addressed the council.He stated they are in the community this week talking to city staff,resolving some of the issues from the last several months.He stated they had apprised staff of what is happening in Triax,the improvements made to customer service,the upgrades in their phone system and had announced they had hired a new customer service representative for the Apache Junction office.The office will be open from 8 a.m.to 5 p.m.five days a week.The company intends to fully upgrade and rebuild the community with a fiber optic backbone system.This will allow more channels,pay per view and a variety of other services.They are starting to formulate a time frame for implementation.He then introduced Jane Bremmer,who is their legal counsel. Ms.Jane Bremmer addressed the council.She stated Triax had made numerous improvements in the system over the last four months.They have added staff and doubled the customer service representatives.They are addressing the technical service concerns.They appreciate the time city staff spent with the advising them of the city's concerns and its future communications needs. They will be fully rebuilding the system in Apache Junction. Councilmember Hendricks asked if he could ask a question. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 2 OF 31 City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated Triax and staff will be scheduling a work session with the council in the near future. Councilmember Hendricks asked who would be attending the work session on behalf of Triax and if it would be before the franchise agreement is to be signed. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated hopefully the representatives here tonight will be attending the work session and it will be before the agreement is signed. Ms.Midge Conway,902 S.Ocotillo Drive,addressed the council on the sign ordinance.She stated how people are now attacking the sign ordinance.She commented if you drive down Route 60 in Mesa all the hotels do not have huge signs,they have the name printed at the top of the building.When driving down Route 60 in Apache Junction,she could not tell that the Super 8 was a motel.She does not think any sign would be effective unless it was put on the top of the building.She also recommended contacting ADOT to get signs along the freeway directing people to lodging,food and fuel. Mr.Elliott Fisher,547 E.Quail,addressed the council on the sign issue.He stated when the Mobil sign had been discussed,he had hoped it would not occlude the mountain.He proposed the council consider smaller scale models of the signs being submitted with the plans in the future.He suggested in a controversial sign,a temporary sign might be put up at the location to see what the citizens have to say. Mr.W.Dean Thorpe,1615 N.Delaware Drive,addressed the council regarding the landfill.He stated he does not believe the situation has changed since the city last "tried to get into the landfill business"in October 1992.He believes the city should think about picking up garbage instead of wondering about what to do with it.He does not believe the city should have to hopscotch over a landfill to continue its growth to the south.He does not believe the city should be in the landfill business. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Curtis Shook stated the city had renewed the neighborhoods program.Last week they visited with the Kiwanis Club,the Apache Villa Homeowner's Association and the Greasewood Area Block Watch.They will be attending the Sierra Entrada Homeowner's Association neighborhood meeting on Monday at 7 p.m.,the Palm Springs Homeowner's Association on Tuesday at 7 p.m.,the Soroptimist Club on February 19 and the National Association of Retired Federal Employees on March 17.They hope to add 3-4 additional neighborhood meetings. City Manager Curtis Shook stated regarding the landfill the city is not now nor is it considering being in the landfill business.The item tonight regards a regional landfill proposal for an area 17-18 miles south and east of REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 3 OF 31 Apache Junction.The current company owning the current landfill is proposing expanding the landfill and the city is skeptical of the expansion without further information.If pushed,it will go before planning and zoning in the near future.In the future the city may want to look into the possibility of there being a franchise for waste removal should a number of contractors start picking up the solid waste. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE FOR PARK 'N SWAP )City Clerk Kathleen Connelly briefed the council on this item.She stated correspondence was in the packet from the police department,building department and fire district indicating approval and the applicant had been notified of the hearing by a letter with a stronger recommendation to attend.The applicant may or may not be here. Mayor Coleman asked if the applicant was there and if they would address the council.The applicant was not in attendance.He opened the public hearing on the item. Mr.Elliott Fisher,547 E.Quail, addressed the council.He reminded the council of the last session when he brought up the transfer license to Megafoods for Bashas',when the council recommended approval of the transfer.He felt the reasoning given at that time was vague.He thinks the council should be more careful on these approvals.He does not believe this should be passed on to the state.He believes the city should be more "tough"on the liquor license situations.He started to mention the car chase from a couple of weeks ago. Mayor Coleman and Councilmember Surra interrupted Mr.Fisher to remind him to stay on the issue at hand. Mr.Elliott Fisher stated it was important. Councilmember Surra reminded him to stick with the issue at hand. Mr.Elliott Fisher stated he was. The point was liquor.He stated if kids had liquor in the vehicle,where did they get it?He started to comment on the last meeting's liquor license and how the council appeared to take it lightly. Mayor Coleman requested Mr.Fisher to stay with this liquor license,the reasons for denial or support,and added he does not take these liquor licenses lightly. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 4 OF 31 Mr.Elliott Fisher stated it did not appear that way in the last session. Mayor Coleman stated he apologized if it did not appear that way but he again stated he does not take them lightly.He stated they have a packet of information they study beforehand. Mr.Elliott Fisher stated they had two applications and two times the applicants were not here to speak about what they are applying for,how they are going to handle it and no one questions it.He requested council to tighten it up. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated the city has very limited jurisdiction in these matters as to reasons of denial and the city attorney can address those. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated this entire area is regulated by the Arizona Revised Statutes.The council has no power or jurisdiction to override the legislature of the State of Arizona,the governor of the State of Arizona,or its departments.Our abilities are limited to making a recommendation to the state for approval or denial.We cannot attach legal conditions to it.He suggested Mr.Fisher make an appointment with the governor if he has a problem with the state statutory scheme.If a recommendation of denial is given,specific reasons must be stated and specific grounds must be put on the record as to why this license should be denied.A general statement about not liking liquor or not liking children having liquor is not grounds. Ms.Nancy Wood,105 N.Delaware Drive #212,addressed the council.She would prefer not to see liquor served in that area because of traffic problems and the number of accidents on the corner of Delaware and Apache Trail.She believes having liquor available in that area would aggravate the problem. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing and opened the item to discussion by the council. Councilmember Durbala asked the chief of police if accidents had increased in the area due to the sale of liquor. Public Safety Director Robert Galloway stated he was not prepared to comment on whether any accidents were caused by the consumption of alcohol or not. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion and called for a motion. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 5 OF 31 Councilmember Urich MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM PERMIT,PERSON TRANSFER,SERIES 7 LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY SHAWN MATTOX FOR PARK 'N SWAP BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:6-1 (Councilmember Durbala voted in opposition because the applicant failed to show up to answer questions.) The motion carried. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL LIQUOR LICENSE FOR APACHE JUNCTION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ) )City Clerk Kathleen Connelly briefed the council on the item.This application is for Lost Dutchman Days. There is correspondence in the packet from the fire district,planning division and police department regarding the application and the applicant is here. Elaine Schrader,a representative of the Apache Junction Chamber of Commerce,addressed the council.She respectfully requested them to approve the license. 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 discussion by the council.There being no further discussion,he called for a motion. Councilmember Durbala MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY CAROLYN DOTY OF THE APACHE JUNCTION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR LOST DUTCHMAN DAYS BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSE AND CONTROL. Councilmember Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.979/PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.97-02 (PZ-96-22/SD-96-06) IRONWOOD AND SOUTHERN BY DIAMOND KEY HOMES )Development Services Director Larry Harmer briefed the council on this item.This property had gone through an earlier rezoning that had given it a variety of zonings.This request is REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 6 OF 31 to modify all the property to single family planned development.There are some exceptions:a 20 -acre commercial parcel,a 2 -acre SRP substation and a 7.5 -acre church site.The general plan for this development is medium density and this property falls in mid -range for the plan.There are 3 minimum lot sizes:45 X 110 in Areas A and B,55 X 110 in Areas C and D,and 60 X 110 in Area D to the south,which covers approximately 20% in the density mix.Areas A and B constitute less than 50% of the overall lots.The market is towards the first time buyer,but they have larger lots for those moving up.This development will require 10% open space throughout,and staff has determined there is a little over 9% open space.To make up the difference,Diamond Key is proposing 20% more landscaping in those open areas,making it denser.This would have to be approved by the parks department. Mayor Coleman opened the item to questions by the council.There being no questions at this time,he asked the applicant to address the council. Mr.Rick Jellies,15948 E. Ponderosa,Fountain Hills,addressed the council.He is the vice president of operations for Diamond Key Homes.He stated he was there to answer any questions of the council. Councilmember Barker stated the minimum sized lots seemed too small,which is 20% of those lots.She asked if they were only on the 16th and Ironwood side. Mr.Rick Jellies stated only 20% of the actual overall parcel are at the minimums. Councilmember Barker asked if those lots could be a little bigger. Mr.Rick Jellies stated they view them from marketability and for a niche in the various markets.This parcel has three different products.It makes good economic sense and the project is actually less dense than the original densities shown on the project.They deemed it appropriate due to past history on similar projects.The mix they have here under normal circumstances would have had more smaller lots,but staff was hesitant and convinced them to scale back the number of smaller lots. Councilmember Hendricks stated he agreed with Councilmember Barker,he wanted to see the minimum size lots a little bigger.He sees a trend in the community towards smaller lots and smaller homes,but he is getting from the public that they do not want smaller lots and smaller homes.They want bigger lots and homes.He stated he did not want to create a slum.They went through a problem with a HUD project a couple of years ago and they do not want to go through the same thing in a few years.The size of the home is up to the builder,but council wants to see REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 7 OF 31 larger lots and more space between the homes.It appears to be only 10'to 11'between homes.He has seen it driving down the freeway and does not think it is very appealing.He does not want to see it here. Mr.Rick Jellies stated he understood his concerns but he takes offense at a Diamond Key community being characterized as a slum.They do a very nice product,they landscape the front yards and build good quality homes.They are on par or a step above other homes going up in the community.There is a variety of lot sizes for transition due to the vicinity of the school and the prime commercial property in the area to be developed. Councilmember Hendricks apologized for the slum comment,he was basing that on what was heard from residents a couple of years ago on another piece of property.They are trying to keep from having so many people in just a little area and would like it opened up a little bit.Apache Junction is a rural community.He again requested the lots to be made a little wider. Mr.Rick Jellies stated he is concerned about that as they want to put in less density than is normally seen.They were going to hold out some of the parcels of land for a marketability standpoint that were going to be utilized for such things as apartments.Staff told them to approach it as a master plan.They went back to the seller and bought the areas to make a comprehensive project and delete the high density areas. Councilmember Hendricks stated some of these yards do not look big enough to allow dogs per the city animal ordinance. Councilmember Durbala stated he believed these lots are almost the same size as Canterbury Homes and they have already sold all of their smaller lots like this.He stated there must be a need for people moving into the community for these smaller type homes and lots. Councilmember Hendricks stated the mobile home lots are small lots. Councilmember Durbala stated they are small yet. Mayor Coleman stated the Canterbury site was zoned to allow mobiles originally,and that was one of the trade-offs for the site -built. City Manager Curtis Shook stated when the Canterbury Homes proposal was considered,the design and other REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 8 OF 31 amenities were included in the planned development.This included a different kind of stick -built home,having curvilinear roads and increased open spaces. He stated Canterbury Homes was an experiment with 45'lots and 10'setbacks. It is up to the council as to whether those homes are too close together. Staff did convey to Diamond Key Homes that Canterbury Homes was an exception, not the rule,and Diamond Key did scale back the number of small lots. Vice Mayor Richmond stated she counted the smaller lots,and they have 34 of the 45'lots in Section A and 68 in Section B.They are not all in one place,which makes her feel better,but she encouraged using a minumum of 50'wide lots. might be more than 20%. 102 of 500 and some. close. appreciated the fact they are worki be no less than a 50'minimum. tradeoff with Canterbury Homes was less than 10% and still getting 45' the proposal. shown on the map where the smaller mixed in with Sections A and B. Councilmember Barker thought it Vice Mayor Richmond stated it was Councilmember Barker stated it was Vice Mayor Richmond stated she ng on the widths,but she feels it should Councilmember Surra stated the increased open space.Here we are getting lots.She stated she does not agree with Councilmember Barker asked to be dwellings will be. Mr.Rick Jellies stated they are Councilmember Barker stated the reduction of 20 to 23 lots in that area would probably accomplish what they are looking for.She does not feel that since one development was given 45' lots,that the city is looking for 45'lots.It was a tradeoff for specific things,which is how planned developments work.She is not comfortable with 45'lots. Mr.Rick Jellies stated when they viewed this property they saw the existing zoning and densities.They proposed one project which has been changed significantly.Since the original proposal they have added a month or two to the process trying to meet the city's goals,they went into negotiations with the seller,the site was reconfigured and they reduced the density again.He said the majority of the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 9 OF 31 lots are 50'or 55'and some are larger than 60'.When looking at the actual square footage of the lots the minimum becomes meaningless.He stated cutting 23 lots would make the project less economically viable.It reduces the amount of homes by 10% in the section.It does a few things in terms of their target market.It affects the affordability of those lots,it affects his ability to provide various home sizes,it affects the ability to develop the project at an even pace.If the lot size becomes a push,and the lots cost as much in ground and development as the larger lots,he has lost the density and it would become less economically viable.He does not know if the project would succeed in this form. Mayor Coleman stated they appreciated his efforts and realize he did not negotiate in bad faith,but he believes staff had mentioned there would be some concerns about 45'frontage on the lots.It is a concern that he has also. Councilmember Urich added she was concerned about the 45'width also. Councilmember Barker stated they have a responsibility towards the project and how it will affect the city,now and in the future.The council has a vision of the city retaining much of its "rurality" while still meeting the needs of the populace and having economic growth. Councilmember Durbala stated he is not worried about the 45'lot.He added there is a trend nationwide where people do not want large lots as they do not want to have to maintain them. They are buying smaller lots.He does not think it a bad idea to have some smaller lots in there.This also makes the house more affordable. Councilmember Surra stated she agreed with some smaller frontage or overall lot size for a diverse amount of choices,however 20% may be too great for this parcel,plus there are others out there already.She advised remembering what may be a trend this year may not be a trend 5 years from now.We cannot base building developments on current trends only.Since this is near a school,she does not believe childless couples would be interested in buying right by the school.Families with children will need a little more space.She would like to see the number of 45'lots reduced.She asked where in Fountain Hills he would place this project,as that is where he lives. Mr.Rick Jellies stated there is no zoning left for small lots in Fountain Hills.That zoning was the first to go.He added he mentioned the school because those areas tend to have a higher intensity use,particularly a high school,plus a commercial corner. Higher intensity use generally means higher density housing,which is why he believes that site had been approved by council earlier for apartments. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 10 OF 31 Councilmember Surra stated the community is different and looks at things differently now. Mr.Rick Jellies stated the school and the desire to improve commercial usage on the main corridors are still there.The technical aspects are intact. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item. Ms.Jean Perkins,616 N.Cactus, addressed the council.She is concerned about the electromagnetic radiation that sommetimes emits from the power package placed on this property.Nothing had been said previously as there are no homes in the area as of yet.She suggested building trees around the area to prevent the radiation from getting to the home sites. Ms.Billie Thomas,who owns property with her husband at the southwest corner of Ironwood and Southern,addressed the council.She stated they have watched Apache Junction grow for more than twenty years.She welcomes Diamond Key to the area,however,she is also concerned on the size of the 45'lots and the 18'setbacks.She is afraid large vehicles will overhang the sidewalks if parked on the driveway.She stated the county requires larger lots than this for double wide mobile homes. Ms.Midge Conway,902 S.Ocotillo, addressed the council.She asked the developer how large the houses would be on the 45'lots. Mr.Rick Jellies stated it ranges from 1100 square feet to 2700 square feet depending on the lot size,with up to 1800 square feet on the smaller lots. Ms.Midge Conway stated her house is 1600 square feet,and their setbacks are 6'to either side of the house.She finds it is ample.She suggested if they did not like what the developer is doing on these small lots,the council might consider townhouses.She also stated she would not like to see any more variances on planned developments. Councilmember Durbala asked Mr. Jellies if the 1800 square foot homes on the smaller lots were two story homes. Mr.Rick Jellies stated that is correct.He also clarified that the front setback is 20'according to the stipulation.He also stated the reasons for variances was to get something and give something in return.He pointed out that when they came in,they had a plan that worked within all the existing plans of zoning.The process has taken six months with continuous changes and a good give and take.It appears REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 11 OF 31 the attitude to him is they came in to take and take and take,when in fact they have done some highly unusual things such as refiguring the property and going after other pieces of property in negotiations just to try to meet the city's goals on this.He thinks it is a good project. Councilmember Durbala stated there would actually be 15'between houses,whereas in his neighborhood there is only 10:between the setbacks.This is under the stipulations. Mr.Elliott Fisher,547 E.Quail, addressed the council.He stated you cannot correct thirty years overnight, it has to be a creative step by step process.He thinks the townhouse idea is great,but you have to look at the economic situation of the citizens.You have to build what is affordable,and he thinks Diamond Key is an excellent project. Mr.Allen Tom,6707 E.McKellips, Mesa,addressed the council.His family owns the property on the northwest corner of Ironwood and Southern.He believes the Diamond Key project is a step in the right direction for community development. Mr.Chris Benjamin of Diamond Key Homes addressed the council.He is the land manager,and his job is to identify sites for the company to build on.He is concerned as he has been hearing these same comments in Gilbert and Chandler over the last year or two. He urged caution in talking about 50'wide lots.He advised keeping an open mind to allow people to afford to buy what is developed and to allow the developer to afford to develop them.There have been a lot of expenses to develop this and it is the first for the master plan of Apache Junction.He added Canterbury built a product that is successful and drawing a lot of attention to this area,and it will draw commercial and industrial development as well as single families,as these businesses will need affordable housing for their employees.The developers will start looking for other places to go if the city continues the trend of Chandler and Gilbert.The impact fees and sewer district fees drive the cost of development up and this is a business like any other that needs to make money to survive.Their project cannot be compared to Canterbury as they have added things like parks to the project and they have a nice mix of lots.He stated they wanted to be here and requested council to not take a hard line on the 45'lots. Mayor Coleman stated they wanted Diamond Key here. Mr.Chris Benjamin stated when council moves in that direction it makes it less and less viable for them to develop.They have done everything asked of them by staff and have made a lot of adjustments.He believes the plan as it is now is in the best interest of the city when compared with the plan originally approved. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 12 OF 31 Councilmember Surra stated for clarification that they did not say every one of the lots could not be 45'. When the 45'lots were approved before,more space was given in return.In this development the city is getting less open space than is normally required and yet it still has 45'lots,which seems inequitable.Nothing was said about everything having to be more than 45'.She believes they could come up with the open space required by reducing the number of lots. Mr.Chris Benjamin asked if it was an either/or situation.Could they mix up some more 50's in the 45's,or are they going back to the minimum space requirement? Councilmember Surra stated the open space received from Canterbury was greater than what would have been received if 45'widths had not been given.If the 45'lots were reduced by even a small number,it would give the appearance of more space. Mr.Rick Jellies stated a good amount of the open space in Canterbury is due to the drainage areas which could not be used.All of the Diamond Key space is usable.He added they gave up the apartments for the 45'lots. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated staff has enjoyed working with Mr.Jellies for his knowledge and professionalism.He has been easy to deal with.He suggested it would be helpful to council if Diamond Key went into detail as to the compromises reached thus far. Mayor Coleman called for a ten minute break. Mayor Coleman reconvened the public hearing. Ms.Jean Perkins,616 N.Cactus, addressed the council.She commented there are more working parents and they do not want to spend time working in their yards.These builders will have to be competitive with the 45'lots and they may give us a better built home than expected in order to do so.She requested council not be blind to the 45'lot and to approve the development. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing and asked if Mr.Jellies had anything further to add. Mr.Jellies gave the council a quick synopsis on how the planned development transpired.They sat down and talked with staff on the original parcel and then went to work on it.Originally there were apartments which staff did not think should be near a school.So they went after the apartments to incorporate them into their site.The REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 13 OF 31 commercial corner was not sized to meet the city's needs so they worked with the seller to make it the size the city would like to see,causing another reconfiguration.Staff had concerns about the nature of the project and they voluntarily agreed to locate any existing worthwhile plat materials and incorporate them into the project.Staff was concerned about outparcels for churches that did not appear viable for that use.They reconfigured again to bring those in and meet staff's concerns.They volunteered to do an upgraded wall with monumentation on the Ironwood/Southern corridor.He believes it is a nice project and is better than the things approved for the site right now. They are willing to work with staff to take a look at the individual plat so that the 45's do not end up all in a row.He is willing to lose a few of the lots.He does not want to end up where he cannot find the niche in the market place. Councilmember Barker stated that works. Development Services Director Larry Harmer demonstrated with the overhead projector what had been on the site previously.He stated a commercial corner had been set up at 16th Avenue and Ironwood which could have been made into a church site.However,there are already two churches across the street and Sunday morning traffic is heavy. They therefore moved the church site to across from the high school.There was a large piece of multi -family housing but it was across the street from the high school and family -oriented housing would be more appropriate.They ended up with approximately 20 acres for the commercial corner which is more marketable.The traffic engineer required a quarter section east/west/north/south connection.However,straight shots of roads are problematic with speeders and people cutting through neighborhoods. Therefore,curvilinear streets were used and they eat up lots.He stated there has been a lot of give and take on both sides throughout the process. They will be increasing the density of the landscaping plus adding other amenities which have not been worked out yet.He reminded council this is only the preliminary plat,the final plat has to come back to them in the future.The plat shown to them a few years ago did not seem to be appropriate for what the city needs so they sat down and worked out a plan with Diamond Key. Mayor Coleman reopened the item to questions by the council. Council member Hendricks apologized again for his poor choice of words on the slum comment.He did not mean that Diamond Key produces slums.He has driven through their subdivisions in other communities and thinks they do a first class job.It was meant on a development that was proposed to them a year or two ago and the long term effect on that development as to what it was going to turn into in a few years.And his concern was what this development would look like in fifteen REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 14 OF 31 years.He believes the city would be proud to have the Diamond Key development in the city. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Barker MOVED ORDINANCE NO.979 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous.(Councilmember Barker thanked Diamond Key for listening to their concerns and for making adjustments accordingly.) The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read Ordinance No.979 by title only. Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.979,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. Councilmember Durbala MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.97-02,A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,APPROVING PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT SD -96-06, IRONWOOD AND SOUTHERN,BY DIAMOND KEY HOMES,BE APPROVED. Vice Mayor Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.97-03 CASE NO.GPA-96-03 )Associate Planner Kate Morris briefed the council on this item.This property is at Broadway and San Marcos.The northern 5 acres of the property carry a commercial designation. The southern 5 acres carry medium density residential,zoned general rural, and they would have to meet 14 acre size lots.The applicant is asking for a REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 15 OF 31 general plan amendment to change the acreage to high density residential.The applicant will go through rezoning at a later date and at that time it will be determined what will be built on the property.The applicant did give a conceptual site plan at the time he requested this general plan amendment, which was a two-story multiple family development,however,the applicant has pulled that site plan as it was conceptual.They are requesting 6-18 dwelling acres per acre.If developed to the maximum,there would be 180 dwelling units on the site.The concern of area residents is the traffic impact.If the top 5 acres stayed with its original designation and a convenience store was built there,it would result in heavy traffic and noise production.This project might even out the traffic flow.Other resorts in the area (RV's) work out to 12 dwelling units per acre.A petition against the amendment was included in the council packet from Roadhaven which was submitted by Mr. Armitage.The majority of the residents within 300'of the project have signed the petition.The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously for approval of this project with the stipulation that any subsequent rezoning request proposed for the property be by planned development designation.She stated that both owners and their representative Rick Black were in attendance. Mayor Coleman opened the item to questions by the council. Councilmember Durbala wanted it clarified that they are asking for a rezoning but they are not telling us what they are going to use it for. Associate Planner Kate Morris stated they are asking for a general plan amendment. Councilmember Durbala stated he would ask his other question of the applicant. Mr.John Oertle,1324 E.Desert Willow,Phoenix,addressed the council.He stated he and his partner Dennis Eardley have owned the property for over 14 years.They originally had it planned for a 100 space RV park,but with so many new parks proposed at that time and with no city sewer system,they dropped the project.Last year they decided to bring the project back and they met with the city planners.They were told the city wanted apartments and they felt their property would lend itself to apartments. Councilmember Durbala asked if the apartment was going to be age restricted. Mr.John Oertle stated they did not know at this time.They will have a consultant do a study to see what was needed. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 16 OF 31 Councilmember Durbala stated he would hate to see another incident like the one that occurred a few weeks ago regarding age restriction. Mr.John Oertle stated that has been receiving a lot of press lately. Councilmember Durbala added it has nothing to do with the city,it is under that development's CC&R's. hearing on this item. Mayor Coleman opened the public Mr.Jimmy Eidson,944 W.3rd Avenue, addressed the council.He spoke in opposition of this amendment.He believes it is the wrong time at the wrong place.This area is now surrounded by mobile homes on two sides and stick built homes either built or planned to be built on the other sides.He believes apartments should be placed in an area where there is not much development,as they have a tendency to lower the property values of those around them. Mr.Jim Armitage,2707 Taos (Roadhaven Resort),addressed the council.He is in opposition to the project.He stated he and other "snowbirds" come to the area seeking a lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.He represented 82 of the property owners on the petition.He has spoken to 84 homeowners and 82 signed the petition.He did not get a chance to speak to 45 others who were not home.They want to maintain the integrity of their resort but encourage appropriate development of city land.He believes the snowbirds provide 50% of the sales taxes for the winter.They would like any new development that affects their property to at least maintain or improve the property value. They have three basic concerns:the safety and welfare of their residents: losing the view of the beautiful sunsets:and concern over the potential decrease in their property values. Ms.Erin Hundley,1000 S.Idaho Rd., Lot #2068 Klamath,addressed the council.She lives directly across the wall from the lower 5 acres being addressed by the amendment.She lives there year round.She does not feel a high density,especially apartments,zoning is compatible with retirement community living.They have already experienced malicious mischief and they do not think young people should be so close to a retirement community.She does not believe renters mix as well with a home- owned community. Ms.Lois Potts,481 S.Olmo, addressed the council.She lives in Sierra Entrada which is north and slightly east of the property.She was a real estate appraiser in Los Angeles for 17 years prior to moving to Apache Junction over a year ago.She had to determine what effect outside influences had on a subject property,to the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 17 OF 31 quality of life and the property value.She just learned tonight that this would be a rental property,and if this is going to be a rental property,she will be carrying an additional petition against it. Ms.Jean Perkins,616 N.Cactus, addressed the council.She is concerned about the placement of apartments in the city.She mentioned the apartments in Palm Springs and stated some knew what the apartments have done to that subdivision.She requested council to think about what the impact of apartments at this location would do to the community.She does not feel this is the place for an apartment complex. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing on the item. Mr.Rick Black,6444 E.Mescal St., Scottsdale,addressed the council.He is the managing agent for the owners of the property.He believes the important issues are the owners want to build stick -built,permanent construction,with 12-14 units to the acre.It will all be single level,which should not have an adverse effect on the real estate and will not affect their view of the sunsets.He noticed there is only 3% of the land in the city designated for multi -family use,which is not enough.The sewer enhancement will bring in more building,and apartments will be needed.He added age has nothing to do with the project,they are talking about high density. Mayor Coleman further discussion by the council.He stated he is not issue would not be mitigated to some extent as it is cur under the general plan.He is concerned about the fact for an amendment without a firm project to look at. Council member difficult to ask council to make considerations without project is.She wanted to see more information on this Mr.John Oertl have anything concrete as it is a plan amendment change. change they will have pictures,narrative and reports to development it will be. Council member the people complain about general plam amendments. Mr.John Oertl specifics would be coming with the zoning change. Council member commitment had been made on the story level. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 18 OF 31 opened the item to sure that the safety rently commercial they are being asked Surra stated it is knowing what the project. e stated they do not When it is a zoning show what kind of Surra stated many of e stated more Durbala asked if any Mr.John Oertle stated when they submit their zoning application that will be determined then. Councilmember Durbala stated they have 12-14 units per acre that will all be single story,but there is nothing committing them to that. Associate Planner Kate Morris stated for general plan amendments the stipulation Councilmember Durbala suggested is not an option at this point.It could be passed with the full range of high density available to the owners or whomever they sell it to. Councilmember Durbala asked if the whole strip of property would be zoned. Associate Planner Kate Morris stated the amendment would be for the whole property. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated Kate Morris was correct in that types of specific restrictions are not put in general plan amendments as in a rezoning,however,there is a policy decision facing council here.Does council split the process by doing a plan amendment now and waiting to see the project that will be built,or does council want to see what the project will be before a general plan amendment is made?That decision is a policy decision on how council wants to conduct business. Council needs to make that decision,see the project before the amendment is made,or wait until after the amendment change to see the project.From a personal standpoint,he thought he had seen a for sale sign on that property now. Councilmember Surra stated that was her point.She did not know if it would be better for them to see the project first .or go ahead with the general plan amendment and wait for the project to be seen at the rezoning request. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Durbala MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.97-03,A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-96-03,A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP BY REDESIGNATING FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" AND "COMMERCIAL" TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"IN THE AREA IN SECTION 29,THE TEN ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BROADWAY AVENUE AND SAN MARCOS DRIVE,BE APPROVED. There was no second offered for the motion.Mayor Coleman announced the motion died for lack of a second. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 19 OF 31 Councilmember Surra MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.97-03,A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-96-03,A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP BE REDESIGNATING FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" AND "COMMERCIAL" TO "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"IN THE AREA IN SECTION 29,THE TEN ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BROADWAY AVENUE AND SAN MARCOS DRIVE,BE DENIED. Councilmember Urich SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:6-1 (Councilmember Durbala voted in opposition.) Mayor Coleman called for a five minute break. Mayor Coleman reconvened the meeting. SD-96-05/FINAL PLAT FOR RENAISSANCE POINT SUBDIVISION )Associate Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item.Phase I are the 76 lots when entering from Ironwood and those have already been approved.This is the remaining 220 lots on 58 acres from the original plan.Staff recommends delaying the recording of the plat until a letter agreement for phasing is returned to the city signed by both property owners and that the improvement plans and assurances be approved by the city engineer prior to the plat being recorded as the only conditions for approval.He stated the developers are here. Mr.Rex Ross,10201 S.51st St., Phoenix,of Canterbury Homes,addressed the council.The plan is according to the preliminary plat and meets all technical considerations of staff.He stated the first issue addressed by Rudy has already been satisfied and is in the possession of the city engineer.The second issue he prefer not to have as the recordation is dependent upon city addresses and other processes involved. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated he and Gordon Grandy met this afternoon with the developer and it is their recommendation that on an approval motion a specific condition be given to condition the execution and the signing of the final plat and its recordation upon receipt of a proper phasing agreement being submitted,signed and executed by the developer. City Manager Curtis Shook asked City Engineer Gordon Grandy about the two stipulations,one being the proper phasing agreement. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 20 OF 31 City Engineer Gordon Grandy stated it was hand delivered to him tonight so it does not need to be a condition tonight. City Manager Curtis Shook asked what the other condition was. City Engineer Gordon Grandy stated the approvement of plans and the assurances on the proper value commitment was turned in this afternoon so the phasing schedule and the assurances can be stricken from the conditions.The improvement plans are not totally in agreement with the landscaping and the flood plain management. City Manager Curtis Shook asked Mr. Ross if that was what he was asking to be stricken. Mr.Rex Ross stated he would view it as highly abnormal for the recordation of a plat to be held up for the approval of improvement plans.The sewer plan,grading plan and water plan have all been approved and virtually all the issues have been addressed. City Manager Curtis Shook stated he understood there were still disagreements regarding landscaping and recreation improvements. City Engineer Gordon Grandy stated there are disagreements but it is his observation working with parks & recreation that those can be worked out in the field.It will not affect the plat but it will affect the construction plans which can be modified in the field,also,and therefore there should no delay in the recordation. Councilmember Hendricks asked what are the conditions requested to be detailed for approval. City Engineer Gordon Grandy stated there are no conditions for approval of the plat as everything has been provided tonight. City Manager Curtis Shook stated the plat approval just shows the size of the lots. City Engineer Gordon Grandy stated it shows the size of the lots and if easements are needed for utilities, drainage,streetlights and things like that. City Manager Curtis Shook stated the landscaping and recreation improvements would not be part of that anyway. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 21 OF 31 City Engineer Gordon Grandy stated that was correct. City Manager Curtis Shook asked if the city has a lever if it allows for recordation without an agreement on landscaping and recreational improvements. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated we would not issue building permits. Mayor Coleman closed the council discussion and opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and reopened the item to further discussion by the council.There being no further discussion,he called for a motion. Councilmember Hendricks MOVED THAT SD -96-05,THE FINAL PLAT FOR RENAISSANCE POINT SUBDIVISION,UNIT 2,BE APPROVED. Vice Mayor Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS. CONSIDERATION OF SIGN PACKAGE FOR THE IDAHO FREEWAY CENTER )Development Services Director Larry Harmer briefed the council on the item.This item was postponed from the last meeting in order to meet with the subdivision owner and to meet with the owner of the Super 8.A breakdown of maximum heights in other communities was provided to council in their packets.He suggested some of the elements to think about in consideration of the sign package are that the overall visibility of the sign is not merely an element of height,it is a combination of height and square footage.The existing Super 8 sign might not accomplish much in visibility if it were doubled in height due to its current square footage.The Superstition Freeway is more of a surface and above grade as adverse to below grade as in other areas out here.The revised sign package remains unchanged for the 29th Avenue signs and for the directory sign for 29th Avenue and Idaho.The freeway oriented signs have been modified to request a 20'pole or structure base with the site identification sign to project above that.Each lot would have a limit on the area permitted for the sign based on the lot frontage.Lots 1 and 2 are limited to 120 square feet. Lot 3 is limited to 150 square feet.Lots 4,5 and 6 would be limited to 200 square feet.Super 8 provides sign packages to their owners;the one that REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 22 OF 31 would fit the square footage area is 10'X 16',which would give it a sign height of 36'.He stated the pitch or peak of the roof of the Super 8 building is at 29'3"and the wall below the eave is at 17'3",which council asked about at the work session.He stated Bill Hyde and John Slentz are both in attendance. Mr.Bill Hyde,4217 E.Alder,Mesa, addressed the council.He apologized for his trying to talk at the work session last night.He showed them the pictures again of the what would be seen driving on the freeway towards Globe.The Super 8 sign cannot be seen, and little of the building can be seen,due to the overpass.Going westbound on the freeway,all that can be seen is a building,the sign cannot be seen. The Super 8 signs are in graduated sizes.He has a 9'X 6'sign now.Other signs available are 12'X 8',then 16'X 10'which has 160 square feet,and the last one to mentioned is 18'X 12',which measures out to 216',which is 16'more than would be allowed.He superimposed a piece of yellow paper to show what a 16'X 10'sign would do to occlude the mountain.It does not cover much of anything,but lighted,people should see it going on the freeway. Mayor Coleman asked why they did not go with a larger sign to begin with.He is not sure whether the height would make the difference,he believes it may be the size of the sign. Mr.Bill Hyde stated it was on the plans by the contractor for that size.They did not question it at the time. He wanted to put it higher then. Councilmember Durbala stated mass would be seen more,such as the 16'X 10'or 18'X 12'signs. Mr.Bill Hyde stated it was about a $26,000 mistake.He is hoping council will let him correct the problem. Councilmember Surra stated she agreed with the mayor that the height of the pole will not make the sign more visible unless the sign was larger.The sign would be seen if it was larger and it could still stay within the 20'height limitation. Mr.Bill Hyde said it needs to be seen and he would like to accept their premise. Councilmember Surra stated no matter how high the pole is,if the sign is still the same size it will not be seen any higher. Mr.Bill Hyde stated the sign needs to be raised sufficiently to be seen,even if as high as the roof,and it will not occlude the mountain. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 23 OF 31 Councilmember Surra stated it cannot be expected to be seen from all approaches to the motel.It is only for on the freeway. Mr.Bill Hyde stated you would see the sign coming from the west if it were higher and broader. Councilmember Durbala stated the only alternative is to put a 20'sign on each end of the building for traffic coming east and west on the freeway.He stated he could not go any higher than 20'. Mr.Bill Hyde stated structurally it would be very difficult,but if it is the only alternative they would have to figure something out. Mr.John Slentz,P.O.Box 2985, Phoenix,addressed the council.He stated they need signage as it sells,and they want a coordinated effort.He understands they will vary in height due to the 20'base.It will not occlude the mountain.It is imperative for a commercial activity to have advertising.He added they are going to provide a lot of jobs in the center and they need to be able to advertise the businesses.These signs will help the motoring public make a buying decision. Councilmember Barker stated she was confused about the 20'base statement with signs varying in height. Mr.John Slentz stated for example the Mobil sign is long and rectangular horizontally,whereas the Super 8 sign is long and rectangular vertically.Both have a 20'base,but would be of differing heights.They are asking for a threshold height to the sign. Councilmember Durbala stated they already have,it cannot be above 20'.Super 8 should use the 160 square foot sign. Councilmember Hendricks disagreed. He believes that at 20'even a sign three times larger will not be seen. Councilmember Barker asked why the Mobil sign could then be seen. Councilmember Durbala stated the Mobil sign is way down in that valley. Councilmember Hendricks stated going east to west you will not see it as it is below the overpass.You might catch part of it only.He stated council is nitpicking over a few feet for base height for businesses along the freeway.It is one thing to be in Mesa,Tempe REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 24 OF 31 or Phoenix and to be above or at the same height,but Apache Junction is below.The only time the signs can be seen is when one is coming over the overpass.Even if the sign is larger,it will not be seen unless i t is over the height of the overpass.The road is blocking the sign.He stated the city has been striving to get more hotels and industry into the city and their success should not be hindered by putting a sign height next to the freeway so low that people will not get off the freeway.If they do not get off the freeway they are not going to spend their money in Apache Junction.If they do not see it they will go on to Globe or Mesa.These signs should have a higher limit if they are within 300'of the freeway. Mayor Coleman stated he agreed with Councilmember Hendricks in that it is lower than the roof. Councilmember Hendricks stated you can barely see that from the freeway and the motorists are not given enough time to get off the freeway.It only leaves them a few seconds to make up their minds to get off if they are tired.It is not enough time. Vice Mayor Richmond agreed it is not enough time. Councilmember Durbala asked what if the next one coming in,which is farther down the line,would want a 60'sign or a 45'sign. Councilmember Hendricks stated to let common sense prevail. Councilmember Durbala stated common sense is prevailing,but we do not want signs going up and down. Councilmember Hendricks stated we do not want 100'signs or signs that would block out the mountain.At least make the signs visible from the angle of the freeway to give people enough time to make a decision to get off the freeway. Mayor Coleman stated from that angle the sign is currently at the base of the mountain. Councilmember Surra stated she did not believe changing the sign ordinance is the way to go.This particular piece of property because of its location perhaps needs to locate signs in a different place,such as roofs,rather than in the place it is given.We cannot be changing the sign ordinance every time someone locates in an area that is in a valley or in a depression.She questioned if they were on a hill would they be asked to lower their sign from 20'.She does not want to do constant individual things.They need to be more appropriate in where they select to put their signs. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 25 OF 31 Councilmember Hendricks stated the city has been trying to keep the freeway corridor open for commercial and industrial development for the last two years.If the city does not allow them to advertise it may as well be turned into mobile home parks along the freeway.An exception is needed or the ordinance needs to be changed in respect to the freeway corridor.If it can be seen from a mile away that should be fine.There are places on the freeway where signs cannot be seen, as in the case of the Super 8,and they should not be hindered. Councilmember Surra agreed it could not be seen but she believed the city was petitioning ADOT about doing some advertising on the freeway. how many years that would take. Councilmember Hendricks questioned Councilmember Surra stated you have to take those steps and work through them first.She wants to see if the city gets somewhere there first.If a denial is given,maybe then the sign ordinance should be revisited.This way the sign ordinance would not have to be revisited business by business. Councilmember Hendricks stated it sounded like she was trying to stifle the commercial development of the community. Councilmember Surra stated she was not trying to do that. Vice Mayor Richmond asked Mr.Harmer if he could put a sign on top of the roof. Development Services Director stated according to the sign code it could be wall mounted but not on top of the roof.The area under the eave and pitch is still part of the wall and the sign could be placed there.The reason why this is being entertained is because it is a planned development and one of the conditions is that the sign package be approved.If you want to amend the sign code for freeway corridor signs,that is a separate issue. Councilmember Hendricks stated the sign ordinance will have to be revisited. Mayor Coleman stated he believed planning and zoning may have to take a look at it. Councilmember Surra stated it will be revisited every time someone builds along the freeway corridor. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 26 OF 31 Mr.John Slentz stated the concern for a variety of signs is answered in their package.If approved,the signs will be consistent in that center.It will not stop visiting with signs on another project,but they will have the same advertising concerns. Mr.Bill Hyde added they were told to make their motel aesthetically pleasing,which cost them $2.2 million.He believes the city got a beautiful building out there and customers believe so, too.There are a lot of happy customers stating they will be returning to the motel in the future and a lot of sales tax has already been generated.He stated they are just asking for some help. Councilmember Surra stated this is only one sign in the package and asked if anyone had any problems with the other ones. Mayor Coleman requested Development Services Director Larry Harmer to brief council on the other signs. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated the sign package is in three parts.The first part is the individual entry signs off 29th Avenue which everyone had agreed upon,at either 32" or 5'6" depending on the location.The second part is the directory sign located on 29th Avenue at Idaho,adjacent to the wall for the RV resort to the north.The wall is 6',the sign support is 6'10" with the overall sign height of 20'.The third part is for all six pads for the freeway oriented signs,including the Super 8.It will have a 20'base with the corporate sign on top of it,determined by the square footage of the pad. Mayor Coleman stated it would extend above the roof line about 6'. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated that would be in the case of the Super 8.It will vary depending on the height of the building and the type of roof lines. Councilmember Durbala asked for an estimate on the tallest sign. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated the largest sign is 200 square feet for a maximum area,which could be a 10'X 20'vertical sign,meaning a sign as high as 40'.He suggested putting a maximum height they would have to work within.He questioned whether they wanted to wait another two weeks or make a decision tonight. Councilmember Durbala suggested approving two parts and coming back for the signs along the freeway. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 27 OF 31 Councilmember Barker stated she had a problem approving Sign C without a maximum height. There was general discussion where it was determined Sign C is the little sign and Sign A is the directory sign. Councilmember Durbala stated Sign B is the freeway sign that they have the problem with. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated there are no other projects going into the subdivision immediately other than the Super 8 so the process does not have to be split. Vice Mayor Richmond asked if the pole could have 5'cut off.If the base pole could be lowered to 15',the sign would be up around the peak of the roof,making it 31'. There was general discussion by the council on the sign height and what could be done. Councilmember Durbala MOVED THAT THE SIGN PACKAGE FOR THE IDAHO FREEWAY CENTER SUBMITTED BY JOHN SLENTZ BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:SIGN A AND SIGN C BE APPROVED AND COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL LATER WITH SIGN B. Councilmember Hendricks asked to have it clarified that he wanted to approve Signs A and C and waive Sign C. Councilmember Durbala stated Sign B would be brought back at a later date. was not the main sign. was the main sign. Vice Mayor Richmond stated Sign B Councilmember Durbala stated Sign B Councilmember Hendricks stated why did they not just put a 35'or 36'cap on it and not have it matter what height the pole was. Councilmember Durbala revised his original motion.The motion now reads THAT THE SIGN PACKAGE FOR THE IDAHO FREEWAY CENTER SUBMITTED BY JOHN SLENTZ BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:SIGN A AND SIGN C BE APPROVED AND SIGN B CANNOT GO OVER 35'. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 28 OF 31 VOTE:5-2 (Councilmember Barker and Councilmember Surra voted in opposition.) The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS. None. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS NEW REGULATIONS FOR SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES )City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated he had addressed everything on this last night and suggested he could have a draft ready for purposes of a work session for the next council meeting. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated there is no work session until March due to the holiday. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut suggested to make it a discussion only item at the next meeting. Councilmember Surra asked what the draft would be comprised of. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated it would be for the licensing and zoning portions. Councilmember Surra stated it would not be a completed package at that time. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated that was correct.He stated he has to leave the zoning to Development Services. Development Services Director Larry Harmer stated there are certain siting regulations on the books now.Any changes would have to modify the existing regulations. Councilmember Durbala MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING NEW REGULATIONS FOR SEXUALLY- ORIENTED BUSINESSES:THAT IT COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING FOR DISCUSSION ONLY. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 29 OF 31 The motion carried. SITING OF THE OCOTILLO FLATS LANDFILL )City Manager Curtis Shook briefed the council on this item.He is concerned about supporting the site without knowing the operational management of the landfill.He recommended authorizing staff to prepare a letter of support for the site itself if council approved of the site. Councilmember Surra MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING THE SITING OF THE OCOTILLO FLATS LANDFILL:THAT STAFF PREPARE A LETTER OF SUPPORT STATING THAT THE PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE IS APPROPRIATE HOWEVER WE RESERVE OVERALL APPROVAL PENDING SATISFACTORY ANSWERS TO US REGARDING MANAGEMENT ISSUES. Councilmember Urich SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:6-1 (Councilmember Hendricks voted in opposition.) The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES,TIMES,LOCATIONS,AND PURPOSES Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WORK SESSION BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M.ON TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 18,1997,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RESPECTIVELY. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Vice Mayor Richmond and Councilmember Urich attended the League of Cities and Towns Legislative Day today and found it very interesting. ADJOURNMENT )Mayor Coleman adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1.Acceptance of agenda. 2.Acceptance of minutes of regular meeting of January 21,1997. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 30 OF 31 3.Recognition of outstanding service to the community by city employees. 4.Approval of engaging services of Mark Lassiter and Roberts,Rowley and Smith,Ltd.at attorneys for litigation in Arcaro vs.City of Apache Junction. ACCEPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH ,1997,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH ,1997. ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk DOUGLAS COLEMAN 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 4th day of February,1997.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 18th day of February,1997. City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 4,1997 PAGE 31 OF 31