Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-05 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5,1989 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on September 5,1989,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 7:13 p.m. INVOCATION Councilman Vehon gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilman Eidson led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmen Present:Councilwoman Barker Councilman Cox Councilman Eidson Councilwoman Alger Councilman Vehon Mayor Bluntschly Councilman Absent:Vice Mayor Damiano Staff Present:Acting City Manager/City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney David Alexander Deputy City Clerk Lori Zmayefski Assistant to the City Manager George Hoffman Director of Public Safety Bill McDaniel Director of Public Works Rich Broman Director of Community Services Jeff Bell Economic Development Specialist John Schoeph Assistant Planner Bob Dunn Associate Planner/Deputy Director Jim Nakagawa Others Present:Mr.Terry Ottersness Arizona Department of Transportation Mr.Joe Brazil Sundancer Restaurant and Saloon REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 1 Ms Ilene Taylor 1617 S.Cortez Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.Bob Rush 2175 W.Southern, Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.Ray Glos Pinal County Health Department Mr.Keith Stachar 1153 N.Holmes Apache Junction,Arizona Ms Amy Mihailov 1277 S.Prospector Road Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.John Thorp 545 W.16th Avenue Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.Frank Talbot 1395 S.San Marcos Apache Junction,Arizona Ms Midge Conway 902 S.Ocotillo Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.Walter Dennis 1701 S.Idaho Road Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.Keith Hilgendorf Executive Director Chamber of Commerce ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA )Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NOS.1 -14 BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED,WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NO.3 WHICH NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO REFLECT WHETHER COUNCILMAN VEHON WAS PRESENT OR NOT; AND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE DIRECTED TO ENTER HIS APPEARANCE IN THE ABOVE -STYLED CASE,TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION'S INSURANCE CAARRIERS,AND TO MAKE THOSE DEMANDS WHICH HE FEELS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION; REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 2 AND THAT AUTHORIZATION BE GIVEN THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CONTACT THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND/OR THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THEIR REQUEST AND CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY; AND THAT THE BIDS BE AWARDED AS FOLLOWS: GAS PUMP INSTALLATION TO COCHISE CONTRACTERS,IN THE AMOUNT OF $83,475.00 PAVER TO WILLIAMS SOUTHWEST IN THE AMOUNT OF $148,400.00 PAVING MATERIALS TO CENTURY MATERIALS,IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $206,849.00 EMULSIFIED ASPHALT TO SAGUARO PETROLEUM,IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,340.00 FUEL TO R.R.& R.R.EVAN CO.IN THE AMOUNT OF $61,875.00 STREET STRIPING TO PRECISION,IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,500.00 SIGN MATERIALS TO 3M IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,705.99 SAND AND AGGREGATE TO CASHWAY CONCRETE,IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,050.00 FOUR PICKUP TRUCKS TO DON SANDERSON FORD,IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,225.96 SIGN TRUCK TO DON SANDERSON FORD,IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,419.00 ENGINE ANALYZER TO BEAR AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT,IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,607.88 CORREGATED METAL PIPE (CMP)TO CONTECH CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS,IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000.00 TIRES TO RED BIRD TIRE CO.,IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,595.08 SIGN MACHINE TO MONTROY SUPPLY CO.,IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,592.96. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY BE AUTHORIZED TO WAIVE BID PROCEDURES AND PURCHASE FOURTEEN YAESU TWO-WAY PORTABLE RADIOS AND ACCESSORIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,520.00,BY STATE CONTRACT; AND THAT THE CLAIM SUBMITTED BY DENNIS STEVENS AGAINST THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION FOR DENTAL EXPENSES,IN THE AMOUNT OF $161.50 BE ACCEPTED; AND THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO COMMENCE THE REZONING PROCESS BY COMMISSION INITIATIVE,ON CASE PZ-24-81; AND THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO THE "LICENSE AGREEMENT"WITH EAST VALLEY CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THE SENIOR CENTER; AND THAT PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.89-28,SETTING FORTH ITS INTENT TO APPROVE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA AND THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSECTION AT SOUTHERN AVENUE AND MERIDIAN DRIVE AND ONE -QUARTER MILE OF MERIDIAN DRIVE,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO.89-27,DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK AND ENTITLED INTERGOVERNMENTAL "PROJECT AGREEMENT"BETWEEN THE STATE OF ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY,ARCHIVES AND PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. City Attorney David Alexander clarified that the first paragraph in the motion authorizing appearance to be entered,etc.,refers to Item No.6,Gutierrez and the case of Gove L.Allen, and the next paragraphs referrs to the Administrative Claim REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 3 Councilwoman Alger ADDED TO THE MOTION THAT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IN THE MOTION REFERRS TO THE CASES OF GUTIERREZ AND GOVE L.ALLEN. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. Councilwoman Alger further ADDED TO THE MOTION THAT ITEM NOS.23 AND 20 BE MOVED UP PRIOR TO ITEM NO.15 AND AFTER CITY MANAGER'S REPORT. Councilwoman Barker agreed to the addition. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. Introduction of Distinguished Visitors and Guests Mayor Bluntschly welcomed everyone present. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Director of Public Safety Bill McDaniel presented a plaque and Certificate of Award,signed by himself and Mayor Bluntschly,to Bill Kramer of KNIX,for assisting the Police Department the past two years in the drive for raising funds for charitable purposes. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Acting City Manager/City Clerk Kathleen Connelly reported that work is progressing on the Center for the Handicapped on schedule,and is expected to be complete sometime in November,and stated that the Council will be considering the Requests for Proposal for the use of the Center by the first meeting in October.Ms Connelly further reported that Friday,staff will be presenting application for CDBG grant funds for the Fiscal Year 1989-90 before the CAAG Committee,proposed for a Shelter for Abused Women and Children,in the amount of $110,000,and added that the Council will be kept up to date as the process progresses.Ms Connelly stated that the City has received official notice from the Governor's Office for Children of the award of a grant in the amount of REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 4 $10,289.00 for Fiscal Year 1989-90,which has been allocated to the Police Department for the maintenance and administrative costs that result from the transportation of juvenile offenders. FINAL DESIGN CONCEPT REPORT FOR TOMAHAWK ROAD INTERSECTION )Director of Public Works Rich Broman explained that the Arizona Department of Transportation has prepared a report in conjunction with proposed construction at the intersection of U.S.60 and Tomahawk Road,and are requesting the Council's acceptance of the design concept.Mr.Broman outlined the proposed project. bound lanes are being raised as opposed Ottersness,representative from ADOT,to Mayor Bluntschly asked why the east to lowering the west bound lanes? Mr.Broman called on Terry answer the question. Mr.Ottesness replied that the west bound road is a relatively flat grade through this area,and with the east bound is the original highway,i t would solve many of the current traffic problems to raise the east bound lanes. Mayor Bluntschly pointed out that i t may be easier to lower the west bound lanes,than to haul in materials to raise the east bound. Mr.Ottersness commented that this is a good point,but explained that road excavation is considerably more costly than hauling in roadway material. Councilman Vehon asked Mr.Broman for clarification on the requested changes in the report,from mile street crossings to * mile crossings. Mr.Broman replied that this reference was made in the ADOT report,and their consultant recommended that crossings be no less than mile,and in further discussing this with ADOT i t has been concluded that mile crossings is not unreasonable in an urban setting and would be preferred.Mr.Broman added that this may not impact this job as the first * mile crossing is east of Wickiup,which is beyond the scope of this project,but that the City may add the i mile crossing provision at some later time. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone who wished to address the Council in favor of or in opposition to this item? Mr.Joe Brazil,owner of the Sundancer Restaurant and Saloon,which is located on the corner of Tomahawk and REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 5 Highway 60,expressed concern that the roads are to be raised,and asked what provisions are being made to allow access to his business? Mr.Ottersness replied that the concept report shows a turn-off to that property at a new location, approximately in the same general area i t is now. to be rerouted from Idaho Road? Mr.Brazil asked i f the traffic is Mr.Ottersness stated that the local traffic will be rerouted during construction only,as a detour,but traffic would also be maintained through the construction area. Mr.Brazil also asked i f this is to be done during winter visitor season,when business is best,or during the summer. Mr.Ottersness stated that ADOT would like to do the construction when i t is convenient for the city,and that Mr.Broman has been requested to let them know when funding would be available and when timing would be convenient.Mr.Ottersness added that Mr.Broman had indicated that funding wouldn't be available until July of 1990,hopefully to be done with the construction prior to tourist season. Mr.Brazil asked to be informed of a time frame. Mr.Ottesness stated that ADOT will be working with the City on a time frame,and ADOT will advertise for a public hearing as a new right-of-way involved. Councilwoman Barker asked Mr. Ottersness i f the understanding was that the funding would not be available until the fiscal year 1990-91,and i f the project could be started at this time. Mr.Ottersness replied that the project cannot be started until funds from Apache Junction are ready,and also a concurrence on the concept itself,but as soon as written replies are submitted on these two items,the design process can be completed and advertising done prior to actual construction. Councilwoman Barker asked i f Apache Junction had the money today,could the project go forward prior to July 1990. Mr.Ottersness answered that yes ADOT could start,and have the design done sooner than July. Councilwoman Barker asked Mr.Broman i f the money isn't already allocated for this project? REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 6 Mr.Broman clarified that prior to approval of the budget i t did not appear that there would be funding available, but with final adoption the money was available,and following contact with ADOT,was informed that the bid construction date would be August of 1990,which put i t out of this years budget into next years. Councilwoman Barker stated that we have now been told i t is possible to go forward earlier than that. Mr.Broman stated that the problem is that the City is hearing different from different offices of ADOT,but will go back to confirm that i t can be accelerated as funding has been approved,as i t does take several months to complete the design,advertise for bids,etc. Councilwoman Barker commented that part of the suggested motion is to provide the necessary funding in the 1990-91 budget,but since the cost is already covered within this years budget,that would not be necessary. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f this project was included in this years street program budget? Mr.Broman replied that i t was included. Councilwoman Barker added that $298,500.00 for that in this budget,and ADOT is requesting $278,000.00. Mr.Broman again stated that he would get together with Mr.Ottersness to confirm the schedule,but that this project may need to be covered over two budget years before it's completed. Mr.Ottersness stated that the consultant is ready to begin as soon as commitment is received from the City, with an anticipated four month design period. Councilwoman Alger asked i f there is a reason a commitment cannot be given tonight? Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item?There being no one wishing to address the Council,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT THE FINAL DESIGN CONCEPT REPORT FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF U.S.HIGHWAY 60 AND TOMAHAWK ROAD DATED JUNE 16,1989,BE ACCEPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: THAT PAGE 12 OF THE REPORT BE CHANGED TO REFLECT THE CITY'S PREFERENCE FOR A i MILE SIGNALIZED STREET INTERSECTING PATTERN;AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 7 THAT ADOT ACQUIRE SAID RIGHTS OF WAY IN THE NAME OF THE CITY WITH THE CITY REIMBURSING ADOT IN THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED AT $93,000; I FURTHER REQUEST ADOT TO ACCELERATE THE PROJECT AND WORK WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES ON A SUITABLE WORK SCHEDULE TO BEGIN THE PROJECT IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH PINAL COUNTY FOR HEALTH SERVICES (Postponed Item) )City Attorney David Alexander stated that this agreement was discussed at the work session,and that Mr.Glos is present again tonight to answer any additional questions,and added that whatever the Council approves as part of the agreement,is in fact a request that the County perform those services for the City. Acting City Manager/City Clerk Kathleen Connelly explained that a portion of Apache Junction is located in Maricopa County,which is serviced by Maricopa County Health Department,and the stipulations for health services are different than those for Pinal County. Ms Ilene Taylor,1617 S.Cortez, Apache Junction,addressed the Council regarding the portion of the Agreement requesting Pinal County to inspect mobile home parks,objecting not to the fee or the inspection,but to the method,stating that this should be part of the services provided for taxes paid by residents,and that this is "double taxing". Ms Taylor stated that Mr.Glos has agreed to meet with park owners to go over the fact of charging for the inspection,and appealed to the City to support their cause. Mr.Bob Ruch,2175 W.Southern Avenue,Apache Junction,Happy Day Park on west Southern,also addressed the Council in opposition to the inspections,and stated that a City is required to have a Health Department,and asked why the City is not paying for this service. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. There being no one else wishing to address the Council ,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilman Vehon asked Mr.Glos i f the County doesn't also charge fees to individuals,when septics go in,that type of thing? REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 8 Mr.Glos stated that there are fees for all County services,for example,food service establishment is required to have an operating permit,and a retail outlet fee,a septic installation permit fee,County ordinance has established a mobile home park permit fee,there is a permit fee for public and semi-public swimming pools,a campground is also charged a fee. Councilman Vehon commented that these fees are similar,depending on the service provided. Mr.Glos stated that the fees are the same for providing the same service provided to a resident in unincorporated areas in the County. Councilman Vehon clarified that the City does not set the fees,but Pinal County does. Mr.Glos added that a fee schedule is adopted by the Pinal County Board of Supervisors and is charged across the board,but the County cannot do these services for free as they have to recover the costs for doing the service. Councilman Eidson asked i f the parks have been inspected at all in the past by the County,or has the City been left alone? Mr.Glos replied that historically, the County has only been inspecting parks in the unincorporated areas of Pinal County,but all of the pools are inspected as per prior agreements. Councilman Eidson asked i f this agreement is approved tonight,will every mobile home park be inspected? Mr.Glos replied that every mobile home park that has been an approved park will be inspected,although there may be some illegal mobile home parks,and the County would certainly be willing to work with the City on those. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f i t isn't highly probable that those with violations will be those who haven't gone through approval processes? Mr.Glos replied that those are already in violation. Mayor Bluntschly asked why they wouldn't be concerned with those? Mr.Glos answered that those are a concern,but that a park that isn't legal in the first place will not be REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 9 inspected,as the park should be shut down due to zoning and other types of violations. Mayor Bluntschly commented that there were quite a few of those prior to incorporation. Councilwoman Alger asked i f Pinal County Health Department has the ability to close a park down,i f i t has strong violations? Mr.Glos replied that the City has that ability,but that the Health Department would be happy to work with the City to accomplish that. Councilwoman Alger asked what authorization and limits the Health Department has? Mr.Glos replied that in the County, i f working with the person failed,the operating permit would be taken away. Councilwoman Alger asked what the County does about illegal mobile home parks? Mr.Glos stated that the Pinal County Zoning Department would become involved. Councilwoman Alger asked i f a list of illegal mobile home parks was given to the Health Dept.,and found to have violations,could Pinal County shut those down? Mr.Glos reiterated that the County and the City together could close the parks down. Councilwoman Alger asked i f there was raw sewage on the ground,could the County,without the City,close them down? Mr.Glos stated that in that case, the owners would be directed to correct problem,and when they did not,i t would go to the Magistrate Court requesting an injunction against the park,and added that Pinal County Health Dept.does not do the enforcement -the court does. Councilwoman Alger asked i f there is a provision where the County can take immediate action in case of an emergency Si tuation? Mr.Glos explained that there is a provision in State Law with which to deal with that type of problem,but everyone has a right to "due process". REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 10 Councilman Eidson asked i f Pinal County has contracts with other cities with similar requests? Mr.Glos answered that there are agreements with all of the other cities,are trying to have,but they are modified and individualized for other cities. Councilwoman Barker MOVED THAT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION AND PINAL COUNTY FOR HEALTH SERVICES BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. Councilman Vehon seconded the motion. Councilman Eidson stated that the only objection he has is the inspection of parks,and agreed with Ms Taylor that this is a mild case of double taxation,and further that this is straying out of line with keeping everything equal for everybody. Councilman Vehon commented that the City also charges fees for specific services,and i f i t were to be the other way,building permits,rezonings and such would be free. Councilman Cox stated that there are a lot of "maybe's"in this contract. Councilwoman Alger commented that a fee should not be imposed on a service not requested. Councilwoman Barker stated that restaurants also have "forced"inspections,i t is expected to be done every six months. VOTE:In Favor:Councilman Vehon,Councilwoman Barker,Councilwoman Alger, Mayor Bluntschly Opposed:Councilman Cox,Councilman Eidson The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPLICATION FOR PERSON TRANSFER OF SERIES 6 LIQUOR LICENSE AND INTERIM PERMIT FOR LONGHORN SALOON )Mayor Bluntschly opened the hearing to the public. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 11 Mayor Bluntschly asked i f the applicant or representatives are present for comment? Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the item.There being no one wishing to address the Council,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilman Cox MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A PERSON TRANSFER OF A SERIES 6 LIQUOR LICENSE AND INTERIM PERMIT,SUBMITTED BY MR.WILLARD BIERMANN,AGENT FOR THE LONHORN SALOON BE RECOMMENDED TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSES AND CONTROL,FOR APPROVAL. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.685, PZ-6-89,HOUSER )Assistant Planner Bob Dunn informed the Council that this request for rezoning has had two legal protests filed against it,which will require a three-quarters vote of the Council for approval,and in the past the Council has considered postponing i f agreeable with the applicant,due to only six members being present. Mr.Dunn explained that PZ-6-89 is a request to rezone one parcel of Apache Addition Acres,located at the northeast corner of Gold Drive and Cactus Wren,from General Rural to CR-2(MH)Single Family Residence Zone with mobile homes permitted,and stated that staff has recommended denial as recommendation for approval was based on rezoning to the CR-2 without the mobile home designation,and the applicant was not agreeable. Mr.Dunn further stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval with three stipulations. Councilwoman Barker stated that the General Plan does call for mobile homes,medium density in this area,and that the A.R.S.is cited saying that those zonings should be adopted unless consistent with the General Plan,and yet staff is recommending that this not be adopted. Mr.Dunn explained that mobile home overlay indicates areas where mobile homes will be permitted in addition to conventional housing,but to the extreme,areas with mobile home overlay would not be permitted to have conventional housing,and this is the interpretation used in the recommendation as the area is not dominated by mobile homes with a chance to go conventional housing in the future. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 12 Councilman Vehon commented that in this particular subdivision the general character has been mobile homes,even though the surrounding subdivisions are conventional housing,and asked i f Mr.Dunn would agree? Mr.Dunn replied that i t appears to be an even mixture,but the mobile homes are not dominant. Councilman Vehon asked i f two mobile homes on this lot would not be out of character? Mr.Dunn answered that i t is a reasonable request for a short-term use of the land. Assistant to the City Manager George Hoffman added that mobile homes are appropriate in that area today,but staff has heard from the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission that there are too many mobile homes in this community with more conventionally built homes are desired,and staff is providing a picture of an area that could go conventional. Councilman Vehon stated that this is understood,but is i t realistic to tell a property owner to hold on to the land, as in 15 to 20 years i t will go conventional. Mr.Dunn commented that the neighbors that protested do have legitimate concerns for property values in the future. Councilman Vehon added that the neighbors that did not protest also have an obvious opinion. Mayor Bluntschly called on the applicant or spokesman. Mr.Keith Stachar,1153 N.Holmes, Apache Junction,addressed the Council,stating that upon taking an inventory of the subdivision of different types of housing,there are 87 that are not conventional homes and 33 conventional homes,so the predominant use is not conventional homes. Mr.Stachar further outlined the proposed use of the rezoned parcel. Councilman Vehon asked i f Mr.Stachar wishes the Council to take action now,or postponed until the next meeting when all seven members may be present. Mr.Stachar requested that the action be postponed,in light of a required three-quarter vote. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 13 Mayor Bluntschly asked i f the Council wished to open the public hearing tonight,or wait until the next meeting? Councilwoman Alger asked i f the public hearing would need to be reopened at the next meeting,or could public comment be heard at this time? City Attorney David Alexander stated that possibly opening the hearing at this time may save the applicant and staff from waiting until the next meeting to hear public comment. Councilman Vehon stated that i t would be appropriate to hear the public that have attended the meeting for that purpose. Mayor Bluntschly opened the hearing to the public,and asked i f there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the rezoning? There being no one wishing to address the Council,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilman Eidson MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.685,PZ-6-89,BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19,1989. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. Mayor Bluntschly recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Mayor Bluntschly reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.687, PZ-8-89,FOOTE )Mr.Dunn briefed the Council on the rezoning of 1.25 acre parcel,located at the southeast corner of Roundup Street and Grand Drive,from General Rural to CR-2(MH)Single Family Residence Zone, and stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission both recommend approval of the application.Mr.Dunn added that exact lot sizes will not be known until a survey is done. Councilman Vehon asked i f the zoning is approved and after the survey the minimum lot size is not sufficient,the zoning could not be fully utilized. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 14 Mr.Dunn replied that the property could not be split up as proposed,as the split is not be approved but the zoning density. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f the applicant or spokesman would like to speak? Ms Amy Mihailov,1277 S.Prospector Road,Apache Junction,asked i f there were any questions? Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the rezoning.There being no one wishing to address the Council,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilman Eidson MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.687 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. Deputy City Clerk Lori Zmayefski read as follows: ORDINANCE NO.687,AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,ZONING ORDINANCE,BY AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP,CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA,CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION IN REZONING CASE PZ-8-89 FROM GR GENERAL RURAL TO CR-2(MH)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE/MANUFACTURED HOUSING;REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. Councilman Eidson MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.687,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.688, PZ-9-89,REBER )Mayor Bluntschly explained that this is an application for the rezoning of a 1.25 acre parcel,located at the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 15 northeast corner of Grand Drive and Foothill Street,approximately 660 feet east of Delaware Drive. Mr.Dunn stated that this request is represented by Mr.John Thorp and is in harmony with the surrounding established uses,but does conflict with the General Plan as the area is not covered by mobile home overlay,and further stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial as the request conflicts with State Law. Councilman Vehon commented that when a General Plan is adopted,pursuant to Statutes 461.07,is to "serve as a pattern and guide for orderly growth",and does not necessarily say that it's specific but is to serve as a guide,and further commented that there are specific plans but what is being looked at is the "General Plan". Councilman Vehon stated that this rezoning case meets the density,and the objection is whether this is consistent with the General Plan,and consistent means "in agreement or harmony in accord, or compatible",and this case is consistent with the surrounding area,and further stated that to approve this case would not require amending the General Plan,and would not go against State Statutes. Mr.Hoffman stated that the Overlay targets specific tracts of land that were deemed at the time to be capable of yielding conventional built home,and the interpretation tonight is that this was not correct,but the Council needs to say that. Councilman Vehon stated that these designations were put on the way they are without the luxury of looking at every area in town,but i t was left up to later Commissions and Councils to make an interpretation of the General Plan. Mr.Hoffman reiterated that for the Overlay,specific areas were targeted. Associate Planner/Deputy Director Jim Nakagawa stated that this is correct,based on a 1985 Land Use Survey,a 1985 Zoning Map,but zone changes were being made at the time based on the old General Plan for mobile home development,which resulted in mobile home development in areas that were designated for conventional housing,and further stated the big issue at the time was that Apache Junction had a image problem of "mobile home development area"and this was an effort to change that image to more conventional housing. Councilman Vehon stated that in his experience since this time,some five and ten acre parcels have been split down to 1 i acre mobile home lots for some of these target areas,and at this point the General Plan has already been broken,so this property could be interpreted to be consistent with the General Plan. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 16 Councilwoman Barker stated that due to the various A.R.S.references in this case,this case is confusing and needs to be reviewed further prior to making a decision. Councilwoman Alger asked i f the General Plan is specific,or is i t maintained as general? Mr.Nakagawa replied that i t is general,the A.R.S.provides for communities to develop specific plans i f that is the Council's wish,but on this particular issue dealing with housing type, there were certain areas set aside deliberately to be developed with conventional housing,as i t was the understanding that a sufficient amount of manufactured housing. Councilwoman Alger pointed out that the intent of the overlay was never included in the General Plan. correct. Mr.Nakagawa replied that this is Councilwoman Alger reiterated that as this is an "idea",i t is necessary for the Council to make an interpretation. Mr.Hoffman commented that the intent at the time has to be considered also,but the logic of "general"can be used. Councilwoman Alger stated that as she was not part of the preparation of the General Plan,and there is not a written "intent",i t must be presumed i t is intended as a general Plan. Mayor Bluntschly asked when the Mobile Home Overlay came about,as there is no reference in the General Plan itself? Mr.Nakagawa answered that there was a conventional housing restriction even in the old General Plan,in 1983,and that the Overlay began about mid -1986. Mayor Bluntschly asked why there is no verbage in the General Plan,i f this was in 1986? Mr.Nakagawa replied that the only verbage is in the identification phase of the planning process. Mr.Hoffman asked i f the concern is that this was snuck in? Mayor Bluntschly replied that this is not the concern,but comments were made in Mr.Dunn's presentation pertaining REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 17 to the perceived image of Apache Junction,and just wondered why there isn't a written reference to this overlay. Mr.Hoffman agreed that i t would be more appropriate to have something in the General Plan. Councilman Vehon stated that types were designated by the numbers and by amounts of acreage,but in these areas which have been predominantly mobile homes through the years,since the adoption of the General Plan,have there been developers interested in developing conventional homes in these area? Mr.Nakagawa replied that he is not aware of any. Mr.Hoffman observed that there has not been wide -spread conventional homes built period due to lack of sewers. Mr.John Thorp,545 W.16th Avenue, Apache Junction,representative of the applicant,verified comments made by Councilman Vehon. Councilman Vehon asked what the understanding was with the applicants when they purchased the property. Mr.Thorp replied that they understood that they could do this,due to what is presently within the surrounding area. Councilman Vehon asked i f the applicant received anything in writting from the City. Mr.Thorp answered that they did not. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone who wished to address the Council on this item,in favor of or in opposition to. Mr.Frank Talbot,1395 S.San Marcos,Apache Junction,clarified that the applicant did get a verbal from Bob Dunn that the subdivision of this lot into three lots for mobiles would conform with the General Plan,and that at a later date Mr.Dunn sent a letter saying that he was in error after further research by staff that i t did not include the mobile home overlay.Mr.Talbot further commented that i t is desireable in the real estate business to find builders wishing to build on property,and that there has been a lot of builders building conventional homes in areas with existing conventional homes,but that they will not go into an area surrounded by mobile homes at this time,to build a conventional home as i t is a risk. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 18 Ms Midge Conway,902 S.Ocotillo Drive,Apache Junction,stated that she was on the Planning and Zoning Commission when the General Plan was adopted,and further asked why $90,000 was spent on a Plan that is so general and not lived up to,secondly,the General Plan should be changed i f there are going to be so many exceptions made to it. There being no one else wishing to address the Council,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.688 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY,AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. Deputy City Clerk Lori Zmayefski read as follows: ORDINANCE NO.688,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 REZONING CASE PZ-9-89 FROM GR GENERAL RURAL TO CR-2(MH)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE (MANUFACTURED HOMES PERMITTED);REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.688 AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: THAT THE APPLICANT DEDICATE THE WEST AND SOUTH 33 FEET AND THE 20 FOOT BY 20 FOOT CUT-OFF ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT SITE FOR ROADWAY AND ASSOCIATED PURPOSES. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. Mayor Bluntschly asked the City Attorney i f the General Plan is in the nature of general,a guideline,and are we legally able to say that as i t is general and there is a buffer zone,to approve this rezoning. City Attorney David Alexander stated that definitively i t is a General Plan,and when the boundaries of two generally planned areas colliding,there are problems,so the safe answer is what is recommended by staff,however,Councilman Vehon has good arguments. Mr.Alexander further stated that the Council is the "finder of facts",and i f REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 19 the Council makes the decision that in fact that area is the grey area because i t is close to the collision zone,the Council is on good footing as far as defending this position. Mr.Alexander added that zoning is designed for drawing the fine lines,not the General Plan,and i f the Council finds this a decision where the General Plan should be utilized,do so. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.689, PZ-11-89,WILSON ) )Mayor Bluntschly explained that this is a request for reversion of planned development zoning district,located at the northeast coern of Cortez Road and Southern Avenue,from TH/PD Trailer Homesite by Planned Development to General Rural,and called upon staff to brief the Council. Mr.Dunn stated that the site was rezoned in 1987 to Trailer Homesite by Planned Development,and that the owner has requested that the property be reverted back to General Rural as the mobile home park will not be built,and further stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this request. Mr.Dunn explained that Attorney opinion is that the reversion should take place by Council action just as the rezoning,to create a legal document,even though i t is not required in the ordinance. Councilman Vehon commented that this request had to go through staff,Planning and Zoning Commission,and Council, and seems to be a ridiculous use of time,since i t is not legally required. City Attorney David Alexander stated that a provision for automatic reversion should be enacted,but to enact that reversion without giving the applicant the due process rights,would ask for problems. Mr.Dunn stated that i t is planned to use wording in the future in approved planned developments,to allow for reversion time frame,but there are about six outstanding cases that will have to go through this process. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request.There being no one wishing to address the Council,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 20 Councilman Eidson MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.689 BE READ BY TITLE ONLY,AND THE READING OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BE WAIVED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. Deputy City Clerk Lori Zmayefski read as follows: ORDINANCE NO.689,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 REZONING CASE PZ-11-89 (A REVERSION FROM A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT) FROM TH/PD (TRAILER HOMESITE/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)TO GR GENERAL RURAL;REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. Councilman Eidson MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.689,AS READ BY THE CITY CLERK,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. NEW BUSINESS BUSINESS PROGRESS AWARDS PRIOR TO 1988 ) )Economic Development Specialist John Schoeph explained that following Council direction,there was a meeting of the Committee to address Business Progress Awards prior to 1988,and recommendations have been submitted to the Council.Mr.Schoeph stated that the criteria remains the same except that "or any other agency"should be added after "City" in number three,and that "except for minor infractions as determined by a majority of the Council"be added to number four after the words "maintenance and conformity with City ordinances". Councilwoman Barker asked how the unavailability of building permit records prior to 1981 will impact this program. Mr.Schoeph stated that businesses will have to be looked at visually,i f i t was done since incorporation. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 21 Councilwoman Barker asked i f "minor infractions"pertains to businesses not being in compliance with codes? Mr.Schoeph replied that the Council will make the final determination of what are "minor infractions",and that some small thing may come up after the list of recommended businesses is prepared. Councilwoman Barker stated that i f there are codes,they should be enforced,and any business with a violation should not be considered. Mr.Schoeph stated that something may arise that the City is not aware of,which may throw a cloud over the business up for an award. Mayor Bluntschly clarified that a "minor infraction"is still an infraction,and should not be recommended for an award. Mr.Schoeph replied that that item can be eliminated from the recommendation. Councilman Eidson argued that a building official could find something wrong almost anywhere,and something minor like a sign hanging where i t shouldn't be,should not prevent that business from getting an award,so a business shouldn't have an inspection just because they are being recommended for an award. Mayor Bluntschly stated that the area of concern is pre-existing violations that the property owners are unwilling to correct. Councilwoman Barker further stated that the mere inclusion of the words "minor infraction"inferrs that the Council may be willing to turn their backs on a "little",whatever is determined to be little,and cannot go along with this. Councilman Eidson asked i f Councilwoman Barker is referring to the list the Council has right now? Mayor Bluntschly replied that he is referring to this existing list. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUSINESS PROGRESS AWARDS FOR PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1988 BE APPROVED WITH NO CHANGES TO THE CURRENT CRITERIA,AND THAT THE BUSINESS PROGRESS AWARDS PROGRAM BE CONTINUED OUTLINED AS DESCRIBED BY THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED OUTLINED IMLEMENTATION EXCEPT FOR ITEM NO.5. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 22 Councilman Vehon asked i f the portion of the recommendations that takes into consideration infractions with other agencies shouldn't be included in the motion? Director of Public Safety Bill McDaniel commented that i t could save embarrassment to the City,such as violations with the FBI. Councilwoman Alger stated that should the Chief of Police be aware of such cases,he could inform the Council. Councilman Eidson stated that in the Committee meeting,the members tried to cover different things,like a sign not being in compliance even though the City has not always had a Sign Ordinance. Mayor Bluntschly stated that i f the sign was there since incorporation,i t would be legally nonconforming,and wouldn't be considered when giving someone an award as i t wouldn't be a violation. Councilwoman Alger amended the motion to include:"ANY OTHER AGENCIES"AFTER THE WORD "CITY"IN ITEM 3. Councilwoman Barker seconded the amendment. VOTE(on the amendment):Unanimous VOTE(on the original motion as amended):Unanimous The motion carried as amended. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.89-26,PA -1-89, DENNIS ) )Mayor Bluntschly stated that this is a request by Walter Dennis to create a Private Access Easement in conjunction with a proposed land split,located at 1701 S.Idaho Road,approximately 300 feet south of 16th Avenue and 400 feet east of Idaho Road,and called upon staff to brief the Council. Mr.Dunn explained that this site was rezoned in January to CR-2(MH),and the applicant proposed a split at that time,but now proposes a different split that would require a private access easement,with the reason that i t would create more desireable lot shapes and also that the configuration would meet the new City requirement for 80'lot width.Mr.Dunn stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that the existing right-of-way would better serve the public,and recommended denial of the request,and that the Development Coordinating Committee and staff recommends denial also. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 23 Mr.Walter Dennis,Idaho Rd.,Apache Junction,explained that a house built on this property would enhance much more than previously proposed. Mayor Bluntschly reiterated that the applicant feels that this would be a better land use than originally proposed. Mr.Dennis confirmed this. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f the applicant has considered whether there would be access for emergency vehicles. Mr.Dennis stated that i t is wide enough,as i t is 25 feet wide. Councilman Cox commented that the Fire Department requires 28 feet. Mr.Dennis stated that i f that is required,than 28 feet can be provided. Mr.Hoffman explained that the concern is,that with the existing lot line there,i t may not be able to be moved up. Mayor Bluntschly asked i f there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item.There being no one wishing to address the Council,Mayor Bluntschly called for the motion. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.89-26,AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF A TWENTY-EIGHT FOOT (28')WIDE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT,BE DENIED. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROPOSED CITY LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS: A.APPLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO.661,MINIMUM LOT WIDTH Mr.Hoffman explained that Ordinance No.661 was adopted last year,providing for minimum lot width,and the concern is that the Ordinance says i t will apply to certain zoning districts,but the motion says i t will apply "to those classifications which occur after the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 24 effective date of this Ordinance",and the legislative intent and the Ordinance gives staff different direction.Mr.Hoffman asked that this be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to make these consistent,and recommend to whom this would apply. Mayor Bluntschly asked what the process entails? Mr.Hoffman replied that i t needs to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission,to make a recommendation on whether this would apply only to those with zoning amendments which occur after the date of the Ordinance being adopted,or everyone with those zoning districts today. Mayor Bluntschly commented that the Ordinance should reflect the intent. Mr.Hoffman stated that in this instance,i t was not planned that the motion be different. Mayor Bluntschly stated that i f the intent is different than the Ordinance,i t should be corrected prior to implementation. Councilman Vehon asked why this Ordinance was not amended,as i t usually done? City Attorney David Alexander stated that this particular instance was an error. Acting City Manager/City Clerk Kathleen Connelly stated that this happened exactly as Councilman Burgess made the motion. Councilman Vehon asked why this can't come straight back to Council,since thmt is the interpretation in question,as to send this back to staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission is rather lengthy a process? Mr.Alexander replied that i t has to be a new zoning ordinance,which requires a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Councilman Eidson MOVED THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,THROUGH THE ACTING CITY MANAGER,TO PROCEED WITH ORDINANCE NO.661 AS FOLLOWS: THAT THERE BE A COMMISSION INITIATIVE TO REVIEW ORDINANCE NO.661,AND TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 17,1989. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 25 Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:In Favor:Councilwoman Barker,Councilwoman Alger,Councilman Cox, Councilman Eidson,Mayor Bluntschly Opposed:Councilman Vehon The motion carried. B.DIRECTION TO ACTING CITY MANAGER TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR CREDIT AND DEBIT CARD USE IN MAGISTRATE COURT Acting City Manager/City Clerk Kathleen Connelly explained that Court Administrator Mercer Weiskotten is suggesting that the Council consider authorizing to proceed with the use of credit card system to accept payment for fines,as other cities use this system and i t has proven to be very useful. Councilman Vehon asked i f the City would be leasing the credit card machine from a company,and is there an advantage to leasing rather than buying one. Ms Connelly stated that we cannot buy a machine,and is a service. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR CREDIT AND DEBIT CARD USE IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. C.ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Ms Connelly stated that in conjunction with Ordinance No.659,the Council must approve a service agreement prior to releasing any funds,and the agreement before the Council pretty much duplicates the agreement of last year except with more detail,with a different dollar amount because of budget restrictions. Mr.Keith Hilgendorf,Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce,stated that the Board has adopted a contract which provides $20,000 of economic development services in conjunction with the approved budget allocation. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 26 Councilman Vehon asked why State and National type advertising is used,doing away with anything local? Mr.Hilgendorf stated that this maximizes the the exposure to the City,enticing Apache Junction as a destination. Mr.Hoffman stated that things like Lost Dutchman Days,Fall Fiesta,are advertised separately,and do not appear in the City contract. Councilwoman Alger referred to Item No.5 (b),of the Supplemental Agreement,asked i f the Chamber understands that the $15,000 is over and above? Mr.Hoffman stated that Council action was that i f the City gets $75,000 in additional revenues,than the Chamber of Commerce may get up to an additional $15,000,which is what (b) referrs to. Ms Connelly requested that (b)say "those additional funds generated in excess of the base $75,000",and once that is reached the Chamber is eligible for the additional $15,000. Mr.Hoffman asked how this should be worded,again? Ms Connelly reiterated "if the base of $75,000 is generated,those additional funds in excess of the base of $75,000,up to an amount of $15,000 may be utilized in a supplimental agreement". Mr.Hilgendorf stated that the Board's understanding is that should the Chamber be informed that Contingency Funds become available,staff will recommend to the Board additional programs consistent with the basic Economic Development Agreement. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AS PRESENTED,WITH THE AMENDMENT AS MS CONNELLY SPELLED OUT THIS EVENING. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. D.COMMUNITY RELATIONS BOARD/COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 27 Ms Connelly stated that the Council has indicated a desire to establish a Community Relations Board or Commission, and i t is necessary for the Council to give direction to draft an Ordinance to be prepared for the next agenda. Mayor Bluntschly stated that since he initiated this,i t would be appropriate to call i t the Community Relations Commission,comprised of seven members to include three from the zone of influence,some members from within the City limits. Ms Connelly stated that the Ordinance would ordinarily specify what the goals are and what department is responsible for staffing that Board or Commission,and volunteered Assistant to the City Manager George Hoffman. Mayor Bluntschly stated that he did have Assistant to the City Manager George Hoffman in mind as the staff support for this Commission. Councilwoman Barker asked i f this direction wasn't already given,but the Council shouldn't overlap what was already prespecified. Ms Connelly stated that i t is necessary to give direction to place an actual ordinance on the next agenda. Councilman Vehon asked i f the number of members to be from the "zone of influence"and those within the City limits needs to be specified? Mayor Bluntschly stated that originally the request was to have four members within the City,and three outside. Councilwoman Barker MOVED THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS BOARD/COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: AS WAS DISCUSSED THIS EVENING,AND TO RETURN AN ORDINANCE TO THE COUNCIL BY THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING,SEPTEMBER 19,1989. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. Councilman Cox asked i f the members chosen from outside City limits need to be within Pinal County,or can they be from the other side in Maricopa County. Mayor Bluntschly stated that i t doesn't matter,both would represent an interest in the City. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 28 Mr.Hoffman asked i f this Ordinance would include duration of term? Ms Connelly replied that i t normally does,as well as overlapping of terms,so that not everyone's term expires at the same time. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. E.DIRECTION TO ACTING CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION Ms Connelly explained that at the second meeting in July,direction was requested for suggestions in reorganizational plans,and i t was suggested that the staff involved be met with.Ms Connelly stated that staff has met,the Building Official,the Acting Planning Direction,and the Economic Development Specialist,and at another time there was a meeting with the Operations Superintendent,Director of Public Works,and the Senior Engineering Technician.Ms Connelly stated that based on Council direction tonight,we can recruit for Planning Direction and City Engineer positions,to be consistent with the desired reorganization. Councilman Vehon asked i f there were specific comments from individual staff members involved with this proposed reorganization? Ms Connelly stated that there appeared to be a lot of enthusiasm towards the changes,and the recommendations came out of those meetings,but that the concern with Engineering was how project assignments will be carried out,who would be key persons on specific projects,and this will be determined based upon Council direction.Ms Connelly further stated that projects would have to be looked at in a task by task basis. Councilman Vehon stated that he agrees with the overall concept,but there is a question with combining the Economic Development,Building,Zoning,and Planning,there isn't a large enough building. Ms Connelly stated that the intent is to avoid moving existing staff,as there isn't a building large enough,but the intent is to bring the functions together so that everyone is more in tune with the end result. Councilman Vehon commented that the City would be looking for an individual to head the Community Development Director,with experience in all of these areas,and with this many responsibilities would this be in the best interest? Ms Connelly explained that the Development Service Director would be a Chief Administrator,to coordinate the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 29 Chief Planner,Economic Development,and Building and Zoning,which are currently serviced by experts -an umbrella type of position. Mr.Hoffman suggested taking a Deputy position,and making i t a division head type position to do the "hands-on"functions in the Planning area. Councilman Vehon stated that the concern is overloading one individual,with adding so many functions under one department. Mayor Bluntschly commented that current staff will still be here,and should not cause a problem with a coordinated effort. Councilwoman Alger questioned the Building Permit and Inspections being included,as they are not part of the Planning and Zoning portion,and should be a separate entity. Ms Connelly stated that there is little interaction between Building Permits and Public Works,with more between Building Department and other entities in Development Services. Councilwoman Alger asked where a Building Department is normally? Ms Connelly stated that in a lot of cases i t is separate. Mr.Hoffman stated that he had understood from Council is that there should be an integrated,coordinated,City team dealing with the public sector,and the permit process is the end result of Economic Development and Planning Department. Councilwoman Alger reiterated that Building Permits should be separate from Planning and Zoning,as a separate entity. Mayor Bluntschly stated that he still likes the idea of i t all being tied together. Mr.Hoffman commented that the Council needs to keep in mind not having too few or too many people reporting to one person. Mayor Bluntschly added that a good rule is eight to ten at the most reporting to one person. Councilwoman Alger stated that the Building Permits are the technical portion that comes into play after the REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 30 Planning process has already taken effect,and Building is the implementation which should be totally separate. Councilman Vehon stated that he would like to spend more time going through this prior to giving specific direction,as these are some major changes,a new City Manager should be a part of this process rather than being handed the changes after they are made. what is postoned never seems to get done. Councilwoman Alger commented that Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT DIRECTION BE GIVEN TO THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO PROCEED WITH DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION AS FOLLOWS: TO CREATE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WITH A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR,COMBINING THE FUNCTIONS OF ZONING,PLANNING,AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL ALSO INCLUDE HOUSING AND GRANTS SPECIALIST,WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO BE EITHER LEFT IN PUBLIC WORKS OR ANOTHER ENTITY,AND TO CREATE A CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,WITH THE CITY ENGINEER TO BE A DEPARTMENT HEAD LEVEL. Ms Connelly stated that in discussing this issue,the attempt is being made to use existing staff,and to separate Building and Zoning too drastically would cause staff shortage. Councilwoman Alger asked i f this can be drafted and look at this later with possible changes? be done. Ms Connelly confirmed that this can Councilman Cox seconded the motion. Councilman Eidson stated that he could support some of this,but not all of it,specifically the separate department of City Engineer. VOTE:In Favor:Councilman Cox,Councilwoman Barker,Councilwoman Alger, Mayor Bluntschly Opposed:Councilman Eidson,Councilman Vehon The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES,TIMES,LOCATIONS AND PURPOSES: EXECUTIVE SESSION,WORK SESSION, SEPTEMBER 18,1989 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 31 EXECUTIVE SESSION,WORK SESSION, SEPTEMBER 19,1989 )Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M.,AND A WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M,ON SEPTEMBER 18,1989,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS; AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND A WORK SESSION BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M.,ON SEPTEMBER 19,1989,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS (COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS) None. ADJOURNMENT )There being no further business to discuss,Mayor Bluntschly adjourned the meeting at 11:38 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: 1.Acceptance of Regular Meeting Agenda 2.Acceptance of Minutes from the Special Meeting of June 26,1989 3.Acceptance of Minutes from the Special Meeting of July 6,1989 4.Acceptance of Minutes from the Special Meeting of July 17,1989 5.Acceptance of Minutes from the Special Meeting of July 20,1989 6.Direction to City Attorney to Participate in all Settlement Arrangements in the case of Gutierrez vs.the City of Apache Junction 7.Authorization Given to the City Attorney in the Claim Against the City of Apache Junction Submitted by Larry and Patricia Swander Authorization Given to the City Attorney in the Administrative Claim Against the City of Apache Junction 8.Award of Bids for:Gas Pump Installation and Removal,Paving Materials, Emulsified Asphalt,Fuel,Street Striping,Sign Materials,Sand and Aggregates,Four Pickup Trucks,Sign Truck,Engine Analyzer,Grease and Oil Reels,Corregated Metal Pipe (CMP),Tires,Sign Machine. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 32 9.Authorization to Purchase 14 Yaesu Two -Way Portable Radios and Accessories by State Contract for the Police Department 10.Claim Against the City of Apache Junction for Dental Expenses 11.Direction to the Planning and Zoning Commission to Commence Rezoning Processin Case PZ-24-81 12.Authorization Given to Enter Into License Agreement with the East Valley Catholic Social Services for the Senior Center 13.Proposed Resolution No.89-28,Intergovernmental Agreement with Maricopa County for Southern Avenue Improvements 14.Intergovernmental Agreement to Accept Library Services and Construction Act Grant Entitled Project CAIR by Proposed Resolution No.89-27 ACCEPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER ,1989,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER KERNETH BLUNTSCHLY MayOr ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 5,1989 PAGE 33 ,1989. 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 5th day of September ,1989.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 2nd day of October 1989. KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk