Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-01 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 1,1994 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on March 1,1994,at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Perkins called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. INVOCATION Councilman Perkins gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilman Coleman led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmen Present: Staff Present: Others Present: Mayor Perkins Vice Mayor Barker Councilwoman Richmond Councilman Hendricks Councilman Perkins Councilman Coleman (Vacancy) City Manager Michael R.Lee City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney Glenn Gimbut Assistant City Manager George Hoffman Acting Public Safety Dir./Capt.Dan Scott City Engineer Gordon Grandy Parks & Rec.Director Jeff Bell Library Director Pam Loui Finance Director Keith Lewis Public Works Supt.Doug Dobson Planning Division Manager/Acting Director of Development Services Jim Nakagawa Econ.Dev./Hous.& Grants Coord.John Flumerfelt Midge Conway,902 S. Junction Bill Schulte,861 W. Junction REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 1 OF 33 Ocotillo Dr.,Apache Superstition #4,Apache Nancy Koerner,1026N.Goldfield Rd.,Apache Junction ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Councilman Coleman MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. Councilman Hendricks SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Nancy Koerner addressed the Council regarding the City's responsibility to protect the city's trail system which is being destroyed by hunters,ATV riders,artifact seekers and people dumping trash and junk vehicles.She also announced a magazine advertisement for the upcoming antique tractor show scheduled for March at the rodeo grounds. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Mike Lee gave a financial report update.He stated there was an increase in sales tax over the same time last year as follows:City sales tax 15%,State sales tax 6.6%,and County one half -cent sales tax 14%. He pointed out that although expenses are within budget,they exceed revenues. He also reported that Lost Dutchman Days was a success. PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCE NO.887,PZ-20-93,REZONING REQUEST FROM MOUNTAIN VIEW LUTHERAN CHURCH FOR A PRESCHOOL/DAY CARE CENTER ) )Planning Division Mgr.Jim Nakagawa briefed the Council on this item.He stated the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning application and Planning Division concurred with that. Mayor Perkins opened the public hearing;there being no one wishing to speak on this item,she closed the public hearing. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 2 OF 33 Vice Mayor Barker asked why if this project can be done with a conditional use permit,why Planning is recom- mending to go through the planned development zoning process instead;if that was the precedent set by the day care center on Ironwood Dr. Mr.Nakagawa answered that it was. He explained that the conditional use permit can be accomplished through the planned development zoning process without going through both separately and thus reducing the processing time. Councilwoman Richmond MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.887 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilman Coleman SECONDED THE MOTION. City Clerk Kathy Connelly read:"AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA,AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP,CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA;CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION IN CASE PZ-10-93 FROM R1-43 (CONVENTIONAL SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES)TO CR-4/PD (RESIDENTIAL ZONE FOR A CHILD DAY CARE CENTER BY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT);REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY." Councilwoman Richmond MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.887,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. RESOLUTION NO.94-06,GPA-93-05,COASTAL INVESTMENTS CORP./JOE GUZMAN.APPLICANT ) )Planning Division Mgr.Jim Nakagawa briefed the Council on this item.He reminded the Council that this item was presented to them on November 16,1993,which they denied,but the applicant offered a compromise which was so different that it required beginning the process again through the Planning and Zoning Commission.He briefed the Council on the hearings before the commission and the stipulations they were recommending upon approval of this application. Mayor Perkins opened the public hearing. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 3 OF 33 Mr.Bill Schulte,Main Street program manager,stated that even though they are a pro -development group, Main Street would recommend against passage of this item because of the mobile home park that is being proposed right in downtown.He stated that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 8th,Mr.Guzman mentioned that he was looking at Section 11 HUD housing but when he called HUD about it they did not know that as a HUD housing section;Section 11 is a loan guarantee program for construction of a medical service group site;that Mr. Guzman also mentioned Section 8 but that is a voucher program for low-income housing and is not a subsidy to the developer but to the person who is running the property. Mr.Schulte continued stating that perhaps Mr.Guzman was looking at Section 8-11 which is for the elderly and the disabled;this section benefits the developer directly,however that project needs to be run by non-profit organizations;also Section 202 is specifically for elderly who do not have to be disabled but again that project has to be run by a non-profit organization which Mr.Guzman is not.He further explained their reasons for opposing this project. Mrs.Midge Conway,902 S.Ocotillo Dr.,agreed with Mr.Schulte and asked if this was the first or second of the two amendments a year to the General Plan. Mr.Nakagawa answered this was the first time for 1994. Mrs.Conway questioned whether or not the City is supposed to advertise an amendment to the General Plan for other individuals who might be interested in doing this also. Mr.Nakagawa answered there were no other applicants. Mrs.Conway asked if people were made aware that this was the time to do the amendments.She further spoke opposing this item. Mr.Joe Guzman,applicant,stated he is financially capable of developing both the mobile home park and the motel and briefed the Council about other projects he has completed in Phoenix and Apache Junction.He stated that he has been working with HUD since 1974 and as their administration changes from one to another HUD changes with it;what was Section 8 might have become another section as Section 11 from 1974 became another section;that there are about 95 sections under HUD;that he said he would lease his property to individuals who are over 55,retired,on a fixed income;that some of that money comes from what he has always called Section 11 which seems to be now under Section 8;that he got from HUD about 42 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 4 OF 33 sections but regardless of what section it is,what is important is the people he is renting to. Vice Mayor Barker asked about problems with the septic system. Mr.Guzman answered that ADEQ in Tucson told him they do not have the authority to grant him a permit for a septic system and ADEQ in Phoenix told him that because of the sewer system coming in 1995,he would be allowed to use septic tanks on a temporary basis with the stipulation that as soon as the sewer line came in he would have to hook up to it.He stated he has a problem getting that information in writing from ADEQ. Vice Mayor Barker asked if the hotel is not economically successful,the rooms would then be rented for more than a night or two to tourist or as apartments for winter visitors. Mr.Guzman answered that the hotel would be solely operated as such. Vice Mayor Barker stated that she had a problem with the trailer park at that location because of aesthetics as well as safety reasons.She asked if the Council does not approve the trailer park,if Mr.Guzman would then lose interest in any type of development on that property. Mr.Guzman explained that he might not be able to develop that area entirely as commercial because it would exceed the cost he has anticipated for that development. Vice Mayor Barker clarified that she meant if Mr.Guzman would then develop only the commercial part of it without the trailer park. Mr.Guzman replied he would not want to develop half of the property if the Council approved only one of the projects because it was not economically feasible. hotel would be a two-story building. Councilman Perkins asked if the Mr.Guzman confirmed that. Councilman Perkins pointed out that the rooms on the second floor would be looking down on the trailer park. Mr.Guzman confirmed that. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 5 OF 33 Councilman Perkins asked if there was adequate parking for the hotel. Mr.Nakagawa answered the parking meets City requirements. Councilman Perkins asked if the project meets the water retention requirements. City Engineer Gordon Grandy answered he has not seen an engineering layout of that project. Mr.Nakagawa stated that normally that is submitted at the time of final planned development approval when they come in for the building permit but not during the preliminary stage. Councilman Perkins asked if the Council requested proof of financial capabilities as well as more detailed drawings of the hotel;if Mr.Guzman could provide those within a certain amount of time. was adequate parking for the hotel. meets City requirements. Mr.Guzman answered he did not have a problem with that but he did not know how long it will take the engineers to do that;that as soon as he can obtain a permit,he can do that. Councilman Perkins asked Mr.Schulte if that property was in Main Street's scope. Mr.Bob Trepp of Main Street answered that the project would encompass more space than they are looking at right now,so it will be within the scope of Main Street planning area eventually. Councilman Perkins suggested to send this back to staff to seek answers to some questions;that a phased project showing offsites be required within a certain amount of time as part of the first phase,then proceed with the commercial aspect with permits being drawn up within a certain period of time;that the issue about the sewer system be submitted in writing;that the specific sections of HUD covering this project be included in the ordinance;and that an agreement between the City and Mr. Guzman be done. Mr.Guzman stated that what Councilman Perkins is requesting may cost thousands of dollars for something that the Council might not even approve.He stated he would rather have that as the stipulations he would have to comply with. Councilman Perkins replied that i t may cost this community as well if,after this is approved by the Council, REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 6 OF 33 ADEQ does not allow the septic system.He further explained why he wanted some questions answered in written form. Councilman Coleman questioned why the number of dwellings in the mobile home park is one to ten and one half units per acre when our medium density classification for residential areas allows for one to six units per acre. Mr.Esquivias of Planning answered that mobile home ,parks are typically more dense than subdivisions. Councilman Coleman asked if the lots will be 36'x 60 . Mr.Guzman confirmed that. Councilman Coleman stated that was a very tight fit for the units and he did not like the trailer park at that location. Councilman Perkins asked if the size of the lots would allow for awnings. Mr.Esquivias answered that it would allow for an inner patio or carport but not for awnings on both sides;that they discussed about making the lots wider but Mr.Guzman indicated that HUD allowed only single -wide units for that type of housing. Councilman Perkins asked,since that type of housing is for elderly and disabled people,how many of them will be driving cars,and since Mr.Guzman mentioned that because of the location people would be able to walk to the stores. Mr.Guzman answered that even though some people will be disabled,not all will be incapacitated to drive. Councilman Perkins asked to know specifically what sections of HUD cover this type of housing project and that it should be included in the ordinance. Councilman Hendricks spoke against having another mobile home park. Mayor Perkins stated she did not favor the park from the beginning and that the Council should not have encouraged Mr.Guzman to come back with this issue. Mrs.Conway asked if there are going to be new or used units in the park. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 7 OF 33 Mr.Guzman answered that he would buy old units and remodel them. Mrs.Conway expressed concern about a fire hazard because the units will be very close together. Mayor Perkins closed the public hearing since there was no one else wishing to speak on this item. Councilman Perkins MOVED THAT THIS ITEM BE SENT BACK TO STAFF;THAT THE QUESTIONS ABOUT H.U.D.HOUSING COME BACK; MORE CLARIFICATION ON THE SEWER ISSUE;THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE WITH OFFSITES BE PUT IN PLACE FIRST AND PERMITS BE DRAWN FOR THE COMMERCIAL TO PROCEED AFTER THE OFFSITES AND THEN THE PERMITS FOR THE TRAILER COURT;THAT FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION BE PRESENTED SUBSTANTIATING THE FINANCES ARE AVAILABLE AND WILL BE SET FORTH FOR THIS PROJECT;BASICALLY,THAT THE PROJECT IS GOING TO BE BUILT AS IS SHOWN AS FAR AS THE SPORTS BAR AND THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO BE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY;AND ANY SPACE THAT IS NEEDED FOR RETENTION OR EXTRA PARKING IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME OFF OF THE NORTHERN SITE TO ACCOMMODATE IT; AND IF ANYTHING CHANGES AFTER THAT POINT,THEN THE ZONING REVERTS BACK TO HOW IT WAS BEFORE. Vice Mayor Barker asked the City Attorney how that would work out legally. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut explained that State law provides for that. Vice Mayor Barker pointed out that Mr.Guzman was interested in doing both the commercial complex and the mobile home park but the motion refers only to the commercial aspect of it. Mr.Gimbut replied that the motion is simply to continue the hearing asking staff to bring this back for Council consideration. Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilman Coleman offered a substitute motion:THAT RESOLUTION NO.94-06,"APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-93-05,A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE 1987 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP BY REDESIGNATING FROM 'COMMERCIAL'TO 'MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH MANUFACTURED HOME OVERLAY'A 9.2 -ACRE AREA IN SECTION 20 ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH PLAZA DRIVE,ABOUT 750 FEET SOUTH OF WEST SUPERSTITION BOULEVARD,"BE DENIED. There was no second to Councilman Coleman's motion. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 8 OF 33 Councilman Perkins asked if the continuation of this item would affect the window for General Plan amendments. Mr.Nakagawa answered that it would move it up to the time when it normally occurs,in spring time.He suggested that April be the time for this to come back otherwise this would have to be advertised all over again. Councilman Perkins asked for a specific date. Mr.Gimbut stated that it will be just a continuation of the public hearing so legally the window is still being met and the Council can choose any date. Councilman Perkins ADDED TO HIS MOTION THAT THIS ITEM BE BROUGHT BACK ON APRIL 19TH. Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. City Engineer Gordon Grandy recommended not having the offsite improvements prior to anything else because it may be affected by utility lines running through there and other construction activity. Councilman Perkins explained that there is a problem with offsite improvements being postponed for a long time and sometimes never done. Mr.Grandy replied that is why we require the bond and insurance on projects. The Council proceeded with the vote on Councilman Perkins's motion. VOTE:In favor:Vice Mayor Barker,Councilman Perkins,Mayor Perkins. Opposed:Councilman Coleman,Councilwoman Richmond, Councilman Hendricks. Councilman Coleman explained that he could never support a mobile home park at that location and he would not like to waste Mr.Guzman's time. The motion failed. Councilman Coleman offered another motion:THAT RESOLUTION NO.94-06,"APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-93- REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 9 OF 33 05,A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE 1987 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP BY REDESIGNATING FROM 'COMMERCIAL'TO 'MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH MANUFACTURED HOME OVERLAY'A 9.2 -ACRE AREA IN SECTION 20 ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH PLAZA DRIVE, ABOUT 750 FEET SOUTH OF WEST SUPERSTITION BOULEVARD,"BE DENIED. Councilman Perkins SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:In favor:Councilman Coleman,Councilman Perkins,Vice Mayor Barker,Councilwoman Richmond. Opposed:Councilman Hendricks,Mayor Perkins. The motion carried. Mayor Perkins recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m.She reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. ORDINANCE NO.888,PZ-11-93,COASTAL INVESTMENTS CORP./JOE GUZMAN )Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.888 BE DENIED. Councilman Perkins SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.889,AMENDING RULE XI "ATTENDANCE AND LEAVES"OF THE PERSONNEL POLICIES BY ADDING SECTION 14 )Asst.City Manager George Hoffman briefed the Council on this item. Vice Mayor Barker asked if this ordinance was formulated based on the Federal law. (A response was not audible.) Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.889 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 10 OF 33 Councilwoman Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathy Connelly read,"AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA,AMENDING THE PERSONNEL POLICIES,CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,RULE XI; ATTENDANCE AND LEAVES,BY ADDING SECTION 14,FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE POLICY; REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY." Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.889 AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilwoman Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS SELECTION OF PERSON TO FILL COUNCIL POSITION VACATED BY MR.ED COX )Mayor Perkins opened nomination for the person to fill the Council vacancy. Councilman Perkins MOVED THAT ANNE SURRA BE APPOINTED TO FILL THE CITY COUNCIL VACANCY. Councilman Coleman SECONDED THE MOTION. Mayor Perkins stated that they could vote for each nomination or make all nominations first and then vote. Councilman Hendricks MOVED THAT RICHARD MORRISON BE APPOINTED TO FILL THE CITY COUNCIL VACANCY. Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 11 OF 33 Councilwoman Richmond MOVED THAT WILLIAM CARNS BE NOMINATED TO FILL THE COUNCIL VACANCY. Mayor Perkins SECONDED THE MOTION. Mayor Perkins asked if there were any further nominations. Councilman Perkins MOVED THAT TONY VEHON BE APPOINTED TO FILLJTHE,CITY COUNCIL VACANCY.Vice Mayor Barker made a point ,of order.Councilman Perkins withdrew his nomination until the second round. VOTE FOR NOMINEE SURRA: The motion failed. VOTE FOR NOMINEE MORRISON: The motion failed. VOTE FOR NOMINEE CARNS: In favor:Councilman Coleman,Vice Mayor Barker,Councilman Perkins. Opposed:Councilman Hendricks,Councilwoman Richmond,Mayor Perkins. In favor:Vice Mayor Barker,Councilman Hendricks. Opposed:Councilman Coleman,Councilman Perkins,Councilwoman Richmond, Mayor Perkins. In favor:Councilwoman Richmond,Mayor Perkins. Opposed:Councilman Hendricks,Councilman Coleman,Councilman Perkins,Vice Mayor Barker. Councilman Perkins MOVED TO APPOINT TONY VEHON TO FILL THE CITY COUNCIL VACANCY. MOTION.Councilman Coleman SECONDED THE Mayor Perkins asked if there were further nominations. Councilman Hendricks MOVED THAT RICHARD MORRISON BE APPOINTED TO FILL THE CITY COUNCIL VACANCY. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 12 OF 33 Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. Mayor Perkins asked if there were any further nominations. Mayor Perkins passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Barker and MOVED TO NOMINATE WILLIAM CARNS. MOTION. any further nominations. MOTION. VOTE FOR NOMINEE VEHON: The motion failed. VOTE FOR NOMINEE MORRISON: The motion failed. VOTE FOR NOMINEE CARNS: Councilwoman Richmond SECONDED THE In favor:Councilman Coleman,Councilman Perkins. Opposed:Councilwoman Richmond,Councilman Hendricks,Mayor Perkins. Abstained:Vice Mayor Barker. In favor:Councilman Hendricks,Vice Mayor Barker. Opposed:Councilman Perkins,Councilman Coleman,Councilwoman Richmond, Mayor Perkins. In favor:Councilwoman Richmond,Mayor Perkins. Opposed:Councilman Coleman,Vice Mayor Barker,Councilman Hendricks. The motion failed. ANNE SURRA TO THE VACANT COUNCIL SEAT. MOTION. further nominations. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 13 OF 33 Councilman Perkins MOVED TO APPOINT Councilman Coleman SECONDED THE Mayor Perkins asked if there were Councilman Hendricks MOVED THAT RICHARD MORRISON BE APPOINTED TO FILL THE CITY COUNCIL VACANCY. Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. Mayor Perkins passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Barker and NOMINATED WILLIAM CARNS. were any further nominations. VOTE FOR NOMINEE SURRA: The motion failed. VOTE FOR NOMINEE MORRISON: The motion failed. There was no second on that. Vice Mayor Barker asked if there In favor:Councilman Coleman,Councilman Perkins,Vice Mayor Barker, Opposed:Councilman Hendricks,Councilwoman Richmond,Mayor Perkins. In favor:Vice Mayor Barker,Councilwoman Richmond,Councilman Hendricks. Opposed:Councilman Coleman,Councilman Perkins,Mayor Perkins. Councilman Coleman MOVED TO NOMINATE TONY VEHON TO BE APPOINTED TO FILL THE CITY COUNCIL VACANCY. Councilman Perkins SECONDED THE MOTION. Mayor Perkins asked if there were further nominations. Councilman Hendricks MOVED THAT ANNE SURRA BE APPOINTED TO FILL THE CITY COUNCIL VACANCY. Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. Mayor Perkins asked if there were any further nominations. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 14 OF 33 Mayor Perkins passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Barker and NOMINATED WILLIAM CARNS. Councilwoman Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. Vice Mayor Barker asked if there were any further nominations twice.Since there were no further nominations she asked for the roll call. VOTE ON NOMINEE VEHON: The motion failed. In favor:Councilman Coleman,Councilman Perkins. Opposed:Councilwoman Richmond,Councilman Hendricks,Mayor Perkins. Abstained:Vice Mayor Barker. VOTE ON NOMINEE SURRA:In favor:Councilman Perkins,Councilman Coleman,Councilman Hendricks,Vice Mayor Barker. Opposed:Councilwoman Richmond,Mayor Perkins. The motion carried. City Clerk Kathy Connelly administered the Oath of Office to newly selected Councilwoman Anne Surra. CONSIDERATION OF PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES )City Manager Mike Lee briefed the Council on this item. Vice Mayor Barker asked what direction he was asking from the Council. Mr.Lee answered that they did not need to take any action on this;that information was being presented because of previous direction that it be considered at a future Council meeting;so it was up to the Council to decide on that. Councilman Perkins stated he was the one who requested that this issue be postponed until the first of January.He stated he has reviewed the financial statements and he has seen expenditures in areas that he thought were not necessary;that he thought the City is REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 15 OF 33 trying to balance the budget on thetacks of city employees;and that he thought employees deservedithe merit increase. Councilman Hendricks commented that the economy did not look good for companies nationwideand,acknowledged that budgets are being balanced:on the back of employees but this was necessary even for another year. Vice Mayor Barker agreed with Councilman Perkins that the merit increase was a system in place to reward employees for a job well done;that both "belt -tightening"and a small merit increase might be a possibility;that there were other approaches to reward employees such as incentives that would add to employees benefits,etc.but one way or another employees have to have something. Mr.Lee stated that management will work on a fall -back plan and pointed out that 70% of the general fund is for personnel costs,so it was difficult to balance the budget without considering that.He agreed that employees should be treated fairly and stated that management has considered granting an additional one -week's vacation which could probably be granted without affecting the service level. Vice Mayor Barker asked if that would be paid vacation. Mr.Lee answered yes. Asst.City Manager George Hoffman explained how that vacation time could be worked out. Councilman Perkins stated there is a problem with accrued compensatory time in the Detectives Division where it is already difficult for those employees to take time off from work,so they may end up losing that additional vacation because they cannot take it.He was concerned that the City was under -staffed with some people already doing two jobs and if they are given additional vacation time,what will happen to the work load. Mr.Hoffman replied that the employees who have that problem are relatively few and they could address those situations individually;that when they look at the utilization of vacation leave for last year,they see that 94% of the hours which were accrued were utilized,so most people tend to utilize that time. Councilman Perkins asked how much that week's vacation for all employees would add to the budget. Finance Director Keith Lewis answered that would not be :a dollar figure. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 16 OF 33 Mr.Hoffman explained that having employees off work does not change their salaries. Mr.Lee added that it may cause some additional overtime but they have taken that into account. Councilman Perkins asked that if there is $68,000 in the general fund,what are the projections on the merit increase if it was left in place. Mr.Lewis answered it would be about $128,000 to $135,000 for a 5% in a year. Mr.Gimbut added that projection was for a certain level only. Mr.Lewis clarified that it did not include department heads. Councilman Perkins asked for the best estimate on the merit increase. Mr.Lewis answered it would be about $160,000. Councilman Perkins stated he thought the merit increase should be left in place. Mr.Lee asked if they should then address the budget problems in another way. Councilman Perkins answered yes. Councilwoman Richmond asked that i f this is a "merit"increase,would everybody come up to the 5%raise. Mr.Lee answered no. Councilman Hendricks asked who would merit the 5%. Mr.Lee answered that a majority of employees get the 5% but the average was a little less than 4%. Mr.Lewis affirmed that. Vice Mayor Barker stated that a 5% raise was high. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 17 OF 33 Councilman Perkins agreed with Vice Mayor Barker and stated that the merit system should be reviewed;that employees who do more than they are expected to do may deserve it but not just anybody who is doing what they have to do.He suggested to follow up on this with Personnel. Councilwoman Surra stated that the 5% merit increase for employees was high so maybe the week's vacation would be better while they assess the criteria for the merit increase. Councilman Perkins asked if the City's merit system follows the trend of other cities our size as far as the merit increase is applied. Mr.Hoffman answered that his recollection is that our merit system is representative of municipal government but that does not mean that it does not merit a review. Councilman Perkins commented that the City is in the job market and perhaps the merit system is a competitive factor in the retention of employees. Mr.Hoffman replied that in his opinion,when people leave,money is often a symptom of some underlying concern about job satisfaction,recognition and working relationship among peers,bosses,etc.;that money is a factor,but he believed that the City is not losing employees,except in very rare occasions,due to our salaries. Vice Mayor Barker stated she remembered that the merit increase review was one of the goals for this year. Mr.Hoffman stated there needs to be a general understanding of what the evaluations are and what the various criteria are for a merit increase;and if the current merit system does not meet the expectations of Council,then they need to look at all the merit increase systems. Mayor Perkins asked if some departments were under -staffed and they approve the merit increase,how can we bring more employees to lighten other people's work loads. Mr.Hoffman stated that salary is one form of compensation but there are other benefits.He reminded the Council that a compensation study was done three or four years ago and the City made adjustment increases which contributed to retaining employees.He stated that other benefits are in the form of health insurance,which employees do not feel as more benefits because it is the City who pays more to maintain that coverage and that is one reason why expenditures exceed REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 18 OF 33 revenues.He added he believes there might be a reduction in health insurance rates next year and the City might even get a reimbursement on that. Councilman Perkins stated that Mr. Hoffman is asking the Council to consider not only merit increases and COLA but also look at the whole package of benefits such as the one week's vacation and medical benefits. Mr.Hoffman added that Workers Compensation does not care whether the City gives its employees an increase or not;if that goes up again next year,we will pay it regardless. Mr.Lee added that in the last few years the City has increased the percentage of employees'dependent coverage. Councilman Perkins asked if the merit increase can be done between now and the next fiscal year. Mr.Hoffman confirmed that.He added that he saw that increase not as $160,000 but as $1.6 million over ten years from now because that additional money marches on. Councilman Coleman stated that the merit increase will cost money whereas the additional one week's vacation time may not. Councilwoman Surra asked if the one week's vacation does not have to be taken all at once but gradually. Mr.Hoffman answered yes.He clarified that the idea of additional vacation was being presented as an alternative as opposed to nothing or instead of the merit increase. Mr.Lee clarified that vacation time will cost some but not as much as the merit increase or cost of living increase and there might even be situations when the City will have to pay for overtime or vacation time because some people may not be able to get away from work. Councilman Coleman suggested to have an "Employee of the Month"recognized at Council meetings;that this was suggested before but it has not been done. Mr.Hoffman mentioned he also talked with Mayor Perkins about other ideas that would save the organization money. Councilman Perkins MOVED TO MAKE THE MERIT INCREASE RETROACTIVE TO JULY 1,1993;THAT WE GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BEGIN WORK ON A TOTAL STUDY OF SALARY AND BENEFITS TO THE CITY AND TO BEGIN REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 19 OF 33 DEVELOPING A THREE-TO FIVE-YEAR PLAN OF WHERE THOSE COSTS ARE GOING AND CAPPING. Mr.Hoffman asked what would be the percentage on the merit increase. Councilman Perkins answered it would Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT THE INCREASE BE CUT IN HALF (2.5%). percentage on the merit increase. Councilman Perkins AGREED ON THE AMENDMENT. Mr.Hoffman asked for clarification on the amendment. Vice Mayor Barker explained that the ceiling at 2.5% would be for the person who would have gotten the 5%. Mr.Hoffman asked if that would leave the freeze on management. Vice Mayor Barker answered that leave the freeze on management. increase would be across the board. getting a 4% merit VOTE:In favor: Opposed: The motion carried. Mr.Hoffman asked if a person increase would then get only 2%. Vice Mayor Barker answered yes. Councilman Hendricks,Councilwoman Richmond, Councilwoman Surra,Councilman Perkins,Vice Mayor Barker,Mayor Perkins. Councilman Coleman. RESOLUTION NO.94-07,AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO CDBG FY '94 CENTRAL ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT (CAAG) REGIONAL ACCOUNT )Housing and Grants Coord.John Flumerfelt briefed the Council on this item. Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.94-07,"AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS FOR FY 1994 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 20 OF 33 STATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS,CERTIFYING THAT SAID APPLICATIONS MEET THE COMMUNITY'S PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE CDBG PROGRAM,"BE APPROVED. Councilman Coleman SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. RESOLUTION NO.94-08,ADOPTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ANTIDISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN )Housing and Grants Coord.John Flumerfelt briefed the Council on this item. Mayor Perkins commended Mr. Flumerfelt for a job well done. Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.94-08,"ADOPTING A RESIDENTIAL ANTIDISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN,AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 104(d)OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 AS AMENDED FOR FY 1994,"BE APPROVED. Councilwoman Richmond SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS TAPING LAND CABLE BROADCASTING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS )Vice Mayor Barker stated she put this on the agenda because of many unanswered questions regarding this issue. She stated that in the original agreement with Dowden Communications,Inc., which is now Triax Cable,there was a list of equipment worth about $60,000; that the City has received a video camera and a VCR and asked where was the rest of that equipment. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut explained that the predecessor of Triax made a franchise proposal with the City and it accepted that as a contract;that unfortunately this is not clearly defined as to the contractual relationship.He stated that the equipment listed in the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 21 OF 33 agreement related to a single studio to be built by the cable company at the High School or the Community College to be a joint shared facility used by the schools systems,the City,a local access channel in the community,and the cable company,but that never happened. Mr.Gimbut further stated that the clause has been viewed by different people in different ways.He stated that Triax Cable tried to donate and has been involved in developing the system at the High School and they view that as their contribution under this contract, but the school district does not view it that way.He stated that the City was trying to enter into a sort of intergovernmental agreement with the schools district so we could use their studio and call it a contract performance,but this never came to pass so we cannot say that the studio at the school is that joint use facility. Mr.Gimbut explained that under those circumstances,it was difficult to say that the contract has been honored or abridged.He stated that a portion of the contract indicates that the cable company would provide help and staff for productions for a calendar year,so possibly they will produce and broadcast our Council meetings for a year and we can call that a performance. Mr.Tony Wagoner of Triax Cable at 2300 N.Apache Trail,stated that they have met the equipment needs for the City.He explained that the list of equipment in the franchise agreement from 1984 was obsolete;that in order to comply,they bought new equipment for the school district and the City,which is much better than what is listed. Vice Mayor Barker asked if the equipment the City has is good enough to broadcast Council meetings and if the current conditions of the room,such as lighting,were appropriate for that. Mr.Wagoner answered he was not an expert in video production but that we could probably get a fair production of the meetings with what we have. Vice Mayor Barker asked if we then have the equipment necessary and the capability to broadcast the Council meetings. Mr.Wagoner answered yes and he explained how the equipment could be set up in the Council chambers and how the meetings would be broadcast;that it would not cost much;that they would supply the cables,hookups necessary,and thee people to do the installation but he would like to use City employees to open up a trench between the Council chambers and Administration for the wires. Vice Mayor Barker asked if the two possibilities are live and tape broadcasting. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 22 OF 33 Mr.Wagoner explained how the two types of broadcast could be done by one single person. Vice Mayor Barker asked if taping could be done while broadcasting it live. Mr.Wagoner answered yes.He added that the cost would be minimal.He explained how the camera could be put in a box in the wall of the Council chambers. Mr.Gimbut stated that while that was technically feasible it was not legal.He explained that live broadcasting can cause a liability so we need to have the ability to control what goes on the air to avoid that situation. Mr.Wagoner agreed with Mr.Gimbut. Vice Mayor Barker asked if live broadcasting would then be eliminated but not taping of Council meetings. Mr.Gimbut answered that taping would require some level of editing ability. Councilman Perkins asked if Triax could offer a solution. Mr.Wagoner replied that what they are offering is inexpensive but the production of tapes to the City could come up to about $100,000 a year which will show on cable bills of customers as a line item which was not convenient for either the cable company or the City. Councilman Perkins asked what was an inexpensive way to do the editing. Mr.Wagoner answered Triax did not have any editing capabilities and they were not a production facility. Councilman Perkins asked what would it take to edit an VHS tape. Mr.Wagoner answered that the City needed two live recorders and a controller in the middle and buy another VCR with the capability of doing basic editing which would cost about $5,000. Vice Mayor Barker asked if editing could not be done with the equipment the City has now. Mr.Wagoner answered it would look unprofessional. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 23 OF 33 Mayor Perkins stated the Council want their meetings taped in order to quench any rumors,but if they start editing the tapes,that would defeat their purpose of televising the meetings. Vice Mayor Barker stated that once in a while it happens that people call other people names,but it does not happen often enough that it would be a problem. Councilman Perkins asked if maybe that type of behavior would not increase once the broadcasting is in place. Vice Mayor Barker replied that the Council could decide not to televise Call to the Public due to the possibility of liability. City Manager Mike Lee stated that the same type of behavior could happen during public hearings but since Mayor Perkins controls the meetings,she could have that time cut off from the tape. Mr.Gimbut replied that it would be difficult to predict what somebody is going to say to cut it off in time. Mr.Lee pointed out that it would be a minute or two instead of ten. City Engineer Gordon Grandy was concerned that the video camera could not show presentations on the screen through the overhead projector because of the location. Vice Mayor Barker stated that the problems of the Council during meetings are not insurmountable.She suggested to direct staff to look into this situation and get some concrete answers for the Council and try everything in their power to make it possible. Mr.Lee suggested to borrow one of Mr.Gorenc's tapes of Council meetings and see how they look. Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING TAPING AND CABLE BROADCASTING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS:THAT THE STAFF MAKE EVERY POSSIBLE EFFORT TO PROVIDE A METHOD THAT COULD BE USED TO RECORD COUNCIL MEETINGS. Councilman Coleman SECONDED THE MOTION. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 24 OF 33 PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF TIRES AS LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS )Planning Division Mgr.Jim Nakagawa briefed the Council on this item. Councilman Perkins asked if that problem could be regulated by fire codes. Mr.Nakagawa answered that it does fall under health and sanitation in the City Code as part of the trash abatement ordinance,so the Council may want to consider that;that EPA or DEQ may have some restrictions as to how many tires may be placed at a given location because once they catch on fire,they burn for a long time,but he was unfamiliar with ADEQ requirements. Councilman Hendricks stated there were 26 tires lining the property in case as planters;that 17 or 18 of the neighbors are against it and so he recommended to eliminate the use of tires for landscaping;that according to EPA and the Fire District,tires are hazardous and if we want to attract tourists,the use of tires to decorate our yards is not very appealing. Vice Mayor Barker stated that other communities require spaces between the tires rather than eliminating them; that there a lot of houses with a tire in their garden some of which look nice and she could not go for total elimination of tires. Mayor Perkins asked if in this particular case they are tractor tires. Councilman Hendricks answered yes. Mayor Perkins replied there is a difference in the size of tires. Vice Mayor Barker asked if people could still have a tire to make a swing even if they are prohibited for decoration. Councilman Perkins asked if we could require one tire per resident to be used as they wished. Councilwoman Surra asked if the most pressing reason was to clean up the City and its appearance based solely on tires because there is also the problem of junk cars in the front of homes; that she saw a lot of energy spent on telling people how to decorate their lawns;and she suggested to address the problem of tires on an individual basis instead of making it an ordinance applicable to everybody.She added REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 25 OF 33 that something having to do with fire safety and health was different than imposing the Council's feelings about what is aesthetically pleasing or not. City Manager Mike Lee stated the problem was that the City could not do anything about that problem as far as enforcement because there was nothing in the City Code about it. Code Enforcement Officer Rick Williams explained that other municipalities allow the use of tires for landscaping:that the Town of Gilbert tried to eliminate them completely but they lost their cases in court:that staff discussed allowing tires at 25 feet apart for fire safety but in order to eliminate them completely,a health or fire hazard reason was needed. Councilman Perkins asked if the City can regulate the number of tires per acre because if they are allowed at 25 feet apart,anybody can fill out an acre with tires at 25 feet from each other or stacked up. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated there are provisions in the National Fire Code regarding tires,stacking and appropriate distances. Councilman Perkins asked if the 25 feet apart is the required distance for tires by other communities. Officer Williams answered that other than Gilbert other communities have not had a problem with tires and that Avondale required a distance from a structure:that Mr.Gimbut suggested the 25 feet apart for fire hazard reasons,away from a structure,and not stackable. Vice Mayor Barker asked if the City can do nothing about that problem with the ordinances that are in place. Councilwoman Richmond stated that i f the tires are filled with manure,then they are a health hazard. Mr.Gimbut stated sthatpeopie call that a fertilizer and Officer Williams was not able to get a conclusion from the County Health Department that this is a sanitation problem. Officer Williams stated he contacted ADEQ but they had nothing indicating that was a hazardous problem. City Clerk Kathy Connelly asked if anyone checked the Animals section in the City Code which has some restrictions about manure,fly infestation,etc. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 26 OF 33 Officer Williams replied they have checked it out and everything about it is fine. Councilman Perkins stated that i f they adopted an ordinance,that would take care of that problem. Vice .Mayor Barker .stated that i t would take a number of code enforcement officers to go out and measure the distance between the tires.She added that it would not be an enforceable ordinance. Councilman Hendricks suggested to postpone this item until Council members went out to look at the problem. Councilman Perkins pointed out that most of the time code enforcement officers go out in response to complaints they receive. Councilman Perkins MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF REGARDING PROHIBITING THE USE OF TIRES AS LANDSCAPING ELEMENT,THAT THE FOLLOWING VERBIAGE BE ADDED TO SECTION 9-2-2 LITTER ON PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PROPERTY:"TIRES THAT ARE ACTIVELY BEING USED OR UTILIZED FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN STORAGE SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM OF TWENTY- FIVE FEET APART AND MAY NOT BE STACKED ONE UPON ANOTHER.SAID USE SHALL OCCUR A MINIMUM OF TWENTY-FIVE FEET FROM ANY STRUCTURE." Vice Mayor Barker SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr.Nakagawa clarified that the verbiage has not been reviewed by the City Attorney for .legal terms;this is being suggested by the Code Enforcement Officer and it may change. Mr.Gimbut replied he interpreted that as direction to staff to come back with an ordinance. Asst.City Manager George Hoffman asked what was the time frame associated with this direction. Councilman Perkins asked Mr.Gimbut when could that be brought back to the Council. Mr.Gimbut answered tt could be done by the next Council meeting (April 5th). VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 27 OF 33 AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND ZONING ORDINANCE )Planning Division Mgr.Jim Nakagawa briefed the Council on this item regarding some conflicts that arose when Quail Creek Apartments was changed to condominiums.He stated that currently State law and City ordinances do not require that notification be given to those tenants. Vice Mayor Barker asked if nothing was found in the Zoning Ordinance with regard to that. City Clerk Kathy Connelly answered it was found in State law under the Landlord and Tenant Act which requires a 120 -day notification period and that she believed the City is entitled to make reference to State law in things that it adopts. City Attorney Glenn Gimbut stated that State law also has a specific title on condominiums which has notice provisions for when a unit has been converted that is likely to be sold.He stated that what Mr.Nakagawa is proposing is different than that which is a notification to the public that an application for a subdivision has been submitted and it will be presented to the City Council in a public hearing. Vice Mayor Barker replied that according Mr.Nakagawa's information,it has to do with requiring a notification to tenants of pending conversion of apartments to condominiums but it says nothing about hearings. Mr.Gimbut replied that i t is his interpretation that there is a pending application for a subdivision plat approval which is a necessary step for a conversion and which requires a resolution. Vice Mayor Barker stated she was not under the impression that the City would have to notify the tenants but rather that the applicants would have to notify the tenants. Mr.Gimbut replied that was right but he was not clear with Mr.Nakagawa's interpretation of the mechanics for that notice.He stated his legal concern was that Arizona has a statute that prohibits us from adopting any form of regulation in our zoning code or subdivision regulations that would discriminate against the condominium form of ownership.He added he did not know if this would be a violation of that or not. Vice Mayor Barker asked if statutes contain specific language regarding condominiums,why could we not reference those as we do in other areas of our policies. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 28 OF 33 Mr.Gimbut answered because that is already a legal requirement in the State law. Ms.Connelly replied that was already done in the towing policies;the City adopted the DPS regulations by reference stating that a towing company has to conform with that. Vice Mayor Barker added they also referenced some of the statutes. Mr.Gimbut stated that the statutory notification is notices that occur after the subdivision plat approval is in place;if the City adopts an ordinance that references State law,we are not requiring something but simply saying the statutes have to be followed;but it is not clear as to the mechanics of enforcement if there is a problem. was not all clear and maybe it needed Council also look at the Landlord and Vice Mayor Barker stated this issue to go back to staff for clarification. Ms.Connelly suggested that the Tenant Act. Mr.Gimbut concurred with that. Councilwoman Surra stated that direction to staff was what Mr.Nakagawa was seeking. Mr.Nakagawa agreed with that and stated that if they find a State provision that would accomplish basically what the City wants to do,then there is probably no need to make a change in our local subdivision regulations. Vice Mayor Barker asked if they needed to list the changes suggested by Mr.Nakagawa for the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. Mr.Nakagawa answered that those deal with some separate issues which he explained. Councilman Coleman asked if there is a requirement in State law regarding the notification to tenants and if that is not followed through,is there no recourse or is that a law with no enforcement provision. Mr.Gimbut explained that the notification requirement of the conversion of apartments to condominiums as contained in Title 33 is after the subdivision plat has been approved and after a conversion has occurred;that the notice requirements under the Landlord and Tenant Act are required in the termination of tenancy when a REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 29 OF 33 person is no longer allowed to rent a place;and that Mr.Nakagawa is talking about a different kind of notice for something that is pending before the City so that people know that a subdivision plat has been filed with the City which is different from the State statutes;that he was not clear whether we can do this or not. Mr.Gimbut further explained that the problem he saw was that subdivision regulations are administrative so if people comply with these,it has to be approved whether we like it or not; zoning regulations are legislative and even if these are complied with,there is broad discretion and ability to say no if you do not like it. Mr.Gimbut further explained the problem that may happen if the City notifies people that a subdivision plat is pending,which meets our regulations,and the people object to that. Councilwoman Surra stated she did not see it that way in Mr.Nakagawa's information;that she understood this was for the Council to ensure that every landlord would give adequate time for a tenant to find another place to live but not that people were going to come before the Council to be heard at a public hearing regarding whether or not we are going to allow the condominiums.She asked Mr.Nakagawa for clarification on that. Mr.Nakagawa stated he believed that a lot of the tenants were taken by surprise when the Quail Creek Apartments were being converted to condominiums;that if there were a city requirement that notification be given to tenants that a conversion was taking place and application for a plat had been filed,it would be up to the city to decide how much notification would be adequate;that in California the time was about 180 days. Mr.Gimbut replied that if that is not a subdivision regulation then it seems to be a Landlord and Tenant Act regulation what Mr.Nakagawa intends to do. Mr.Nakagawa replied that it would fall within the subdivision regulations based on his experience with subdivision regulations in California where that was made a requirement,but he did not wish for the City to get involved in a Landlord and Tenant type regulation because that would not properly fit within subdivision regulations. Councilman Perkins asked if Mr. Gimbut was saying that if a person with a property zoned for high -density applies for an apartment complex which complies with all City regulations and all the citizens opposed to that,the City can not say no. Mr.Gimbut answered no;the Council has broad discretion in rezoning because it is a legislative act;but if the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 30 OF 33 zoning is in place for a single-family house subdivision,for instance,and the plat map meets all of the City regulations,then the City cannot say no. Councilman Perkins asked if even when all the citizens oppose that subdivision,the City cannot say no. Mr.Gimbut answered that if it meets all of the subdivision regulations,which is administrative,the City cannot say no.He stated the problem with apartments converting to condominiums is that we are prohibited to treat condominiums different than apartments;if a person comes in with an apartment complex that meets all the regulations and he simply wants to convert them to condominium,the City cannot impose different regulations simply because they are going to be condos. Councilman Perkins asked if the City cannot require its own period of time for notification. Mr.Gimbut answered that the question was if we are treating people different and he was not clear about it. Vice Mayor Barker SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING SOME CLARIFICATION AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING THIS INFORMATION BACK IN SUCH AS MANNER THAT EVERYBODY AGREED ON WHAT IS BEING ASKED. Councilman Coleman SECONDED THAT. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES.TIMES.LOCATIONS.AND PURPOSES Vice Mayor Barker MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M.AND A WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M.ON MONDAY,APRIL 4,1994,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RESPECTIVELY;AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M.ON TUESDAY,APRIL 5,1994,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM;AND THAT kBRIEFHSPECIAL MEETING FOR CANVASS OF VOTESAFTHE MARCH 15TH SPECIAL ELECTION BEiHELD;014 MARCH 29,1994 AT 6:00 PA IN THE CIrt COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON APRIL 19,1994 AT 6:00 P.M.BE USED FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S REVIEW. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 31 OF 33 Councilman Hendricks SECONDED THE MEETING. VOTE:Unanimous. The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT )Mayor Perkins adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1.Acceptance of Agenda. 2.Acceptance of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 15,1994. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 32 OF 33 ACCEPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF Alan ,1994,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 7TH DAY OF APRIL ATTEST: HLEEN CONN City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CERTIFICATION ,1994. 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 1st day of March,1994.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 18th day of March,1994. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1,1994 PAGE 33 OF 33