Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992.1020.TCSM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 1992 A Special Session of the Fountain Hills Town Council open to the public was convened and called to order by Mayor Cutillo at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 20, 1992, in the Fountain Hills Council Chambers located at 16836 E. Palisades Blvd., Building C,Fountain Hills, Arizona. ROLL CALL-Following the pledge to the flag and the invocation by Vice Mayor Fox,roll call was taken. Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor John Cutillo, Vice Mayor Charlie Fox and Councilmembers Peg Tibbetts,Mike Minarsich,Bill O'Brien,Wally Hudson,and Frank Clark. Also present were Town Manager Paul Nordin,Town Attorney Bill Farrell, Director of Community Development Gary Jeppson, and Town Clerk Cassie Hansen. Mayor Cutillo stated that all items listed with an asterisk(*)were considered to be routine,non-controversial matters and would be enacted by one motion and one roll call vote of the Council. There would be no separate discussion of those items unless a Councilmember or member of the public so requested. If a Councilmember or member of the public wished to discuss an item on the consent agenda,they might request so prior to the motion to accept the consent agenda. The item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. Typical items on a consent agenda are minutes, special event requests and easement abandonments. All materials and prior approvals received from the Town Marshal and Fire Chief(for special events)and all utilities and the Town Engineer(for abandonments)had been provided to and reviewed by the Council prior to the consent agenda vote. The consent agenda items were read by Mayor Cutillo and the Council acted on them. Councilman Hudson requested that agenda item number three be removed from the consent agenda. Councilman Minarsich made a MOTION to approve as read. SECONDED by Councilwoman Tibbetts and CARRIED unanimously. A roll call vote was taken and the results were as follows: Mayor Cutillo aye Vice Mayor Fox aye Councilman O'Brien aye Councilman Hudson aye Councilman Clark aye Councilman Minarisch aye Councilwoman Tibbetts aye The roll call vote results were unanimous. AGENDA ITEM#2 - ACCEPTANCE OF THE MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1992. This item was a part of the consent agenda. Councilman Minarsich made a MOTION to approve. SECONDED by Councilwoman Tibbetts and CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST FOR THE NOVEMBER ART FAIR. THE EVENT WILL TAKE PLACE ON THE AVENUE Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 Page 1 of 10 OF THE FOUNTAINS AND REQUIRE THE STREET TO BE CLOSED ON NOVEMBER 13, 14,AND 15, 1992. Councilman Hudson requested this item be removed from the consent agenda. Ms.Hansen explained that State Farm had not named the Town as an additional insured on the certificate of insurance for the Chamber event. She said there was a difference in interpretation and it should be worked out before the November 5 meeting. Councilman Minarsich made a MOTION to accept the item with the stipulation that the Town receive the proper insurance certificate naming the Town through the Chamber of Commerce prior to November 5. SECONDED by Councilwoman Tibbetts and CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#4 - CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTENSION OF PREMISE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY PETE URBON OF BIG DADDY'S PIZZA. THE REQUEST IS FOR THREE DAYS,NOVEMBER 13, 14, AND 15 AND COINCIDES WITH THE ART FAIR. This item was a part of the consent agenda. Councilman Minarsich made a MOTION to approve. SECONDED by Councilwoman Tibbetts and CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #5 - PRESENTATION OF PLAQUES TO THE OUTGOING MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,PAUL SLATER,RUSSELL LARSON,AND JOHN PUCETAS. Mayor Cutillo called the three members forward and presented each of their plaques to them. AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL REPLAT OF LOTS 13 AND 14 OF THE BOULDER POINT SUBDIVISION(Z86-234)BY RELOCATING THE BUILDING ENVELOPES ON THESE TWO LOTS. Mayor Cutillo asked Mr.Jeppson to explain the request. Mr.Jeppson stated that the building envelopes were platted at the same time that the subdivision was platted. He said that building envelopes were not usually platted at that time,but were subject to review by the Committee of Architecture when plans were submitted for construction on the lot. Mr. Jeppson stated that the owners of the two lots wanted to reconfigure the building envelopes. He explained how the owners proposed to configure the building envelopes. Mr.Jeppson said the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request. Mayor Cutillo made a MOTION to accept the request as recommended by staff. SECONDED by Councilman Clark and CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF THE REPLAT OF FOUNTAINHEAD AT LAKESIDE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS, PHASES III AND IV. Mr.Jeppson said the applicant,Blue Chip Development,wanted to change some of the plans that had originally been submitted and it would change the legal description of the common area. He stated that the Commission recommended approval. Vice Mayor Fox made a MOTION to accept the recommendation. SECONDED by Councilman Minarsich and CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #8 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 92-11 WHICH REVISES ARTICLE XXVI, GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 26.14 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS WHICH GOVERNS THE STORAGE AND PARKING OF MOBILE HOMES,MOTOR Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 Page 2 of 10 HOMES, BOATS,AIRCRAFT, CAMPING TRAILERS, UTILITY TRAILERS AND TRUCK CAMPERS. Mayor Cutillo called a recess of the special meeting at approximately 6:48 p.m. He opened the public hearing on Ordinance 92-11 at approximately 6:49 p.m. Mr. Jeppson stated that currently, storage of the above referenced vehicles could only be in the rear yard except for loading or unloading purposes for a period not to exceed 72 hours. He said that the proposal was to strike all of that language and insert language that would allow such vehicles, if non-commercial,to be parked behind the front line of the primary structure of a residence and behind a six-foot high sight-obscuring fence. Mr.Jeppson stated that landscaping could be used to screen if there was no wall. He said that the landscape bather must screen at least fifty percent of the lower six-feet of the vehicle and must achieve ninety-five percent coverage within two years. Mr. Jeppson said the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation was that such vehicles would not be permitted to be located in front of a primary structure for more than two days. He read the remainder of the proposed ordinance to the Council. Mayor Cutillo asked for those in favor of the Ordinance to speak next. Mr.James Parks, 11629 Spotted Horse, stated that it had never been illegal to park or store an RV or a boat at a residence. He said the Declaration of Reservations allowed the parking of them for the past twenty years if they met certain criteria. Mr.Parks added that the proposed ordinance was a complete reversal of what had been in effect for over two decades. He did not want the ordinance to pass because it was not what everyone who had moved here had been allowed to do. Mr. Parks stated that he did not think that people should be allowed to break the rules. He added that MCO should be requested to disallow them in future plats that they open but not penalize people that had abided by the rules all these years. Mr.Jim Carroll, 15502 Bumblebee, said he and his wife owned a travel trailer and in searching for a residence, found Fountain Hills permitted RV parking under controlled conditions. He stated that as long as the conditions could be controlled,he wanted to see them allowed. Mr. Lowell Hamilton said he favored the ordinance as written now, however, he wanted clearer language regarding living in an RV during the two-day period for loading or unloading. Mr. Tony Reyo said one of the reasons he moved to Fountain Hills was that RV's were permitted and he did not want to see that change. Mr. Mike Sapperstein, Bradford Drive, stated that when he moved here he knew the rules and chose to abide by them. He said he did not think that people should move into an area and try to change the rules. Mr.Henry Sherrill, Monterey Drive,stated that he had an RV on the side of his residence but it was screened. He said he was in favor of the ordinance. Mayor Cutillo then called for those in the audience that were in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Eugene Wolfe, 15605 Greystone Drive, stated that over the years of living in Fountain Hills,they knew there were things they would have to comply with. He read a paragraph from the Stoneridge Architectural Guidelines and Standards regarding the parking of vehicles. Mr.Wolfe stated that he did not want any such vehicles parked outside. Mr. Bob Vogel,Greenhurst Ave.,stated that one of the positive features of Fountain Hills was its views. He stated that his home was designed and built according to the views from his lot and the neighbors have an RV that blocks their view and has effected the sale of their home. Mr.Vogel provided the Council with pictures of the motor home. Mr. Ed Klinger, 15535 Greystone, said for the last three months there were five places that had boats or occupied RV's. He asked who would enforce the ordinance if it was adopted. Mr.Klinger stated that he had complained to the Committee of Architecture and they said they could not do a lot about it. Mr. Paul Kostura, 15203 Catalpa Place, stated that he moved here because Fountain Hills did not allow all the junk vehicles and boats to be parked in yards,etc. He said that he thought the burden of the RV should be on the owner of the RV not the neighbor that had to look at it. Mr. Kostura stated that the way the ordinance was worded, it would be impossible for the Marshal's Department to enforce. Ms.Peggy Leech, 15203 Palisades Blvd.,said the home next to her had an RV and a camper parked in the driveway for approximately four years. She stated that every time she has gone into her kitchen for the last four years she saw the RV and said if she had known it she would not have purchased that lot. Mr. Tom Henry,Telegraph Drive, said he recommended keeping the policy the Town already had. Mayor Cutillo declared the public hearing closed at approximately 7:34 p.m. He reconvened the special session at approximately 7:34 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #9 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 92-11, AMENDING ARTICLE XXVII GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 26.14 BY REVISING THE STANDARDS REGARDING THE Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 Page 3 of 10 STORAGE AND PARKING OF MOBILE HOMES, MOTOR HOMES, BOATS, AIRCRAFT, CAMPING TRAILERS, UTILITY TRAILERS AND TRUCK CAMPERS. Mayor Cutillo asked Mr. Jeppson to clarify whether RV and boat storage was permitted in Fountain Hills. Mr. Jeppson stated that the Town could not enforce the Declaration of Reservations. He said the current zoning ordinance allowed the above referenced vehicles to be permitted in the rear yard, defined as that area between the rear property line and the back of the primary building on that lot,but did not permit living in a camper or RV. Mr. Jeppson said the County's ordinance and the Town's old ordinance allowed the subject vehicles to be in the rear yard. He said the Commission thought the vehicles could also be permitted in the side yards and would be less obtrusive. Councilman Minarsich and Mr.Farrell both stated for clarification to the public that the Town was not empowered to enforce any of the Committee of Architecture's rules and regulations. Councilwoman Tibbetts explained the history of the Committee's philosophy on the screening of the vehicles. Councilman Clark said the Town's code could be compatible with the deed restrictions. He stated that he thought the problem was in paragraph A.3,regarding the screening of the vehicles. Councilman Clark said the parking of RV's in back yards as described that night was objectionable to him. He stated that he thought there were ways to accomplish the request and be fair to everyone. Councilman Clark said it should be possible for people to have their RV's and also that the neighboring properties should not be penalized. He stated that the Town should write its rules to be compatible with what had been in practice for 21 years. Mayor Cutillo agreed and stated that no one had been able to come up with a solution. Councilman Hudson and Councilman Minarsich stated that they agreed that they would implement Councilwoman Tibbett's suggestion,however,due to the topographies of Fountain Hills,he did not see how it was possible. Councilman Minarsich said that there was once an idea that the Town grandfather in the existing RV's and draft an ordinance that did not allow them into the community from that point forward. Mr.Farrell stated that it might be a problem creating two classes of land use. He said that courts would recognize a change in the character of the neighborhood and refuse to enforce ordinances selectively if a community chose to change from what the deed restrictions allowed. Mr.Farrell said that concerning land use,grandfathering usually pertained to existing structures. Councilman O'Brien asked if re-wording the ordinance to read that landscaping must screen vehicle to a certain percentage within two years of the passage of the ordinance. Mr. Farrell stated that without two year old photographs, it would be very difficult for a judge to rule on it. Councilman Minarsich said an ordinance was a living document. He stated that since there had been so much discussion on it and no solid decision, he recommended adopting the ordinance and if the situation continued to be a problem of enforcement and complaints, the issue could be re-visited. Councilman O'Brien asked how the no occupancy portion of the ordinance would be enforced and what would be done at special events. Councilwoman Tibbetts stated that if the Town was going to adopt the ordinance,it should be prepared to enforce it and know how it would handle situations that would come up. She stated that portions of the ordinance should be made adaptable to special situations. Mr.Farrell said a use permit process could be drafted that would be applied for by the land owner. The land owner would have to give permission for the RV's to be on their property. Mr. Farrell said the Council could consider an amendment to the ordinance for those lots and land that the special events occur on as the location where occupancy could be permitted on a special use permit basis. Vice Mayor Fox stated that he agreed with Councilman O'Brien's suggestion that there should be a definite date set regarding the required landscape screening of the RVs. Councilman Clark stated that the requirement was not adequate. He said he would not want to look out at one of the vehicles. Councilman Clark stated that the Town's concern was that the vehicles be concealed, however, how they were concealed was not the Town's business. Vice Mayor Fox stated that if RV's were on the side of the residence,people across the street,next door,and behind the residence would have to look at it. He said if it was in the back of the residence, you might only have the people behind that residence, if it was located properly, that would have to look at it. Councilman Minarsich stated that he did not agree with that and that RV's parked at homes devalued properties. Mayor Cutillo made a MOTION to accept the Commission's recommendation for Ordinance 92-11 with the two stipulations on the date to be specific from the date of passage from the two years for the fence substitute and in A-4, "Except as otherwise permitted in this section" is to be deleted. SECONDED by Councilman Minarsich. Councilman O'Brien MADE AN AMENDMENT to insert "or by special event permit" after"except as otherwise permitted in this section" in Section C. SECONDED by Mayor Cutillo and CARRIED unanimously. Mr.Robert Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 Page 4 of 10 Thomas, 12052 N. Saguaro Blvd.,pointed out three technicalities that might be inconsistent in paragraph B. Mr. Farrell stated that it might be a problem. Mayor Cutillo stated that he would WITHDRAW HIS ORIGINAL MOTION and Councilman Minarsich WITHDREW HIS SECOND to delete the restriction from the original motion. Mayor Cutillo MOVED to accept the Commission recommendation for Ordinance 92-11 with the stipulation that A-3 contain the specific date to replace a two-year date for a substitute fence upon adoption of the ordinance. SECONDED by Councilman Minarsich. Mr. Thomas brought up three technicalities in paragraph A. subparagraph 2. There was no provision for garaging the vehicle and perhaps this paragraph should be preceded with "unless garaged, such vehicles must be located behind the principle building". Mr. Thomas pointed out the existing code under which we were operating does ,41400 provide for garaging but was left out of the proposed addition. He said that in paragraph A. subparagraph 4.in the original code, the three days allowed for loading and unloading purposes had been changed by the commission to read"at any time more than two consecutive days." This would allow the owner to place the vehicle in front of the house for two days,remove it for a day,bring it back for two days without any purpose other than storing it in front of the house. That would be very difficult to enforce. What he wanted to point out was that the existing code did specify that the three days would be for loading or unloading and he pointed out that this was a technicality. Also, paragraph C.read"placement of occupied mobile homes"and the revised code does not address mobile homes and it was concluded the wording should read "placement of occupied motor homes,trucks,campers,camping trailers," etc. Mr.Jeppson stated that in the formation of the county ordinance the topic was discussed and purposely taken out. Mr. Gendler said his department found that people used that loophole and it was very difficult to prove. He felt that leaving that in would result in having vehicles parked there for two days,moved for one day and back for two days. It was suggested that the wording state it "not be more than two consecutive days within a seven day period." Discussion of this subject continued including what was best for the Marshal in terms of enforcement. Councilman O'Brien stated he felt this should be a flexible document. Councilman Minarisch felt the recommendation of Marshall Gendler should be taken since he had to enforce it. He recommended two consecutive days within a seven day period. Vice Mayor Fox made an AMENDMENT to the MOTION to paragraph A.4. to take the period away and add at the end, "within a seven day period." Mayor Cutillo SECONDED. Amended motion to the original MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Cutillo reiterated that the motion on the floor was to accept commission recommendation for Ordinance 92-11 with the included amendments. It was asked how the two year date certain would impact all the plats that are not built upon now, or those that would buy an RV in the future. It was explained that when the date certain was reached the provision of allowing two years for growth was no longer available to anyone. Vice Mayor Fox AMENDED THE MOTION to read in section A. "unless garaged,".. Councilman Minarisch SECONDED the AMENDMENT. Following a comment by Councilman O'Brien,Vice Mayor Fox and Councilman Minarisch WITHDREW their motion and second. Councilman O'Brien AMENDED the MOTION to insert the phrase after Section A storage, to begin the next sentence with the phrase, "unless garaged,". SECONDED by Councilman Minarisch CARRIED unanimously. Original MOTION was to accept commission recommendations for Ordinance 92-11 with the stipulated amendments and was CARRIED unanimously. The amendments will read as follows: A. After the word storage the words "unless garaged" were inserted 3. Cross out the words "within two years of the effective date of the adoption" 4. Two consecutive days in order to allow for loading and unloading in any seven day period. C. Second sentence after the word "section" add "or by special event permit" Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 Page 5 of 10 Mayor Cutillo recessed the Town Council Meeting and opened the Public Hearing at 8:43 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#10. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 92-12 WHICH IS A PROPOSAL TO AMEND ARTICLE XXIV OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS BY DELETING ALL OR A PORTION OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ADDING THE PROPOSED LAND DISTURBANCE STANDARDS. Mayor Cutillo recessed the special session and called the public hearing to order at 8:43 p.m. Mr.Jeppson presented proposed Ordinance 92-12 dealing with the current Hillside Development Standards in Article XXIV in the current zoning ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that there be a partial deletion of sections of the current Hillside Ordinance. The portions to be deleted dealt with building permits, uses, and lots that will have structures on them. The standards for grading parcels of lots that do not have a proposed structure would be left in the ordinance. Staff had recommended to the Commission and the Commission had recommended to the Council that regulations concerning grading of those types of property where there is no structure. In addition to those Hillside standards, the insertion to the addition of land disturbance standards would stay. The standards to regulate the amount of land that could be disturbed was on the basis of the size of structure that was being proposed that would be located on that residential lot. The proposal was that grading would be allowed or limited to four times the footprint of the primary structure of the house. At no time would less than 12,000 square feet be permitted. If there was less than 6,000 square feet left, then the property owner would be allowed to disturb the remaining portions of the lot. Mr.Jeppson went on to say the grading regulations dealt with the type of retaining walls and the amount of disturbance that would be permitted regardless of slope. In this proposed ordinance the maximum heights of retaining walls would vary but the amount of disturbance is not monitored by slope. The current ordinance allows 100% lot disturbance in non-hillside areas and then limits disturbance to the building lot coverage percentage of the zoned district where the land is located. This proposed ordinance would limit or permit the disturbance to four times the footprint of the house in accordance with the slope. He said that this draft of the ordinance came closer to making more people happy than any other draft thus far. No one spoke in favor or opposition to this Ordinance and Mayor Cutillo concluded the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #11. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 92-12, WHICH DELETES ALL OR A PORTION OF ARTICLE XXIV,HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ADDS THE PROPOSED LAND DISTURBANCE STANDARDS. Mayor Cutillo reconvened the Special Session at approximately 8:51 p.m. Vice Mayor Fox referred to the Commission recommendations section,page 5,paragraph A.wherein it stated"..would blend in with natural setting". Vice Mayor Fox asked if that wording was necessary because who would define natural setting. Vice Mayor Fox next discussed General Provision,B.1., "the importation of material to a lot is prohibited unless a grading permit is secured". He asked that this provision be clarified. Mr.Jeppson said the parameters of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code required a grading for fill permit for any change of elevation of one foot in contour or 50 cubic yards. He clarified that if one brought in 50 cubic yards changing the contour by one foot, a grading permit would be needed. However, if the 50 cubic yards were spread throughout the lot and did not change the contour, a permit would not be needed. Councilwoman Tibbetts concern was that we don't want anyone dumping loads of dirt on lots that aren't going to be developed. Vice Mayor Fox said that this would be in effect where the lot was under a current building permit and currently being developed. Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 • Page 6 of 10 It was asked of Mr.Jeppson if this language describing the truck loads was written anywhere. As written now, it does not encompass this. Vice Mayor Fox suggested we add the code that is adopted. Much discussion continued regarding how the code could be changed to clarify the wording. It was in general agreement that changing 24.5 to read "land disturbance standards for lots or parcels with approved building permits" in the title. Councilwoman Tibbetts said that dumping on lots without approved building permits should be prohibited in the ordinance. In clarification for Mr. Jeppson, Councilman Minarsich said he would like to see no dumping of dirt on unoccupied lots which are not going to be developed anytime in the near future. Mayor Cutillo stated that he felt the problem with government is that it tries to govern too much and he felt the proposed ordinance would cover the problems without being too restrictive. Councilman O'Brien suggested going through the document,expressing all concerns, not expecting to have them all solved,give staff time to respond to the concerns and then revisit the document within a short period of time. Councilman Minarsich suggested that closer scrutiny was not necessary. Vice Mayor Fox suggested adding "or existing improvements" to the title mentioned previously. Vice Mayor Fox then brought up another item on the same page as "B,General Improvements#4". He said it had been requested that he bring up that to read instead of"3 to 1",it be changed to"2 to 1". He said that in areas like El Lago, a 3 to 1 would take away from the lot where a 2 to 1 would not do that because it would make a steeper slope. Councilwoman Tibbetts asked how often the builders felt they would need a 2 to 1 instead of a 3 to 1. Dave Montgomery commented that using a 3 to 1 slope did not allow much flexibility for doing any grading and that retaining walls were usually required. With 2 to 1, in most cases,a retaining wall would usually not be necessary in the side yard and this would be the biggest advantage. Vice Mayor Fox then referred to the next page,item#7. He said his concern regarding revegetation was that the ordinance made it sound like desert landscaping was the preferred landscaping. Vice Mayor Fox said that people should be able to put in the plants they desire,not be limited to the"natural state". He said he felt they were trying to identify desert landscaping too much. He said he did not feel the Council should dictate the vegetation climate in the ordinance. Councilman Hudson pointed out that if high water usage plants were allowed that there may be a time in the future when the water company may have to cut back on water usage and these types of plants will not be allowed. Mayor Cutillo said both arguments were right and that this was a difficult balance. He said he did *a) not want to prevent people from planting fruit trees if they so desired but they could encourage the use of desert planting,promoting such a balance. Vice Mayor Fox said the problem would take care of itself because the water company could increase rates,diminishing usage if a water shortage occurred. He suggested changing the wording where it said "must be used" to "are recommended to be used". Councilman Minarsich said he agreed with Vice Mayor Fox that there was too much governmental regulation but that one major thing that had come out of numerous Town Halls and Planning and Zoning meetings was that the community wants to preserve its natural pristine nature of the desert of the town. Councilman Clark reiterated, noting the General Plan, that people wanted the retention of the desert landscaping. Commissioner Thomas stated it was discussed in a public hearing regarding the general zoning code change revision. Councilwoman Tibbetts asked how much of a problem it was to have a 2 to 1 rather than a 3 to 1 slope at the edge of the lot. Mr. Dave Montgomery responded,on side yards where there was a 7 foot yard on a 3 to 1 slope,more flexibility would be given for any grading and in most cases a retaining wall would have to be put in. With the 2 to 1 in most cases, a retaining wall in a side yard would not have to be put in. The advantage of the flexibility of the 2 to 1 is for the drainage on the side yards. Mr.Jeppson stated it would depend on the setting of the house and the natural grade for the set back of the house. Mr. Thomas suggested that changes be made to paragraph 2 to include horizontal displacement which is the ratio of 3 to 1. Vice Mayor Fox felt the verbiage under B.7 regarding revegetation made a statement to the community that desert landscaping is the acceptable vegetation and he disagreed with that. He felt the public should not be limited to the natural state and desert landscaping is being identified too much. Councilman O'Brien brought up the problem of water usage. Mayor Cutillo stated it is a difficult balance but doesn't want to prevent people from planting fruit trees Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 Page 7 of 10 or palm trees if they so choose. On the other hand we should be discouraged from planting too much. Councilman Minarsich stated we want to preserve the natural desert and keep it in its natural condition as much as possible. Councilman Clark concurred and added that people want us to retain the desert landscaping. This is a good example of why it is dangerous to approve an ordinance prior to approval of the general plan when the intent is once you agreed on the goals and objectives of this community, all our actions should follow in line with those plans. Mr.Jeppson said this section referring to cut and fill slopes was one attempt in which the commission and staff had tried to harmonize with the Committee of Architecture,adopting the same language. Vice Mayor Fox said he still did not like the use of the word "must", that it was too restrictive. The next item brought up by Vice Mayor Fox was, H.4. Retaining Wall Requirements. He said that he felt the phrase "the fmished surfaces of any retaining wall shall blend into the natural setting" was difficult to interpret. Councilman O'Brien concurred. Councilman Clark said he also felt it was hard to interpret but he felt it meant painting the wall to match the house or material. Councilman Minarsich said he felt this was another attempt to achieve continuity with the Committee of Architecture regs and avoid things like chartreuse walls,etc. After much discussion on whether or not to delete the statement, it was decided to leave it in. Councilman O'Brien suggested under 24.2(1) "...set forth in this Article"be changed to read"...set forth in Sections .2 through.4 of this Article." He also pointed out in 24.(1)(a)it is unclear as to if you have a large lot it would be 20%lot coverage. It was concurred there should not be any disturbance beyond 20% of the lot. It was concluded Section 24.(2) "(including single-family residential uses)" should also be deleted. Under 24.5G, "(100 square feet maximum in size)" should be deleted. Mr. Jeppson reviewed the changes the Council had suggested to make sure he had them all. Vice Mayor Fox MOVED to accept Section 92-12 as corrected and amended per staff. SECONDED by Councilwoman Tibbetts. Bob Thomas addressed Section 24.5.paragraph G.sub paragraph 1. He said that the Commission had recommended in the revised general revision of the zoning code that if the footprint is less than 3,000 square feet it be treated as though it's 3,000 square feet because they are allowed four (4) times the footprint or 12,000 square feet. He felt this is a rape of the desert and allowing 6,000 square feet of otherwise undisturbed desert area to be graded by the developer (including every lot of 18,000 feet or less) the whole 18,000 feet would be bladed down before it can grow. He highly recommended this be changed from 12,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet and with a residual area of 3,000 square feet that residual be included in the allowable area of disturbance. Mayor Cutillo asked for a vote and the motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM 12. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 92-13,AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS BY DESIGNATING 14.02 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF BAINBRIDGE AVENUE,WEST OF HAMPSTEAD DRIVE, NORTH OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS JR/SR HIGH SCHOOL,AND EAST OF THE CHRIST'S CHURCH SITE,WHICH IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE "GLENVIEW SUBDIVISION SITE" FROM R-3 TO A R1-6 ZONING DISTRICT - THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE UNTIL NOVEMBER 19, 1992. Mr.Jeppson stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had tabled the preliminary plat of the Glenview Subdivision until November 12, 1992 so that both items could come to the Council at the same time. Basically, the applicant Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 Page 8 of 10 would like to see if they were going to get the plat before they rezoned the land. Councilman Hudson MOVED to TABLE this until November 19, 1992. SECONDED by Councilman Minarisch and CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM 13. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 91-14, AMENDING ARTICLE 10-6 OF THE TOWN CODE TO REQUIRE ONLY ONE TOILET FACILITY FOR TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SITES WHEN THE LOTS ARE ADJOINED AND HAVE COMMON STREET FRONTAGE. Ms Hansen corrected this Ordinance saying it should be 92-14 not 91-14. Vice Mayor Fox said a complaint had been received regarding the absence of a toilet on a job site. Two adjacent lots with the same builder had been sharing one portable toilet. He felt it was over-kill to require two toilets when the same contractor was building two houses on adjoining lots. While trying to alleviate the health problems he felt the multiple toilets was becoming an eye-sore. He suggested that within a four lot area on the same street including directly across the street,that only one portable toilet would be necessary. He also stated it was brought up in a staff report that maybe costs could be shared. Perhaps the second contractor could present a letter by the adjoining contractor to show that his site was in compliance. Mr.Nordin said there were two ordinances in the packet and that staff would like direction on which ordinance the Council preferred. Councilman Minarsich referred to the memorandum from staff,stating that experience had shown that construction workers do not walk very far to use such a facility. It had been his experience and the experience of people in the room that it had sometimes been necessary to remove human feces from construction sites. He further stated that this particular ordinance would benefit one developer in town and that he was opposed to it. He felt there should be a portable toilet at every site. There had been one developer in town who had been the biggest offender on the lack of port-a-johns. Vice Mayor Fox MOVED to do the first one, 92-14 where there are two adjoining lots that only one port-a-john is required by the same developer. Councilman Hudson SECONDED. Mayor Cutillo stated he felt this shouldn't have been adopted in the first place. He would be opposed to adding more and would be in favor of this. He had not talked to the staff and didn't feel the need to require port-a-johns for every construction site. That was something the contractors should police themselves. Mayor Cutillo opposed the original ordinance that required this and opposed adding more and supported the motion to pass the ordinance 92-14. Vice Mayor Fox stated that this affected the whole building trade and would add more cost. Mayor Cutillo stated this would be alternative number 1. A vote was taken and the results were as follows: Mayor Cutillo aye Vice Mayor Fox aye Councilman Minarsich nay Councilwoman Tibbetts aye Councilman Clark aye Councilman Hudson aye Councilman O'Brien nay The roll call vote results were five aye to two nay votes. The motion CARRIED. AGENDA ITEM 14. CALL TO THE PUBLIC. (PUBLIC COMMENT IS ENCOURAGED BUT PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE COUNCIL HAS NO ABILITY TO RESPOND OR DISCUSS MATTERS BROUGHT UP DURING THE CALL TO THE PUBLIC AS SUCH DISCUSSION IS PROHIBITED BY THE ARIZONA OPEN MEETING LAW.) Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 Page 9 of 10 Mayor Cutillo made a call to the public. There was no discussion. AGENDA ITEM 15. ADJOURNMENT. Mayor Cutillo called for a motion to adjourn. Vice Mayor Fox made a MOTION to adjourn. SECONDED by Councilman Clark and CARRIED unanimously. The Town Council adjourned at approximately 10:08 p.m. TOWN O HILLS By: John M. tillo, Mayor ATTEST: 81/1/J_LL (JJJJ. Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk PREPARED BY: ir.-r-e -a+) Marcia Jewett, A Live Assistant CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Special Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 20th day of October, 1992. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this day of January, 1993. 0/1.44.A...‘—' Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk Minutes of the Town Council Special Session - 10/20/92 Page 10 of 10