Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-18 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18,1997 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on February 18,1997,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 Vice Mayor Richmond 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 City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Glenn Gimbut Public Safety Director Robert Galloway City Engineer Gordon Grandy Development Services Director Larry Harmer Others Present:Associate Planner Rudy Esquivias Bill Farrell ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA ) )Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM NO.3, WHICH WILL BE MOVED TO FOLLOW THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT;THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY BY THE FOLLOWING CITY EMPLOYEES:LIBRARY EMPLOYEE BONNIE LOPEZ;YOUTH SERVICES LIBRARIAN LIZ BURKS;DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SECRETARY JAN KRONENBURG;ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST KEN SIMPKINS;THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 1 OF 20 Councilmember Surra SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Coleman read and presented a memorial plaque to Lee Hagner for former Councilmember Grace Hagner's service to the community. Mayor Coleman read and presented a plaque to City Attorney Glenn Gimbut honoring his years of service to the city. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. CONSENT AGENDA AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH WILLIAM E. FARRELL FOR INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY )City Attorney Glenn Gimbut briefed the council on this item.He stated Mr.Farrell had responded to the request for proposal for an interim city attorney.Mr.Farrell is familiar with the council and the community,and he highly recommends him for the position. Councilmember Durbala asked Mr. Farrell what his hourly rate would be and a few of the other details so the public may be informed. Mr.Bill Farrell stated his hourly wage will be $125 per hour.He quotes the same rate to every city and town he does business with.He stated the hiring of a full time attorney is in the process and he believes that should come before the council in May,with someone hired by June.During the interim he and his assistant will represent the city in legal matters.He will attend all the city council meetings and any board or commission meeting where they are needed.He will work with the councilmembers individually and collectively,he will work with the city manager,tend to the tasks both in-house and with outside counsel that require legal attention,provide supervision to the employees in the employ of the city attorney,and make sure both civil and criminal matters continue on in an orderly flow.The number of hours will be dictated by the city's needs.He REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 2 OF 20 stated he has no other communities he is representing meeting on Monday or Tuesday evenings,so there will be no conflicts.He does not anticipate any problems. Councilmember Durbala asked if Mr. Farrell would be maintaining any office hours. Mr.Bill Farrell stated he will be attending the staff meetings.He will have phone fax computer ability,plus home phone and office phone facilities.He is willing to meet with department heads on special projects. Mayor Coleman closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Durbala MOVED THAT AUTHORIZATION BE GIVEN TO CONTRACT WITH WILLIAM E.FARRELL FOR INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES. Councilmember Surra SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.980/PZ-20-96/ PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MAJOR AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR THE PUEBLO )Councilmember Urich announced that due to a possible conflict of interest,as she lives in this subdivision, she will not be participating in any discussion or vote on this matter. Associate Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on this item.He stated the amendment would allow the homeowners the option of constructing a conventional home or continuing to install RV's as residences.It would also allow people who owned two adjacent side by side lots the option of combining them into one lot where feasible for the purpose of placing one home on the resultant lot.The homes would have to meet the Uniform Building Code standards.The lots are a little over 2,000 square feet on average.This proposal raised questions on behalf of the staff and homeowners in the park.Staff has been meeting with representatives for the past 114 years to get the questions answered.The homeowners association voted 75%in favor on those ballots returned to pursue the amendment.He gave a brief history on the park.He stated the association has proposed a set of design criteria for the homes.The association will monitor everything. There is now concern for the aesthetics in the park and how it will affect REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 3 OF 20 their taxes by homeowners who previously were for the amendment.There were concerns that mobile homes may be phased out in the future.There is a question on how large the homes may be on the combination lots and how it will affect the open space look and feel of the park.There is the issue of utility easements between each lot,which would have to be relocated and replatted.Staff recommends two years to process a plat amendment if this general plan amendment is approved to allow for the combination of lots. There are a number of staff stipulations which will protect the neighborhood, will accomplish what the homeowners want to do,will control what the buildings are going to look like,what can and cannot be put inside utility easements,will clarify the setbacks,and include those relating to the subsequent plat amendment.A total of 38 valid protest petitions have been received,however,not enough protest petitions were received to force a 3/4 vote of the city council.The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to deny this request at their January 14 meeting.He stated if council approves this request,staff recommends applying the stipulations found in Ordinance No.980. Mayor Coleman opened the item to questions by the council.There being no questions,he requested the applicant or representative of the park to address the council. Ms.Shirley Roderick,170 S. Marlowe,the park manager,addressed the council.She stated she would address some of the concerns.The amount of space between the site -built homes would be 6',the same as the space between a park model and an Arizona room.In the rear it would be 12'.The height restrictions would remain 13'6".They will not be taking more space or leaving more space with these structures.Concerning the combining of lots,at this time there are only as many as 8 people who own two lots together.On some lots the easements would not allow them to be combined.They are currently building stand alone, habitable rooms consisting of bathrooms,bedrooms,living rooms or whatever the owner wants to do inside the walled structure,other than having a stove. Those lots having arizona rooms must allow enough room for a motor home or a trailer to be parked on the lot. Mayor Coleman opened the item to questions by the council. Vice Mayor Richmond asked about the height restriction of 13'6" with 14'6" on the south wall. Ms.Shirley Roderick stated that ruling applied to stand alone awnings only.The higher height applies to the south wall only.That height limit inside the park applies to park models, site -built homes,arizona rooms or any other structure. Vice Mayor Richmond stated that the 14'6"height really does not apply to anything then. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 4 OF 20 Ms.Shirley Roderick stated that does not apply to a habitable structure of any kind,i t is for free standing awnings. Vice Mayor Richmond stated it does not state that specifically. Councilmember Surra asked about the setbacks on the interior streets. Ms.Shirley Roderick stated they are 12'.There is a 6'easement on both lots at the back which creates a 12' easement. Councilmember Surra asked about the setbacks on the perimeter lots. Ms.Shirley Roderick stated it is 10'for the rear. Councilmember Surra stated she was concerned about the size of the home that might be there versus what is currently being used there.She is concerned about how many lots could be combined in the future if others were bought out at a later date.This concerns the whole development,not just eight.This changes the entire complexion of what the development was to be.The homeowners purchased their property under certain living standards,and diversity of the kind of structures is a problem for her.She does not want to see a park model next to a stick -built next to an RV.All of the people who live there should feel the same way as the advocates who want to make that kind of diversity,and that is not the case. Ms.Shirley Roderick stated they had taken a vote of the homeowners and the majority wished to proceed with this. Based on that,they went forward. Councilmember Surra asked what the figures were on the percentage of year round residents that expressed their desire for the change. Ms.Shirley Roderick stated they did not go by who lives in the park year round.All owners voted.She cannot tell you how each resident owner voted.She stated that more owners are selling their other properties and are moving to the park to live year round now.These people want the largest square footage they can get.She believes more will sell their other properties and move to the park if they can build what they want. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 5 OF 20 Councilmember Surra asked why they would move to an area not planned for site built homes when other areas are planned for site built homes. not know the answer to that. not change for some people there. correct. Ms.Shirley Roderick stated she did Councilmember Surra stated it would Ms.Shirley Roderick stated that was Councilmember Surra stated those people would no longer feel a part of the neighborhood. Ms.Shirley Roderick stated that is probably true. Mayor Coleman stated he attended the planning and zoning hearing on this issue.Three things stood out in his mind.He is not sure they are just talking about their park here.There may be more requests based on the decision rendered tonight.He is not sure he approves of mixed use in the park.The final thing was that people bought into the park with one set of expectations and now those are being altered and changed.The statement was made that this was coming before the city council to protect the interest of those people.He asked Ms.Roderick if the concerns of the minority were legitimate in the loss of their expectations. He is not sure majority should rule here. Ms.Shirley Roderick stated the minority concerns are legitimate.However,the majority did vote to proceed with this.The concerns of everyone were discussed many times,before and after the vote.She stated the non -voters were considered a "no" vote,and 184 of 220 voted.Of the 184 actual votes,11 were no.The board decided based on the vote that they should proceed. Mayor Coleman stated apparently some are changing their minds as 38 protest petitions were received. Ms.Shirley Roderick stated many of those had voted no originally or did not vote. Councilmember Barker stated this council over the last 4 years has worked to curtail the "patchwork"look in the community.The citizens of this community are concerned with that.She stated it appears that the Pueblo is asking them to vote for a "patchwork" effect. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 6 OF 20 Ms.Shirley Roderick stated she has been a resident since 1985 and is aware of the criticism of the city for having "patchwork"structures throughout the city.The issue is there are currently 3 structures in the park that are in essence site built houses, except for the stove.They see no problem in adding a stove and calling it a site built house.She stated if the city council sees the "patchwork"as a problem for the city,that is a decision that can be accepted. Councilmember Surra stated she wished they had not heard about those out of conformance structures. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated there is a problem with the zoning code,causing two different conclusions. One is that there can be no sleeping quarters in an accessory building.The other,due to the peculiar wording of the TH designation,would allow sleeping quarters in accessory buildings.A major amendment done at one time excluded sleeping quarters in residential areas.It was left out of the wording in TH zones.The interpretation is left up to the zoning administrator,who has determined at this time they can do sleeping quarters.However,there is no such thing in the zoning code as an "arizona room".The RV owners have constructed patio covers or carports,screened them in,and then the contractor comes back in a few weeks after the city inspection and puts in the permanent windows.That is the traditional problem area.Chapter 49 does not allow permanent glass windows,air conditioning or any habitable area.It is excluded by the Uniform Building Code because the structural load is not designed for human beings to be around it on a permanent basis.It is inherently unsafe for human permanent habitation.The structure cannot be built according to the standards of Chapter 49.If it is built according to Uniform Building Code standards,than human beings can be there.The question is how these structures were built. Vice Mayor Richmond asked if someone living in a stick built house cannot live in an accessory building how is someone in a TH zone allowed to sleep in an accessory building. Councilmember Surra stated someone wrote the ordinance improperly.That does not mean the council should live by that,it should be fixed.She does not believe that a majority vote by the park mandates the council should agree with it. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.He stated he had received many requests and asked the public to keep their statements as brief as possible. Ms.Lee Wilbur,200 E.Southern #57, addressed the council.She strongly opposes the changes.She does not believe stick built homes belong in these parks. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 7 OF 20 Ms.Mary Tumminelli,201 E.Southern #1,addressed the council.She stated when she bought in there it was a resort area and now they are trying to change it.She opposes the change as to her it would mean higher taxes which she cannot afford. Ms.Dorothy Major,201 E.Southern #148,addressed the council.She initially was against the proposal but is now for it.She believes everything was carefully researched and done.She believes the differences will be on the inside and not the outside,and could lead to a better structure.She believes the taxes will go up as the city and county need money.She urged giving it a trial. Councilmember Surra wanted to remind everyone that their property taxes are paid to the county,as there is no city property tax. Ms.Joan Quinn,201 E.Southern #223,addressed the council.She is a contractor and has built many arizona rooms that are all built by the Uniform Building Code.She stated she had called the county on the tax situation and they stated the taxes would be raised on the individual lots according to the improvements on that lot only. She stated the arguments about the haves and have nots is moot,as there will always be people who have more than others.And there cannot be more diversity than there is now.The building can only be built on the corner lots,of which there are 14.The one built in the park now looks neat,it is beautifully landscaped,it is not built easement to easement.She did not design it,but she did build it.She stated a lot of people in the park like the way it looks. was two lots joined together. one lot. only one lot yet it had 15'on both sides. essentially a corner lot. Councilmember Durbala stated that Ms.Joan Quinn stated it was only Councilmember Durbala stated it was Ms.Joan Quinn stated it was Councilmember Surra stated that beauty is in the eye of the beholder as she did not think the building was very pretty.She thought some of the park models with detached arizona rooms were very nice. Ms.Joan Quinn stated that was true, as many people have praised that house.All the habitable homes are stick REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 8 OF 20 built,and a motor home could be on the same property as a stick built room and that looks miserable.The density is pretty bad. Councilmember Durbala restated that the city does not have a property tax. Ms.Joan Quinn stated she pays a 2% tax to Apache Junction,but it is not a property tax. Ms.Bev Brown,201 E.Southern #13, addressed the council.She stated there are currently 96 park models in the park out of 226 lots.In the first year of buying into the park there were park models there,so not everyone bought in with the idea it would only be an RV park.Currently,everyone could sell their RV's and live in a park model with an arizona room attached.Rather than that,they would like to build the whole thing.She believes it will look better than what they currently have and urged the council to take the planner's recommendation to approve the ordinance. Ms.Jeanne Botwright,201 E. Southern #222,addressed the council.She is the president of the homowners association.She wanted to reinforce the fact that every community will always have their haves and have nots.She restated that the proximities will not change because the easements are not changing.She commented Commissioner Conway was concerned over the proximity of propane tanks to each other,and stated that all RV's have propane tanks on them already.More stick built homes would mean fewer propane tanks.She stated that their regulations do not allow sleeping quarters in an accessory building. Ms.June Dempsey,201 E.Southern, #221,addressed the council.She approved of the ordinance even though she has no intention of building.She believes everyone should have their choice as to what they wanted to live in.The only difference to her is the thickness in the walls between the park model and a stick built home. Ms.Nancy Ballou,201 E.Southern #148,addressed the council.She is a member of the board of directors and is one of the original eleven who voted no in the election.She supports the 75% who wish to have the planned development go through. Ms.Celia Bachman,201 E.Southern, addressed the council.She is renting at this time and entered into a contract to purchase a lot in November,1996.She intends to close in a couple of weeks and live full time in Apache Junction in an RV.She stated this planned development is an experiment,as described by staff.The planning and zoning commissioners considered the application and staff reports,some visited the park,and they read the letters from the homeowners who did not agree with the development.She stated some people who voted no now support the development,and some who voted yes are now against it.She REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 9 OF 20 stated most of the voters who voted yes are residents of other states and would not be considered if this were a city election.She stated this mix is not allowed anywhere else in the city,and for good reason.She stated it would not be found in any other city in the area.She brought up the issue that the lots were too small for the buildings per the zoning code.She stated the 3'setbacks are what is required for RV's in the zoning code,with accessory buildings having 4'setbacks.She commented the change in the front setback from 4'to 7'was not detailed in the official notice,possibly creating a faulty notice.She added under the zoning code these would be single family units requiring two parking spaces,whereas this proposal would only allow one parking space.She quoted the zoning code about the fundamental rights of any individual owner not being prejudiced by being a minority,and stated the opponents of this issue were looking to the council to protect their interests. addressed the council.She believes the advantage for the park,and she believes height,width,color,sidings,space and Ms.Ivy Frye,201 E.Southern #186, quality of the buildings would be an their art committee would control the parking.She recommended approval. Ms.Jan Goozen,201 E.Southern #130,addressed the council.She is for the planned development plan and agrees with Ms.Frye that better structures would be an advantage. Ms.Lorayne Christensen,201 E. Southern #206,addressed the council.She owns two lots and is in favor of the ordinance.She believes owners should be able to build what they can afford and be within the legal limits of the ordinance. Mrs.Midge Conway,902 S.Ocotillo, addressed the council.She protested the change requested by the resort.She believes it will set an undesirable variance.Stick built homes are to be separate from trailer or mobile homes per the general plan.In order for this ordinance to be passed,she believes a general plan amendment must occur.She added she had heard other trailer parks are waiting for this ordinance to be passed so they can then try to get stick built homes in their developments. She recommended council not pass the ordinance. Ms.Carol Brejcha,201 E.Southern #107,addressed the council.She stated when she bought into the Pueblo she understood it was an RV park and would remain as such.She originally voted yes for the stick built home petition,but she did not understand that it would be a conventional home.She does not agree with that at this time.She believes the lots are too small.She believes it will change the aesthetics of the park and is not for the ordinance. Ms.Maxine Parrish,201 E.Southern #94,addressed the council.She stated the change does not make a difference in how big the homes would be for them to live in.It means they cannot have REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 10 OF 20 a kitchen in their habitable room.She favors this because the arizona rooms will be built stronger and will last generations,whereas the park models will not. Ms.Brynn Cox,201 E Southern #193, addressed the council.She thanked the mayor for stating he was not sure this was just a thing for the Pueblo.She sells park models for a living and can guarantee this will not only effect the Pueblo.She stated other parks will inundate the city with similar requests.She stated the quality of a park model depends upon the money you spend buying one;the quality goes up as the price goes up.She did not buy into the park to have mixed residences,and she does not want to see it happen.She hoped the city council would look down the road to see the future requests from other parks in the city. Ms.Doris Tyner,201 E.Southern #30,addressed the council.She is against the ordinance.She believes the taxes will go up,which she cannot afford on her limited income.She requested the council to vote no on the plan. Ms.Shirley Roderick,who owns lot #96 at the Pueblo but does not reside there,addressed the council.As a lot owner she does not care if stick built homes are built,as she will not build one,but there are others who want to.She stated most people are talking about one particular house built there,when in fact there are three.All three are site built,stand alone arizona rooms. Mr.Trevor Holmes,1920 S.Plaza, addressed the council.He has built homes in the past in Apache Junction and is currently going through the process now as a developer.He stated if he brought a request to the council to make a 2,000 square foot lot with 3' setbacks on the sides and 4'in the front and 10'in the back,council would laugh him out of the room.As a builder he strongly recommends against this for the city's own good. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing and opened the item to further discussion by the council. Councilmember Barker stated she appreciated both sides of the issue.She stated she would be far more comfortable if everyone in their park came up and said they wanted the change. She believes the council and community have worked very hard to curtail mixed developments.She thinks it will be terribly important to other areas of the community,as it will not just impact the Pueblo.That concerns her greatly. Vice Mayor Richmond stated she believed a long work session was in order on arizona rooms and accessory buildings to create an equal standard for them. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 11 OF 20 Mayor Coleman closed the discussion and called for a motion. Councilmember Surra MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.980 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:6-0 (Councilmember Urich did not participate in the vote.) The motion carried. Mayor Coleman asked City Clerk Kathleen Connelly to read the ordinance. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly asked the city attorney if it was necessary for her to read the entire ordinance since not every councilmember voted. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated it was not necessary for her to read the entire ordinance due to the conflict of interest statutes.He stated since Councilmember Urich had stated she was not participating,i t is like she is not present at the meeting for this vote. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read the ordinance by title only. Councilmember Surra MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.980,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE DENIED. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:5-1 (Councilmember Durbala voted in opposition and Councilmember Urich did not participate in the vote.) The motion carried. minute break. meeting. Mayor Coleman called for a ten Mayor Coleman reconvened the SD-96-04/FINAL PLAT FOR SUPERSTITION HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION UNIT 2 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 12 OF 20 )Associate Planner Rudy Esquivias briefed the council on the item.This consists of 5 lots for conventional single family homes,with the lot size increasing.The smaller lots will be 5,952 square feet and the two large lots will be 6,200 square feet in size. The preliminary plat and rezoning had been approved by council on January 7, 1997,and the final plat complies with the preliminary plat and meets the stipulations of the rezoning.The homeowners association of Unit 1 has given a signed statement that their retention area can be used for Unit 2.Staff recommends approval of the plat. Mayor Coleman opened the item to questions by the council.There being no questions,he asked the applicant, Trever Holmes,if he wished to speak to the council.Mr.Holmes did not wish to speak to the council at this time.Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item.There being no one wishing to speak,he closed the public hearing and opened the item to discussion by the council. Councilmember Surra stated she wanted to make sure Councilmember Durbala understands the motion. Councilmember Durbala MOVED THAT SD- 96 -04,THE FINAL PLAT FOR SUPERSTITION HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION UNIT 2,LOCATED SOUTH OF 16TH AVENUE ON S.MONTEREY DRIVE,BE APPROVED. Councilmember Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.982/REGULATION OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES )City Attorney Glenn Gimbut briefed the council on the item.He stated there are two forms of regulation a city may enter into.One is by zoning and the other is by licensing. Proposed Ordinance No.982 is of the licensing type.Constitutional rights cannot be violated,but negative secondary effects can be regulated.In making this ordinance,he used the ordinances of the City of Phoenix,the City of Scottsdale and the current national model prepared by the National Family Legal Foundation as his models.The City of Scottsdale focused on adult service providers,cabarets and adult video facilities only,and their ordinance has withstood a challenge in court.One thing he has done is regulations on adult novelty stores,which do not have free speech protection. The ordinance states that one adult novelty brings the business under regulation,instead of it having to be the principal business purpose.The term "principal business purpose"invites legal challenge,as it calls for a precise measurement,unless that measurement is given.A right of due process has to be afforded if someone is turned down for the license,so an REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 13 OF 20 administrative hearing has been provided followed by a right to go to Superior Court.This part of the ordinance is copied from the City of Scottsdale, which did survive the court challenge.He stated copies of the studies he used to write this ordinance will be on file at his office and that of the city clerk. Councilmember Durbala asked if on Page 18,8-12-15.3,the age could be changed to 21. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated he preferred it to be left at age 18 as it is the age of majority,the traditional dividing line between child and adult.It is an easy line to defend. Councilmember Durbala asked if on Page 19,No.6,their being open on Sunday could be taken out. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated these are the hours recommended by the National Family Legal Foundation and the City of Scottsdale.These hours have gone through significant legal challenge.Those who are not christian may not worship on that day. Councilmember Durbala asked if taking Saturday off would include the other faiths. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated if one is agnostic or buddhist there would be problems either way. Councilmember Durbala asked if on Page 24 the fees are the highest the city can go. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated that is the rate in the Scottsdale ordinance when it was adopted in 1991-92. The current national model put together by the National Family Legal Foundation in the summer of 1996 uses the same fees.We can charge fees that are the city's cost for processing an application,but you cannot charge fees for the purpose of raising revenue or raise them to a level to prohibit someone from getting a license or securing an occupation.The business and its employees are licensed,so it cannot prevent jobs.Some fees may be below costs,but he hesitates to change the fees as they have cleared legal challenges. Councilmember Durbala asked if "E" could be changed to our costs,which is the $25 fee for fingerprinting. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut asked Chief Galloway what the current charge was by the Arizona Department of Public Safety to fingerprint someone. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 14 OF 20 Department of Public Safety Director Bob Galloway did not know what the current charge is but doubted it was $25. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated it may be the Federal Bureau of Investigation charges the Arizona Department of Public Safety a charge. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly asked if the renewal fee on "A"was also $500. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated for the business itself the renewal fee is $500. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated the initial application has a non-refundable fee of $500,the license fee is $500 and the renewal is $500. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated that was correct. Councilmember Barker stated when they go to pass this they do not want the city clerk to have to read the ordinance as the ordinance is like going into one of the places.She stated on Page 6,"5",she believes it should say "wet"instead of "west". City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated that is true. Councilmember Barker asked if on Page 6 under "A",adult motel,the word "and"in the fifth sentence/line infers that the rest of it is okay if it does not have that sign. that was correct. city wanted it to be that way. the city wants it to be that way. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated Councilmember Barker asked if the City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated Councilmember Barker stated as long as they do not have the sign they can have all that and not be considered an adult motel. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated that was correct.The reason is the things on closed circuit videos in hotel rooms.It is not advertised or on the front of the hotel,so it is legal. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 15 OF 20 This protects against the negative secondary effects,not the showing of the video.The advertising signs affect the city. Councilmember Barker stated the hotel could be called or advertise itself as an adult motel as long as it does not have the availability of adult type,etc. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated they can say adult motel,but they cannot say they have things like adult XXX movies and to come on in.That would be the problem. Councilmember Urich stated on Page 10 on the third category the "1"needs to be taken out of "public hair". City Attorney Glenn Gimbut agreed. Mayor Coleman opened the public hearing on the item. Charlie Fox,4230 E.Broadway,the pastor of the John Calvin Presbyterian Church,addressed the council.He spoke in favor of the council passing the ordinance.He stated he sees the city moving in a very favorable direction,away from the reputation the city used to have.It is gaining a reputation as being a favorable place to live and a quality of life that is bringing people in.One of the things that brings people in are the morals and ethics exhibited by the city,and he urged the passage of this ordinance.He is glad he moved here instead of Mesa,and complimented the school system.He believes there are great things going in gang control and drug control and urged continuing in a good direction. Mayor Coleman closed the public hearing and opened the item to further discussion by the council.There being no further discussion,he called for a motion. Councilmember Durbala MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING ORDINANCE NO.982,PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON THE REGULATION OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES:ONE IS TO BRING BACK THE BACKGROUND CHECK ORDINANCE,NO.938,ON THE 4TH OF MARCH:NUMBER TWO, GIVE DIRECTION TO PLANNING AND ZONING TO START THE PROCESS FOR HEARING AND CHANGING THE ZONING TO COMPLY WITH THIS:AND NUMBER THREE,TO SEND A SAMPLE ORDINANCE TO THE NATIONAL FAMILY LEAGUE FOUNDATION AND THE NATIONAL LAW CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FOR THEIR REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE. Councilmember Surra SECONDED THE MOTION. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly asked if the expectation was to bring back this ordinance on March 4. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 16 OF 20 Councilmember Durbala stated it was just to bring back the background check ordinance and for this ordinance to go to the places he mentioned for concurrence. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated her primary concern is getting through the upcoming election. Councilmember Durbala requested to change his motion on bringing back the backgound check ordinance to TO BRING BACK THE BACKGROUND CHECK ORDINANCE,NO.938,ON THE MARCH 17 WORK SESSION AND HAVE IT FOR POSSIBLE ADOPTION AT THE MEETING ON MARCH 18. Councilmember Barker asked if the recommendations of the city attorney to have it reread by numerous people were included in the motion. Councilmember Durbala stated that the recommendations are but he wants to make sure the two groups mentioned receive it. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. RESOLUTION NO.97-05/LEVYING ASSESSED VALUATION FOR RENAISSANCE POINT STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT -RESOLUTION NO.97-06/LEVYING ASSESSED VALUATION FOR IRONWOOD COVE STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT -RESOLUTION NO.97-07/LEVYING ASSESSED VALUATION FOR ARROYO VERDE STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ) )Councilmember Durbala stated he asked the city attorney if Items 9,10 and 11 could be taken together and he stated there should be no problem since they are all lighting districts. Mayor Coleman stated Items 9,10 and 11 would be talked about and one public hearing would be held for all three items. City Engineer Gordon Grandy briefed the council on all three items.He stated all three subdivisions are in the same status of construction,homes are being built,Salt River Project has installed the street lights,all the preliminary initiation to create the district and order the construction to proceed have already been done.These resolutions are to inform the county assessor to start collecting taxes. Mayor Coleman opened the items to discussion by the council. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 17 OF 20 Councilmember Barker asked the city attorney if the items could be lumped into a single resolution that includes all three districts. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated they could not,but the three motions could be read together. 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 opened the item to further discussion by the council.There being no further discussion,he called for a series of motions. Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.97-05,A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,RELATING TO TAXATION,LEVYING UPON THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,SUBJECT TO TAXATION,AND WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SL 9606-1,A CERTAIN SUM UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF VALUATION SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR THE ANNUAL EXPENSE OF THE SAID MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS,AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY;MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.97-06,A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,PINAL COUNTY,ARIZONA,RELATING TO TAXATION,LEVYING UPON THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, SUBJECT TO TAXATION,AND WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SL 9508-1,A CERTAIN SUM UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF VALUATION SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR THE ANNUAL EXPENSE OF THE SAID MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS,AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.97-07,A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,PINAL COUNTY,ARIZONA,RELATING TO TAXATION, LEVYING UPON THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,SUBJECT TO TAXATION,AND WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SL 9501-1,A CERTAIN SUM UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF VALUATION SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR THE ANNUAL EXPENSE OF THE SAID MUNICIPAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS,AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY,BE APPROVED. Councilmember Surra SECONDED THE MOTIONS. VOTE:Unanimous. The motions carried. OLD BUSINESS. None. NEW BUSINESS. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 18 OF 20 None. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS None. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES,TIMES,LOCATIONS.AND PURPOSES Councilmember Barker MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.AND A WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M.BE HELD ON MONDAY,MARCH 3,1997,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RESPECTIVELY;AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:00 P.M.BE HELD ON TUESDAY,MARCH 4,1997,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM. Councilmember Surra SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Mayor Coleman stated the City Manager Curtis Shook was at the Arizona City Management Association meeting this week and he was elected president of that association. ADJOURNMENT )Mayor Coleman adjourned the meeting at 9:12 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1.Acceptance of agenda. 2.Recognition of Outstanding Service to the Community by City Employees. 3.Authorization to contract with William E.Farrell for Interim City Attorney services.(This item was discussed after the city manager's report.) 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. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 19 OF 20 ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk . 1ThN...1../DIAZIA4012 DOUGLAS ObLOAN 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 18th day of February,1997.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 25th day of February,1997. KATHLEEN CONNE& 4 1 ; City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18,1997 PAGE 20 OF 20