Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-19 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19,1991 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on February 19,1991,at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Bluntschly called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Councilman Vehon gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilwoman Alger led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmen Present: Staff Present: Mayor Bluntschly Vice Mayor Damiano Councilwoman Barker Councilman Cox Councilman Eidson Councilwoman Alger Councilman Vehon City Manager Michael R.Lee City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney David Alexander Assistant City Manager George Hoffman Deputy City Clerk Lori Zmayefski Director of Public Works Rich Broman Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell Planning Division Manager Jim Nakagawa City Engineer Gordon Grandy Economic Development Specialist John Schoeph Others Present:Senator Pete Rios Mr.Kenneth Bluntschly 1163 S.Idaho Rd. Apache Junction,Arizona REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 1 Mr.Keith Stachar 1153 N.Holmes Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.Richard Palmer 1541 W.Windsong Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.Ledoux 1754 S.Idaho Apache Junction,Arizona ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NOS.1 -6 BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED; AND THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED,THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER,TO PURSUE INCORPORATING CITY LEASED BLM LANDS INTO MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED REGIONAL BICYCLE FACILITIES PLAN AND THAT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BE NOTIFIED OF THE CITY'S INTENTION TO MODIFY EXISTING PLANS; AND THAT THE EASEMENT DESCRIBED AS A 165'LONG AREA ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF SUPERSTITION BOULEVARD,BE GRANTED TO SALT RIVER PROJECT,AND THE CITY MANAGER BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND RETURN SAID EASEMENT FORM; AND THAT THE JOINT AMENDMENT TO THE CENTRAL ARIZONA AND MARICOPA ASSOCIATIONS OF GOVERNMENT 208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM BE ACCEPTED AS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT,AND THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE MINOR CORRECTIONS REQUESTED BY OTHER APPROVING AGENCIES;AND I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE CITY OF MESA BE REQUESTED TO ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT IN ORDER THAT OTHER ACTION MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY MESA WHICH WILL RESULT IN ATTAINING DESIRED GOALS.THIS REQUEST TO MESA IS PREDICATED UPON APACHE JUNCTION'S INTENT TO FINALIZE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR ENTERING INTO A THIRD -PARTY SUB -REGIONAL OPERATING GROUP AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING A SEWER CONTINGENT UPON APACHE JUNCTION OBTAINING AUTHORITY ON MAY 21,1991,TO CREATE A SEWER UTILITY AND ENTER INTO A LOAN REPAYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY; AND THAT JIM PFEIFER BE APPOINTED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS,THE VACANCY CREATED BY THE REMOVAL OF MR.DANIEL WILSON,SAID TERM TO EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 1993. motion. Vice Mayor Damiano seconded the Councilman Vehon asked i f the action on the 208 Amendment is exactly as the last time i t came up,or does i t leave flexibility as previously discussed. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 2 Director of Public Works Rich Broman explained that the Amendment deals with water quality,and that there is room for flexibility in the program as we go along,and i f the modification is minor it would not have to go through the public hearing process,but i f the change is major we would have to start at the beginning. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. Introduction of Distinguished Visitors and Guests Mayor Bluntschly welcomed everyone to the Council meeting,and acknowledged Senator Pete Rios. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Bluntschly presented the "Key to the City"to Senator Rios,and announced that Senator Rios is a new resident to the City of Apache Junction. Senator Rios thanked the Mayor and Council for the presentation,and stated that he is happy to be residing in the growing community of Apache Junction. Senator Rios also stated that he is doing everything possible as President of the State Senate to salvage the integrity of the institution he represents. Senator Rios stated that in regards to the overpayment of HURF funds and the hardship that issue is causing Pinal County and cities in Pinal County,Senator Stevens is attempting to allow more time for repayment of those funds through the Legislature. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read a Proclamation for "Apache Junction Scout Day". Mayor Bluntschly presented the Proclamation to a representative of the Apache Junction Scouts. Mayor Bluntschly presented Outstanding Library Volunteer Awards to Bill and Sally Murch,announcing that they have volunteered 336 hours of work in the Library in service to senior citizens. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Mayor Bluntschly stepped down as mayor to address the Council as a member of the public,and passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Damiano. Mr.Kenneth Bluntschly,1163 S.Idaho Road,Apache Junction,addressed the Council and public,stating that all elected officials take an oath of office to REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 3 uphold the laws of the Nation,and i f evidence supports the allegations made against the seven legislators,they should be removed from office. Mr.Bluntschly urged citizens to write to Senator Rios and Speaker Jane Hull to make their position known. Vice Mayor Damiano returned the gavel to Mayor Bluntschly. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Michael R.Lee stated that representatives of several cities and Maricopa County appeared before the Transportation Committee in support of the amendment Senator Rios outlined,which the Transportation Committee did vote in favor of unanimously.Mr.Lee called on Economic Development Specialist John Schoeph to address the Council on the development of a central sewer collection system. Economic Development Specialist John Schoeph outlined the public information plan for the sewer collection system,and stated that this is scheduled for the May 21st election. Mr.Lee reported that there have been improvements made on the City Hall Complex,such as signage for public information purposes,the emergency exit onto Idaho Road,and that the Parks Department is fairly close to completing the improvements to the Veterans Memorial Park. PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.781,AMENDING CITY CODE,CHAPTER 6 ANIMALS,SECTION 6-3-5 A,IMPOUNDMENT )Director of Public Safety Bill McDaniel requested that the ordinance be approved,amending the Code by restricting Animal Control from releasing or adopting any dog showing a propen- sity for violence,easily agitated or showing a high degree of nervousness to anyone except the dog's owner.Mr.McDaniel stated that this will release the City from some liability by releasing violent or aggressive dogs only to their owners,which has been a concern of Southwest Risk Insurance pool,the City's Insurance company. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly pointed out that there was a small change made in the proposed ordinance,taking out the 72 hour period designated in the ordinance. Mayor Bluntschly opened the hearing to the public,and asked i f there was anyone who wished to address the Council in favor of or in opposition to the ordinance.There being no one wishing to speak,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 4 Vice Mayor Damiano MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.781,BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read as follows: ORDINANCE NO.781,AN ORDINANCE OF MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION CITY CODE,CHAPTER 6 ANIMALS,ARTICLE 6-3 DOGS,SECTION 6-3-5, IMPOUNDMENT;REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. Vice Mayor Damiano MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.781,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. Mayor Bluntschly announced that also in the audience is Judge Vinton Peck. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.782,ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS ON SOUTHERN AVENUE BETWEEN MERIDIAN DRIVE AND IRONWOOD DRIVE. (With the Emergency Clause)) )City Engineer Gordon Grandy explained that this ordinance establishes speed limits on the newly opened sec- tion of Southern Avenue between Meridian and Delaware,and stated that the recommended speed limit is 45 mph based on the "spot speed studies"determined as the safe and effective posted speed limit for that neighborhood. speed limit is west of that location. mph. Councilman Eidson asked what the Mr.Grandy replied that i t is 50 Mayor Bluntschly commented that this may be a safe speed for cars and pickup trucks,but that it may not be for large trucks considering the width of the road. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 5 Mr.Grandy replied that the width is the same as a typical county or rural highway,and is reasonable for even large truck traffic. Vice Mayor Damiano expressed concern also,as the trucks appear to go 50 mph,even with a 25 mph posted limit. Mr.Grandy agreed that i t isn't the signs that determine how fast people will drive,but their judgement of the road conditions ahead,therefore,the engineering judgement that goes into the analy- sis is what a reasonable and prudent driver would do under these circumstances. Mr.Grandy added that the ultimate outcome of posting lower speed limits that people will ignore,is to have law enforcement issuing tickets every day all day,but that beyond 45 mph it would not be necessary for officers to give a 5 or 10 mph leeway. Vice Mayor Damiano asked i f i t is legal to have a posted speed limit sign strictly enforced. Director of Public Safety Bill McDaniel replied that such signs do exist in other communities,however,the result will be the same in that it will mean something to some drivers and nothing to others. Councilwoman Barker asked what the speed limit is on the other side of Ironwood,past the school. to 35 mph at San Marcos. Mr.Grandy replied that i t changes Councilwoman Barker asked i f i t would cause a problem with the nursing home being off Southern Avenue. Mr.Grandy replied that a separate reading was taken in front of the nursing home,thinking that it may be more restricted because of the fencing and development,but i t didn't change. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone who wished to address the Council in favor of or in opposition to the ordinance.There being no one wishing to speak,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Vice Mayor Damiano MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.782 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY,WITH THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE,AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 6 The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read as follows: ORDINANCE NO.782,AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,ESTABLISHING THE SPEED LIMIT ON SOUTHERN AVENUE BETWEEN MERIDIAN DRIVE AND IRONWOOD DRIVE; REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES;AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Vice Mayor Damiano MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.782,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.783,ESTABLISHING LOCATIONS FOR STOP SIGNS FOR COLT ROAD AT 9TH AVENUE AND 10TH AVENUE. (With the Emergency Clause)) )City Engineer Gordon Grandy explained that due to Council action,Broadway is now a cul-de-sac,causing traffic patterns to change and resulting in stop signs becoming necessary on Colt Road at 9th and 10th Avenues.Mr.Grandy added that warrant studies were conducted,and engineering judgement to determine the hazards,result in this recommendation. Councilman Vehon asked i f signage is going to be placed at the cul-de-sac indicating a dead end. Mr.Grandy stated that the normal amount of signage was placed as well as barricades at the end. Vice Mayor Damiano commented that he had parked in the cul-de-sac just to see how drivers respond to the cul-de-sac, and that drivers don't seem to be paying attention to the signs. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone who wished to address the Council in favor of or in opposition to the ordinance.There being no one wishing to speak,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Vice Mayor Damiano MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.783 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY WITH THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE,AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 7 Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read as follows: ORDINANCE NO.783,AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,ESTABLISHING LOCATIONS FOR STOP SIGNS IN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA;REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES;AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Vice Mayor Damiano MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.783,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.778,PZ-18-90, REVISION TO ZONING ORDINANCE )Planning Division Manager Jim Nakagawa explained that this ordinance allows for the possibility of having rezonings revert to former classifications automatically,and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission feels that many rezonings have not resulted in development,but that many rezonings are merely to increase the value of the land,and recommend a time limit on rezonings in order to deter such practises. Mr.Nakagawa stated that the City Attorney advised that the property owner be allowed a hearing before the rever- sion takes place,and that State Statutes provide that cities may approve rezo- nings and that those rezonings may revert automatically without legislation. Mr.Nakagawa added that there is a stipulation as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission,however,the City Attorney may advise that the stipulation be struck from the ordinance. City Attorney David Alexander suggested that the language "as evidenced with the construction of a foundation and flooring or $100,000 in the physical development of the subject property"be deleted from Section 13.0111 and Section 19.0111,as substantial development is something a reviewing agent,such as a court,would determine,and a definition in the ordinance is not going help the matter. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 8 Councilwoman Barker asked the City Attorney i f this can be done without a definition. City Attorney David Alexander replied that yes i t can be done,and that the applicant is going to have to show substantial development at a hearing that the applicant has requested. Councilman Vehon stated that a for- mal action to revert isn't necessary. Mr.Alexander confirmed this,and that this allows the applicant to request a public hearing. Councilman Vehon asked i f the appli- cant will be notified in any manner that the zoning will be reverted. Mr.Nakagawa replied that this was considered,but that would place the onus on the City,and should the City forget to notify a property owner -possibly because of not knowing who the owner is -it would place the responsility on the City rather than the property owner. Councilman Vehon reiterated that i f a property owner has done nothing with a rezoned property after two years, possibly due to economics,the property reverts. Mr.Alexander commented that the property owner then has the option of requesting a hearing at which he may ask for an extension. Councilman Vehon asked i f the pro- perty owner would be notified after the reversion. Mr.Nakagawa replied that they would not be notified. Councilwoman Alger commented that if there is a problem with a reversion,a judge will determine whether the develop- ment was substantial or not. Councilman Eidson asked what would happen i f he sold a commercial zoned property and that new property owner thinks he has a commercial property that has at some point reverted back. Mr.Alexander explained that a purchaser of public record is bound by public law,and that there may be some hardships. Councilman Eidson argued that i t should not be reverted until the property owner is ready for the zoning to be changed. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 9 Mr.Alexander stated that this ordi- nance has come through the Planning and Zoning Commission,and that there appears to be some support for the action. Councilman Eidson pointed out that the applicant has paid to have the property rezoned,and i f the property shouldn't have been rezoned in the first place,the Council had no business approving the rezoning,and certainly shouldn't be taken away. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly asked i f this would apply to rezonings from this day forward,or is i t intended to be retroactive. Mr.Alexander replied that it would apply from this day forward. Vice Mayor Damiano requested a clause requiring that the property owner be notified prior to zoning reversion. Mayor Bluntschly stated that when a rezoning is granted,the property owner should be advised that there is two years for substantial development or the property would revert back to the ori- ginal zoning. Mr.Nakagawa informed the Council that this has been done with every zoning case. Councilman Eidson asked if all com- mercial rezonings require to go through the planned development process. Mr.Nakagawa replied that no they are not required to submit planned development zoning at the time of rezoning, but it appears that the Planning and Zoning Commission has been more supportive of planned development non-residential,commercial and industrial,rezonings. Councilman Eidson reiterated that with those types of rezonings a planned development process has to be initiated, and than a rezoning is looked at. Mr.Nakagawa confirmed that this is correct,and planning staff prefers to see how the commercial use is to be arranged prior to recommending a rezoning. Councilman Eidson asked i f this is only on larger parcels. Mr.Nakagawa replied that this is done on all commercial proposals. Councilwoman Alger stated that the intent is a means of acquiring more quality development in the community, only on larger parcels. done on all commercial proposals. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 10 allowing the community to change something i f the builder doesn't come through with the planned development,and that two years should be a reasonable amount of time to accomplish something on the property. Mayor Bluntschly agreed,but the largest part of this proposal is to limit speculative rezoning,looking at pro- fit on land sale with no intention of development. Mayor Bluntschly opened the hearing to the public,asking i f there was anyone who wished to address the Council in favor of or in opposition to the amendment. Mr.Keith Stachar,1153 N.Holmes, Apache Junction,asked i f this amendment will apply to all zoning classifica- tions or only commercial. Mayor Bluntschly replied that i t would apply to all zoning classifications. Mr.Stachar asked how it would apply to a situation where a residential or commercial parcel was divided into allowable smaller parcels,and than nothing more happened to the property - would the property remain divided or would i t have to become one parcel again. Mr.Nakagawa replied that the City Attorney and planning staff would have to decide whether the lot split process constitutes a substantial development. Mr.Stachar asked what i f the divided parcels were sold to different persons. Mr.Alexander replied that it would pose a problem. There being no one else wishing to speak,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.778 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY,AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. follows: REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 11 Vice Mayor Damiano seconded the City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read as ORDINANCE NO.778,AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,ZONING ORDINANCE,PROVIDING FOR AUTOMATIC ZONING REVERSIONS,BY AMENDING ARTICLE 13,(ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES) AND ARTICLE 19 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT);REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.778,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: DELETION OF THE WORDS "AS EVIDENCED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUNDATION AND FLOORING OR $100,000 IN THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY",IN BOTH SECTIONS 16.0111 AND 19.0111. Vice Mayor Damiano seconded the motion. Councilman Eidson stated that this is sort of "anti -development",as an investment or profit factor isn't to enter into a rezoning,and this should be the business of the property owner. Councilman Vehon stated that his concern is that the consideration should be with the maximum allowable and is i t compatible with the neighborhood,and unless the neighborhood has changed,there is no need to revert the property.Councilman Vehon added that there are,of course properties that have been zoned for years and have never been developed, and probably should not have been zoned. Councilwoman Alger stated that this ordinance will slow down lot splits until development is ready to occur on those properties,and that is in the best interest of the community. Councilwoman Barker asked i f she is correct in understanding that the City is trying to discourage people from buying property that they can "sit on"for a couple of years. the long run,this is the intent. Councilwoman Alger agreed that in Councilwoman Alger added that there may be another approach to get quality development,but at this point in time, this is the approach being taken. Councilwoman Barker reiterated that basically this is saying that a person asking for a rezoning needs a reason for requesting that rezoning. VOTE:In Favor:Vice Mayor Damiano,Councilwoman Barker,Councilwoman Alger, Councilman Cox,Mayor Bluntschly REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 12 Opposed:Councilman Vehon,Councilman Eidson The motion carried. Mayor Bluntschly recessed the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Mayor Bluntschly reconvened the meeting at 8:26 p.m. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.779,PZ-20-90, AMENDING THE APACHE JUNCTION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS,ESTABLISHING NEW FILING FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT -RELATED APPLICATIONS ) ) PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.91-07, ESTABLISHING FILING FEES FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS ) )Mr.Nakagawa explained that this increases the fees relating to zoning and subdivisions and establishes a fee for General Plan amendments,and further explained that staff was asked to explore avenues for increasing revenues and that the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed an interest in fees for General Plan amendments.Mr.Nakagawa stated that a system for charging actual cost fees was suggested,but this would cost some a hefty fee while other,depending on time involving with the application, would not cost hardly any.Mr.Nakagawa stated that this option would be dif- ficult to keep track,so an average fee as compared to other cities in the valley was concluded the best option. Councilwoman Alger asked for clari- fication on the subdivision portion. Mr.Nakagawa explained that there is a current fee for preliminary plat review of $75.00 plus $1.00 per lot,with no fee for a final plat review,and that this ordinance establishes a fee for both reviews,however,this was not explained at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Councilwoman Alger asked i f the pro- posed ordinance includes $500 for a preliminary review with the final review still $0. Mr.Nakagawa confirmed that this is what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended,but that he would recommend a $500 for the preliminary and a $500 fee for the final review. Councilman Vehon expressed concern that some of these are substantial increases all at once,and questioned time extension cost to the City - what does the fee of $250 cover. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 13 Mr.Nakagawa explained that the time extension is regarding planned developments that are due to expire,and the applicant wishes an extension of three years. Councilman Vehon asked i f this is the same as the previously adopted ordinance -zoning reversions. Mr.Nakagawa replied that they are related,and when fee schedules and reversion projects were worked on there was no relationship between the two established,as the projects were dealt with separately. Councilman Vehon asked i f there will be a time extension fee for those whose rezoning will expire. Mr.Nakagawa replied that after discussing this with the City Attorney,Mr.Alexander recommended that the City not charge for the granting of the time extension. then,is for planned development. Councilman Vehon asked i f this fee Mr.Nakagawa confirmed this. Councilwoman Alger asked i f there will be a charge for Conditional Use Permit time extensions. Mr.Nakagawa answered that this was apparently not looked into. Mr.Alexander stated that continuan- ces have a hearing,but all other "time extensions"are subject to a $250 fee, whether Conditional Use Permit or planned development. Mr.Nakagawa stated that this is where the two projects deviate,but that for time extensions the discussion was primarily for rezonings,and a CUP extension was treated as an amendment. Councilwoman Alger asked if a request for an extension on a CUP is actually an amendment. Mr.Nakagawa confirmed this. Councilman Vehon asked i f Mr.Nakagawa hadn't said that time extensions were not for rezonings but for planned developments. Mr.Nakagawa agreed that this is true,as a zoning is granted a two-year life and then has an opportunity for a one-time extension of one-year duration,but that tonight's action on zoning reversion gives the Council the option of whether or not to grant an extension. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 14 Councilman Vehon clarified that the proposed fee is for planned development time extension. Mr.Nakagawa agreed. Councilwoman Alger asked the City Attorney how the difference between time extensions are to be distinguished as they are identical for PD's and rezonings. Mr.Alexander replied that in that instance a person has to be granted a hearing. Councilwoman Alger pointed out that i t does not apply to the automatic reversion or anything we are doing. Mr.Alexander agreed,and should be deleted from the ordinance. Councilman Vehon asked if a granted continuance has to be readvertised. Mr.Nakagawa answered that i t does not unless i t is for an indefinite period of time,and often the continuance is requested because the applicant is not ready with their presentation,in which case i t does cost the City money.Mr.Nakagawa added that should the Planning and Zoning Commission request the continuance,there would be no charge to the applicant. Councilman Vehon asked i f Conditional Use Permits for signs are a separate issue. Mr.Nakagawa answered that they are. Councilwoman Alger pointed out that conditional use permits are usually for large projects that are not permitted, but the fee should not be the same for a permit for signs. Mr.Nakagawa stated that in both cases the city is subsidizing a lot of the cost,such as notification expenses and advertisement. Councilwoman Alger asked i f she heard correctly that i f continuances are requested by an applicant,they don't have to be readvertised. Mr.Nakagawa answered that i f i t is continued to a certain date and time,that is correct,however,there would be staff/Commission/Council time involved. Councilman Vehon asked about the $150 fee for lot splits. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 15 Mr.Nakagawa stated that previously lot splits were heavily subsidized by the city. Councilman Vehon commented that he understood that the cost on a General Plan amendment can run up to $1,500 in advertising. Mr.Nakagawa stated that costs can run that high,but not in every case. Councilman Vehon asked what other cities charge for those amendments. Mr.Nakagawa replied that City of Phoenix fees go from $1,000 to $4,000. Councilwoman Alger asked i f this is the only other city that charges this fee. Mr.Nakagawa answered that out of the four or five contacted,Phoenix was the only one that charged a fee. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly informed the Council that State Law requires that an applicant bear the cost for legal advertisement. Councilwoman Barker expressed con- cern at the major increases in fees,and stated that the City does need to recoup the costs incurred.Councilwoman Barker added that the General Plan amendment fee is prohibitive,and suggested billing the applicant the adver- tising costs rather than setting a fee. constitutes "legal advertising". advertising is the legal advertising. Councilwoman Alger asked what Ms Connelly replied that newspaper Councilwoman Alger pointed out that property owner notification and staff time is not a legal advertising requirement. owner notification is a City requirement. Ms Connelly commented that property Councilman Vehon explained that the intent for going through each of these fees was to be able to defend and have a rationale for each of these charges,and the fact that other cities are much larger than Apache Junction would affect their costs,but that Apache Junction shouldn't be arbitrary in these fees. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 16 Ms Connelly asked Mr.Nakagawa i f Gilbert's fees include the cost of legal advertising,pointing out that Gilbert requires a deposit to cover those costs. Councilwoman Alger suggested more research into what legal advertisement costs actually are. Assistant City Manager George Hoffman asked Mr.Nakagawa what percentage of the actual costs incurred through advertisement and notification would the charged fee cover. Mr.Nakagawa guessed that the adver- tisement costs would represent about one-third to one-half of the fee. Mayor Bluntschly opened the hearing to the public,and asked i f there was anyone who wished to address the Council in favor of or in opposition to the ordinance or the resolution. Mr.Keith Stachar addressed the Council stating that some of these fees may be very discouraging to growth in the City,and that the development will be a benefit to the whole community not just the applicant. There being no one else wishing to speak,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.779 AND RESOLUTION NO.91-07 BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5,1991,TO GET MORE CLARIFICATION OF THE COSTS INVOLVED PRIOR TO DEFINITE FEES BEING SET. Vice Mayor Damiano seconded the motion. Councilwoman Alger requested that the costs be broken down into legal advertisement costs,and mailing notifica- tions costs -not staff time. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 17 PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.91-03,PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT (RICHARD AND RUTH PALMER)) )Planning Division Manager Jim Nakagawa explained that this request for a private access easement,submitted by Richard and Ruth Palmer is connected with Land Split case 90-009,for a 1.25 acre parcel located at Windsong and Ironwood Drive,which was rezoned in 1985 to CR-2(MH)with the stipulation provided for a private access road in the middle of the property. Mr.Nakagawa further explained that before Mr.Palmer could complete the land split,the City adopted a new General Plan which made i t difficult for the property owner to get land split approval. Mr.Nakagawa stated that the appli- cant is also requesting a waiver to improve the access to public street stan- dards,and that staff is recommending approval of the request. Council prohibited private easements. done effective January 14,1988. split has been created. Councilwoman Alger asked when the Mr.Nakagawa replied that this was Councilman Vehon asked i f the lot Mr.Nakagawa replied that i t has not,and because Mr.Palmer had submitted the lot split application before the 20,000 square foot ordinance went into effect,he would be entitled to the smaller lot size. City Attorney David Alexander asked i f part of the easement exists on the other property. Mr.Nakagawa stated that this is correct,and there was a previous lot split approved just east of Mr.Palmer with a private access easement,and that staff had overlooked the stipulation requiring access for both parcels. Mr.Alexander explained that this action would remedy the problem of access created previously. Councilman Vehon suggested asking for dedication of easements and creating a street. Mr.Nakagawa stated that there is a fence and utility poles in the middle,which wouldn't make the suggestion practical. Councilman Vehon commented that he had been in favor of not rezoning properties that weren't fronted by dedicated easements,but in this case,the rezoning was granted without access. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 18 Mr.Alexander added that i f the ori- ginal ordinance had been followed,the easement would have existed,but i t didn't happen. Mayor Bluntschly asked why i t didn't happen. Mr.Nakagawa replied that there were two or three planners involved with the case,the rezoning was handled by one planner,and when the lot split application was submitted the access easement was provided in compliance with City standards without the zoning stipulation being recognized,that the access provide access for the adjacent parcel. Councilwoman Alger stated that when the action was taken the deeds were not drawn allowing for the easements - getting lost in the shuffle. Mr.Alexander pointed out that this is a good example of putting various contingencies in a zoning ordinance of tracking,and here was a contingency that didn't get tracked. lots"were prohibited at this same time. Councilwoman Alger asked why "flag Mr.Nakagawa replied that i t had to do with the size and shape of access easements,so both were prohibited at the same time. Mr.Alexander explained that an easement is also supposed to be so wide as opposed to it's length,and a flag lot doesn't meet these requirements. Councilwoman Alger suggested allowing flag lots,but not allowing private access easements. be a solution. exception would be better than the other. Mr.Alexander agreed that this could Councilwoman Alger asked i f one Mr.Nakagawa replied that from a subdivision standpoint there could be more than one flag lot in one area,and could be a nightmare. we already have a nightmare. Councilwoman Alger commented that Mr.Nakagawa explained that there could be a potential for more flag lots than private access easements,and that it might be wiser to require public dedications. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 19 City Engineer Gordon Grandy pointed out that arguments against private access easements would be utility involve- ments,and maintenance and liability. Mr.Richard Palmer,1541 W. Windsong,Apache Junction,stated that i t is due to the City's error that he has the current problem,and requested approval of the private access easement. Mr.Palmer thanked the efforts on the part of staff for attempting to find a solution to the problem. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone else who wished to address the Council pertaining to this issue.There being no one wishing to speak,Mayor Bluntschly called for a motion. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT DUE TO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXIST IN THIS CASE,RESOLUTION NO.91-03, AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF A TWENTY-EIGHT FOOT (28')WIDE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT,CASE NO.PA -1-91 (IN CONJUNCTION WITH LAND SPLIT CASE NO.L.S.M. 90-009),FOR A 1.25 ACRE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ZONED CR-2(MH),BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Vice Mayor Damiano seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS: DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION PROGRAM AND AWARD AMOUNTS. Assistant City Manager George Hoffman requested indication of interest from the Council on this program,and specific amount of awards,or at least guideli- nes from which to work out the specifics.Mr.Hoffman explained that this program was initiated due to interest from Vice Mayor Damiano and recently from Mr.Lee,and because of budget limitations,the idea of a program such as this has come up again.Mr.Hoffman stated that the basic question is,if an employee comes up with a good idea,does the Council wish to award a dollar amount to the employee. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly questioned whether the City can require all ideas to become the exclusive property of the City. Mayor Bluntschly pointed out that the issue would be whether or not the employee contrived the idea on company time or not. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 20 Vice Mayor Damiano stated that the Federal Government has this same program, and no one can sue the Federal Government. Mr.Hoffman commented that he would have to get with the city attorney to ascertain what rights would exist,but that the intent for tonight was to deter- mine interest in the larger picture. Councilman Vehon stated that anyway to encourage employees to come up with ideas of how to save money would be good,however,awarding money for ideas is a concern. Mr.Hoffman stated that he understood the hesitancy in awarding employees for doing their jobs,but this seeks them to go outside of the job to vigorously look for ways to save the City money.Mr.Hoffman explained that only 10% of projected savings because of the idea would go to the employee up front,and than after a year of documenting those savings would anything more be awarded to the employee. Councilman Vehon asked i f this would come back to Council in final form. Mr.Hoffman replied that he would like to have a formal policy adopted by Council. Councilman Vehon pointed out that i t should be brought back in draft form a couple of times to allow for changes. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND APPROPRIATE STAFF BE GIVEN DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH THE EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION PROGRAM,TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUGGESTIONS MADE THIS EVENING. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. DIRECTION TO STAFF AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW CART VENDORS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. Councilwoman Alger proposed that this item be brought back at a work session so that it may be addressed in depth,and also allow more time for research. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO STAFF TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK ON A WORK SESSION AGENDA,AT THE SOONEST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY,AND THAT SOME RESEARCH MATERIAL BE ATTACHED WITH IT CONCERNING THE ITEMS OF CONCERN BY THE COUNCIL,MAYBE LIKE ORDINANCES FROM OTHER CITIES,MORE DETAIL IN ABILITIES THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 21 Councilman Vehon seconded the motion. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly asked i f there would be a problem with this coming back on April 1st,as there is only one meeting in March,along with the Primary Election in March. Vice Mayor Damiano asked if Uncle Reggie can keep operating the way he is. Mr.Alexander replied that he has a current business license that is only for use at the County Complex. Ms Connelly added that he also may sell at a recognized Special Event. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. DIRECTION TO STAFF TO GO OUT FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PHOTO RADAR. Mayor Bluntschly explained that he brought this request back,that it was brought to Council in August or September,and that since then there are more companies available now,implementing photo radar will require going out for bids. Mayor Bluntschly stated that photo radar reduces speed,in turn reducing accidents and fatalities and personal property damage.Mayor Bluntschly added that photo radar will also produce revenue for the City. Mayor Bluntschly asked the City Manager for additional input. Mayor Bluntschly further stated that i f this radar is implemented,it will be operated by off -duty police personnel and paid with revenues from the radar. City Manager Michael R.Lee stated that he and Director of Public Safety Bill McDaniel visited with the City of Peoria Police Department regarding their radar,with a referendum election scheduled pertaining to the photo radar. Mr.Lee stated that the poll survey from Peoria indicates a 50/50 split in the vote for/against photo radar.Mr.Lee recommended that if Apache Junction implements this program,we should set the parameters and proposals,similar to Paradise Valley contract. Councilman Cox pointed out that there is a Federal Law requiring that police officers have to be paid overtime beyond a certain amount of hours,regardless of whether they are off -duty. Mayor Bluntschly stated that the Police Department policies will only allow officers to work so many hours anyway. Councilman Vehon expressed concern with public support for the project,and that the company who made the presentation to the Council had said that they REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 22 hold informational hearings for the public prior to getting to the Council level,which wasn't done at that time.Councilman Vehon stated that until public support and the Police Department's support is apparent,he would not be in favor of going forward with this project. Councilman Vehon also expressed concern that staff spent time going to Peoria prior to Council indicating an interest in proceeding. Mr.Lee commented that this was not done with Council direction,but it was felt that the information would be pertinent for the discussion process,and suggested that i f the Council wishes to proceed they should also visit Peoria. Councilman Eidson stated that something like this might assist with the budget,allowing one or two more police officers to be added to the field. Vice Mayor Damiano commented that more revenue may be generated the first six months to a year,but after i t becomes known that the photo radar exists, speeders will avoid the area or watch their speed. Mayor Bluntschly argued that Paradise Valley has had the radar for three years,and that speed has decreased,but the violations still exist. Mayor Bluntschly pointed out that this is also to improve safety,not just for a revenue generator. Councilman Cox commented that it will increase the sale of CB's 100%. Vice Mayor Damiano asked i f it would be legal for the radar to be placed on Highway 60? Ms Connelly replied that i t could only be placed on City streets. Councilwoman Barker commented that Scottsdale rejected this proposal due to constitutionality and some aspects of technicalities involved;Phoenix rejected i t because i t reduced education and enforcement efforts;and citizens have not showed support of this issue. Mayor Bluntschly corrected Councilwoman Barker's stated reasons for Scottsdale's rejection,as a court challenge upheld the constitutionality. Councilwoman Barker added that this was a quote from a newspaper. Mayor Bluntschly stated that photo radar is not for everybody. Councilwoman Alger asked i f i t is true that photo radar can only be placed on City streets. Mr.Alexander stated that our jurisdictional area is City streets,and although Highway 60 will eventually become the City's,to place i t on other streets may cause jurisdictional problems. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 23 Councilwoman Alger pointed out that the majority of speeding problems are on State highways,and agreed that there should be more public support before implementing this program. Mr.Ledoux,1754 S.Idaho,Apache Junction,addressed the Council stating that speeding is not among the City's more serious traffic problems,and further stated that photo radar will not help the City's reputation. Mr.Ledoux,1754 S.Idaho,Apache Junction,addressed the Council stating that speeding is not among the City's more serious traffic problems,and further stated that photo radar will not help the City's reputation. Mayor Bluntschly stated that by having an office deploying the radar on an overtime basis,it would free up other officers to take care of the other issues mentioned by Mr.Ledoux. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION ON THIS REQUEST AT THIS TIME. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. VOTE:In Favor:Councilwoman Barker,Councilwoman Alger,Councilman Cox, Councilman Vehon,Councilman Eidson,Vice Mayor Damiano Opposed:Mayor Bluntschly The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES,TIMES,LOCATIONS,AND PURPOSES: EXECUTIVE SESSION,WORK SESSION, MARCH 4,1991 EXECUTIVE SESSION,MARCH 5,1991 )Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M.,AND A WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M.,ON MARCH 4,1991,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS; AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M.,ON MARCH 5,1991,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 24 Vice Mayor Damiano announced that he had attended the rally on Saturday, with Senator McCain also in attendance,and reported that there were only approximately 300 citizens at the rally. ADJOURNMENT )There being no further business to discuss,Mayor Bluntschly adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1.Acceptance of Agenda 2.Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 5,1991 3.Authorization to proceed to designate portions of City leased Bureau of Land Management lands as future bicycle trails with incorporation into Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Bicycle Task Force proposed bicycle facilities plan. 4.Approval of a Grant of Easement to Salt River Project. 5.Approval of 208 Plan Amendment to Central Arizona Association of Governments/Maricopa Association of Governments for City of Mesa sewer con- nection with treatment and interceptor construction. 6.Approval for appointment of new Board of Adjustment member to fill vacancy. ACCEPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF MARCH ,1991,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 7TH DAY OF MARCH KE Mayor ATTEST: TH BLUNTSCHLY REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 25 ,1991. /&Vae-/e__- Kathleen Connelly City Clerk 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 19th day of February,1991.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this day of 1,..7-61 1991. KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,1991 PAGE 26