Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001.0607.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL June 7,2001 Mayor Morgan called the regular session of the Town Council to order at 5:00 p.m. Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED that the Council convene the executive session and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion, which carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#1. PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §38-431.03.A.4, VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR: DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEYS OF THE PUBLIC BODY IN ORDER TO CONSIDER ITS POSITION AND INSTRUCT ITS ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE PUBLIC BODY'S POSITION IN PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO AVOID OR RESOLVE LITIGATION(CONDEMNATION ACTION-TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS V.MCO PROPERTIES). AGENDA ITEM#2. RETURNED TO REGULAR SESSION at 6:25 p.m. Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 6:30 p.m. Following the pledge to the flag and a moment of silence, roll call was taken. ROLL CALL -Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Sharon Morgan, Vice Mayor John Wyman and Councilmembers Leesa Fraverd, Sharon Hutcheson, John McNeill, John Kavanagh, and Susan Ralphe. Also present were Town Manager Paul Nordin,Town Attorney Bill Farrell,Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Randy Harrel, Director of Administration Cassie Hansen, Deputy Director Bryan Hughes,and Director of Community Development Jeff Valder. AGENDA ITEM#1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 12, 17, AND 24,2001. • AGENDA ITEM#2. CONSIDERATION OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY STEVEN BORCHEW FOR OLIVES LOCATED AT 11056 N. SAGUARO BLVD. THE APPLICATION IS FOR A NEW CLASS 12 RESTAURANT LICENSE. AGENDA ITEM#3. CONSIDERATION OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY KENNETH BOWMAN FOR THE NEW AMERICAN LEGION POST#58 BUILDING LOCATED AT 16837 PARKVIEW AVE. THE APPLICATION IS FOR A NEW CLASS 14 CLUB LICENSE. AGENDA ITEM#4. CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTENSION OF PREMISE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY JAMES MYCZEK FOR GRAPEABLES FINE WINES LOCATED AT 12645 SAGUARO BLVD. THE PERMIT WOULD TEMPORARILY EXTEND THE CLASS 7 BEER AND WINE LICENSE TO A SECURE AREA ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING ON JUNE 23 AND JULY 4,2001. AGENDA ITEM#5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-27 AUTHORIZING THE TOWN, PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §28-2603, TO USE UP TO TEN PERCENT OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUND MONIES FOR ALL USES AS ALLOWED BY LAW. AGENDA ITEM#6. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE RTW OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS, A 12-UNIT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 13215 N. VERDE RIVER DRIVE,AKA PLAT 208-B,LOT 1, CASE NUMBER S2001-15. AGENDA ITEM#7. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED FIVE- LOT PARCEL 12-A SUBDIVISION, TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD AND EL LAGO BOULEVARD, CASE NUMBER S2000- 037. AGENDA ITEM#8. CONSIDERATION OF A REPLAT OF "LA LOMA 4 AT EAGLE MOUNTAIN, UNIT 81" CONDOMINIUM PLAT,A ONE UNIT REPLAT, CASE#S2001-17. AGENDA ITEM#9. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-28 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 605-C, BLOCK 1, LOT 13, (11057 N. PINTO DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 164 OF MAPS, PAGE 14 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. (JOSEPH E. GIANNETTI,SR. & JUDITH ANN GIANNETTI) EA01- 11 AGENDA ITEM#10. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-30 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 602-A, BLOCK 1, LOT 2, (15417 E. PALISADES BLVD.) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 161 OF MAPS, PAGE 42 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. (MARK&STACIE MOORE)EA01-10 Vice Mayor Wyman MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results. Vice Mayor Wyman- aye Councilman McNeill - aye Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye Councilwoman Fraverd- aye Councilman Kavanagh- aye Councilwoman Ralphe— aye Mayor Morgan- aye The motion CARRIED unanimously with a roll call vote. AGENDA ITEM#11. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE FOR THE 2000/2001 DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL 'TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FUND MONIES. Director Hansen noted that the Council had just approved Resolution 2001-27 on the consent agenda that gave the council the authority to approve 10% of the Town's lottery money for purposes other than transportation. This item would provide the Council with the opportunity to use that authority by considering a citizen's committee recommendation for distribution of the available lottery money in the amount of$11,000. She explained that for a four week time period staff had posted and published a notice notifying the public that the Town was accepting applications for these funds. Director Hansen said that the notice also included the request for citizens to serve on the advisory committee that would review and make a recommendation to the Council based upon the applications received. Five applications were received for funds, which totaled $15,700 and four citizens reviewed the applications and came up with the recommendation presented. She stated that all of the applications received met the required criteria and met the matching fund requirement although some reductions were necessary since the funds requested did exceed the funds available. As in past years, the committee considered requests benefiting the Town's youth were considered important and four of the five requests fell into that category and felt that their recommendations were equitable to all of the groups that applied. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to approve the special use permit as presented and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#12. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTTSDALE CONVENTION BUREAU IN THE AMOUNT OF$30,000. J Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 2 of 17 Mr. Nordin said this was a follow-up item based on previous discussions held by the Council. He confirmed that the agreement before the Council was in conformance with all of the terms and conditions previously discussed. The maximum that the Town would be required to pay was $30,000. He noted that this amount had been included in the draft budget for the coming fiscal year submitted to the Council earlier in the week. He recommended approval. Councilwoman Hutcheson MOVED to approve the special use permit as presented and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion,which CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#13. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE FOUNTAIN HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT INCLUDING THE AGREEMENT TO DEED THE 9.9 ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO FOUR PEAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO THE TOWN FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $55,000 TO BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A JOINT USE PLAYGROUND. Parks and Recreation Deputy Director Bryan Hughes covered that staff had been working with the School District staff for the past year to fmalize an agreement for the transfer of approximately 10 acres adjacent to Four Peaks Elementary School/Administration Building. He reviewed the highlights of the agreement: Revise the IGA regarding use of the land between the two parties—This was done in 2000. • Determine that the land would be transferred to the Town of Fountain Hills for municipal recreation purposes use only. • Both parties would develop joint use of the playground area. Both parties would agree on design and share costs. • Wireless communication agreement allowing towers to be built on the Four Peaks Neighborhood Park light poles and an agreement to share the revenues generated. Mr. Hughes summarized that the Town would be receiving ten-acres for a small commitment of the$55,000 to help build the playground in time for the 2001-02 school year. It also allowed for the development of Four Peaks Neighborhood Park Phase II at whatever time the Town had the funds to do so. Staff recommended approval of the agreement and acceptance of the land from the School District. • Vice Mayor Wyman MOVED to approve the memo of understanding as presented and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#14. CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AND BARCLAY GROUP. Mr. Farrell stated that the principal term and condition of this agreement had not changed, which remained at $989,000. Some of the grammatical issues of the first agreement had been updated and clarified and for the first time there was the actual assignment and identification of Target Corporation as the receiver of the funds. He pointed out that the basic program worked the same way. He stated that the funds would start to accumulate when the anchor tenant was open for business and would be analyzed and distributed on a quarterly basis. The total responsibility for the distribution remained with the Town. There was a confidentiality provision on all transaction privilege tax that would have been touched in this agreement. He stated that Dayton Hudson would waive that for the Target store if the other tenants did not, then the Town would be responsible for estimating their sales tax and Target could not object to the estimate. The Town would measure a baseline retail sales category before Target begins operation and compare that to after their operation begins on an annual basis. If there were a decrease in the other revenues that the Town receives in those classifications, then there would be a reduction in the percentage of sales tax that Target would receive from the Town. If there weren't any reduction, Target would continue to be paid at the 50% rate until the $989,000 obligation was filled or until the passage of a specified time period. He summarized that the Town would receive the sales tax first. The Town retains th of the total at a minimum and more if there were to be a decrease in other sales tax revenue. He pointed out that in the transfer of the present agreement under consideration from the preceding agreement, one paragraph (#9)from the previous agreement had Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 3 of 17 been inadvertently omitted regarding Technology Road improvements. He proposed that the language of this paragraph be added back in to the present agreement. He did not think the Target group would object to putting that paragraph back in. Mr. Farrell stated that neither he nor the Town Manager knew if the Target group would object. He stated that staff was recommending that the Council approve the amended and restated economic vrif development agreement. Vice Mayor Wyman MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. Vice Mayor Wyman asked if the funds from the agreement were being directly assigned to Target. Mr. Farrell replied yes. Vice Mayor Wyman said he understood the changes were made for financial reasons. He expressed concern as to whether or not there would be a Target and he asked for assurance from the Barclay Group. Councilwoman Fraverd asked how Barclay felt about the missing paragraph. Ralph Pew,Barclay Group; 10 West Main Street,Mesa He stated as Barclay's representative that they agreed to include the missing paragraph back into the development agreement. They would also recommend that the Council approve the amendment to the agreement. They concur with the brief analysis made by Councilman Wyman as to why and how the funds transfer. Councilman McNeill found this item difficult to think about without thinking about the next agenda item, which had to do with a shorter time period for the commitment to maintain the 100,000 sq. ft. box in which Target would exist. When this item was first before the Council he had voted for the land use aspects of the agreement. He had not been in favor of the expenditure of the$989,000. He felt that the Council was confronted with what had been a long-term commitment from Target under the zoning approval, which had been given. Now the applicant was back before the Council saying that they would like a shorter time period for that commitment (5-year). He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended a 10-year commitment. He questioned if the commitment was being reduced then perhaps the Council should consider reducing the amount of the financial commitment to , t) be made by the Town. • Mr. Pew responded that he could provide more of an explanation on the next agenda item, specifically as it related to Target's commitment to open. He stated that he had a letter from Target that he would present to the Council under that agenda item. He also would provide a brief explanation as to why it was necessary to make the amendment to the ordinance. Barclay did not believe that it diminishes Target's commitment to staying open. It reflects the reality that the Town could not(by ordinance) force people to stay in business. He clarified that the economic development agreement and the amendment to section seven were separate items. The only connection between the two was that the trigger date for the commencement of the time period on the 100,000 was the commencement date of the economic development agreement. Otherwise, these two items were not connected and were separate issues. He explained that Barclay had relied on the majority vote of this Council to approve this agreement even though some had said no. They had expended significant energy and resources to bring this project to the place it now was. Mr. Pew stated that the Barclay Group was asking the Council to provide a technical amendment to the EDA (Economic Development Agreement) that would allow them to flow through the funds directly to Target in satisfaction of a private arrangement that the Barclay Group had with Target. Vice Mayor Wyman referred to the proposed amended EDA, Paragraph 2. He read a portion of that paragraph "that payment shall begin on the first day of the month in which Target, not Barclay, qualifies to do business here and commences business with the general public at its place of business. He paraphrased that, as there was no financial commitment unless Target was in place and pulled the business in on which taxes were paid. There had to be a Target there or it would not cost the Town anything. Mr. Pew agreed with that statement. He stated that he and Mr. Eakin were surprised to have someone think that Target would not come in here. Mr. Pew reiterated that they were mentioned in the EDA, Target was the one who wanted the amendment to the ordinance, and he had a Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/Ol Page 4 of 17 letter, which would be presented during the next agenda item from Target that would help put everyone's mind at rest. Councilman McNeill stated he was glad to see Target's name in the document. He referred to Paragraph 8 in the proposed amended EDA. There was a provision that the term of the agreement would continue until the earlier of the date that Target would get the full amount (10-years) or Target unilaterally terminates. He noted that the proposed language for the time period was 5-year or the termination of the EDA, whichever was longer. He said in looking at the unilateral termination right it was totally in Target's control as to when they terminate. Mr. Pew said that was an accurate interpretation of Paragraph 8 and its relationship to Section 7 of the ordinance. He encouraged everyone to think about the EDA as if they were on the receiving end of the $989,000. He did not think anyone would be not anxious to terminate until the $989,000 had been received. Councilman McNeill asked if there had been any changes in the proposal before the Council. Mr. Pew responded no changes were made in the language of Section 7. Vice Mayor Wyman made the observation that if the $989,000 was paid out and that was 50% of the tax that had been accrued and generated by that Barclay site, there they would be doing so well that he could not imagine that they would not want to stay. He asked what it would cost Target to construct the store at that site. Mr. Pew stated that the entire project was estimated at $25 million, but he could not break the Target portion out but it would be a significant portion. Mr. Pew again restated that Target do not intend to pull out. Vice Mayor Wyman asked if Target had a reputation of pulling out. Mr. Pew said no they did not. Councilwoman Hutcheson said that was an interesting statement just made about Target not having a reputation of pulling out. She had read an article in the Tribune where with just one day left to go on their lease agreement they did pull out of one in Tempe. Barclay had agreed to the pullout. Although she understood there were other circumstances involved, it did not build the Council's confidence level to say that Target did not do that because they have. Mr. Pew said she was correct in that instance. He stated that the question put to him had been "Does Target have a reputation for pulling out" to which he had answered no. He said that of all the large box retailers especially in Arizona, Target had been the most consistent of those leaving stores open. He reiterated that no one could give the Council a 100% guarantee that Target would open the store and stay there for 30-years. He said they were doing the best they could to lay the path for good things to happen: He felt that what the Council was groping was for him to find a way to give them a guarantee. He said that absolute guarantees did not exist, but they had given the Council everything as close to that point as they possibly could. Councilwoman Hutcheson pointed out that he was giving the Council a guarantee for 5-years. Mr. Pew said if read in the worst-case scenario that would be true. The ordinances that exist today require the 100,000-sq. ft. to remain physically intact in perpetuity. He noted that Target could open and close 2-years from now, as Target could not be forced to stay open. He explained that the Barclay Group was asking the Council to do was to amend the ordinance so that they could get Target here. It was hard for Target to buy that property and say that they have to have 100,000-sq. ft. forever. He noted there might be a time when that can't be done and with the condition the way it is, that 100,000-sq., ft. building would stay vacant until this Council or the Council's predecessor Council decided to release that condition and let someone lease it in smaller spaces. He said Barclay was not asking for a 5-year commitment only to make it more reasonable on that stipulation so that Target can come here and open a store. Councilwoman Fraverd stated that the Council needed to take the time to look at what was best for the Town. She felt uncomfortable voting on the EDA because she did not know what was going to happen on the next agenda item. She said the Council would have to take a hard look at the next agenda item to see what Barclay was asking for. She was not sure, even after talking with him this morning, as to what it was they were going to ask for. Councilwoman Fraverd admitted her comfort level was very low. Mr. Pew confirmed that they would be asking for exactly what was listed in the staff report. He stated that they would not be asking the Council to tweak the language. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if Barclay would be back before the Council with a request to change the language at a future time. Mr. Pew did not think he would be back with that request, but he could not guarantee the Council that there wasn't a remote possibility that it could occur. Neither he nor Mr. Eakin intended to be back as they had a closing scheduled for mid July on this land. He explained that it was critical to move forward on this Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/O1 Page 5 of 17 project. He explained that if the Council were inclined to continue either or both of these items for more deliberation, they would not make their closing date. He stated there would be problems with their seller and there would be a significant problem with delivering it to Target so that they could open in the fall of 2002. He implored ,4011) the Council not to take more time by continuing either of these agenda items. Councilwoman Fraverd stated that now she felt rushed to work within Barclay's timeline. Mr. Pew stated that had not been their intent. He said he could not dissuade her that she might want more time to read that paragraph. He only asked that the Council not take more time and to please vote on the issues tonight. Mayor Morgan asked if Mr. Farrell wrote the agreement. Mr. Farrell responded yes. Mayor Morgan said that was good enough for her as it had been distributed in the packet. Councilwoman Ralphe focused on the money issue. She was inclined to vote no again because if it was wrong originally to take almost$1 million worth of taxpayer money and slide it into the pockets of one or two businesses, it was wrong now. Councilman Kavanagh asked for clarification from the Town Attorney as to what the small changes were that the Council was being asked to vote on. Mr.Farrell reiterated the changes in the amended agreement: • Identified Target as the assignee and specifically stated that Target Corporation must open on the premise. • Barclay had agreed to step aside from their rights in the agreement. • Paragraph#9 from the original agreement would be added to the amended agreement. • The effective date was upon execution of the agreement with the payment beginning on the first day of the month in which Target Corporation was open for business. Councilman Kavanagh concluded that these changes did not give either Barclay or Target more wiggle room to put one over on the Town but tighten the Town's control over the applicants. Mr. Farrell agreed and restated that the agreement would not kick in unless Target,not another retailer, opens a store there. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilman McNeill- aye Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye Mayor Morgan- aye Councilman Kavanagh- aye Councilwoman Ralphe— nay Vice Mayor Wyman - aye Councilwoman Fraverd- nay The motion CARRIED on a vote of 5—2. AGENDA ITEM#15. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION TO REZONE 29.24± ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED SOUTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD, WEST OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF LASER DRIVE BY AMENDING SECTION 7 OF THE "C-2 PUD" ZONING DISTRICT AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 00-06,CASE NUMBER Z2001-02. Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Director Valder reviewed that on April 6, 2000, the Council passed Ordinance 00-06, which approved the Target PUD, which was a C-2 PUD. The reason that the Town chose to utilize the PUD was certain changes were desired to provide more control. A tailored list of uses was included along with a list of prohibited uses. Section 7 of that PUD included language that would provide for a Target like store to locate there. The text required the major anchor tenant to be a 100,000-sq. ft. facility and the minor anchor tenant(s) to be 20,000-sq. ft. each. The Town could not put in a specific store name but could require that physical space be left at that size for perpetuity. There had not been language included for a date at which those spaces could be physically split. He explained that within the last month or two Barclay Group had applied to amend Section 7 of Ordinance 00-06. He referred to his staff vait) Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 6 of 17 report where he described three examples of Section 7. The first example was the language for which the Barclay Group originally asked, the second version was what the Planning and Zoning Commission was recommending the Council approve, and the last version of Section was the language that staff and the applicant worked out last week. ,r The first example referenced the EDA and it stated that as long as the EDA was in effect, the major anchor tenant could not be physically split. It removed the language that prohibited the physical splitting of the minor anchor tenant(s). The subsequent versions of that language did not require that the minor anchor tenant requirement of 20,000-sq. ft. be left intact. When the Planning Commission reviewed that language and expressed concern that there wasn't a minimum time period that the Target Store/or major anchor tenant would have to be left in its minimum 100,000-sq. ft. size. The Commission had suggested that the reference to the EDA be eliminated and a simple 10-year minimum be put into place. Last week the applicant and staff were looking for compromise. It was understood that the Planning Commission wanted to have some minimum time period and had talked about a five-year minimum but ultimately recommended ten years. Staff felt that having no minimum would be unacceptable to the Council and that it would be reasonable to include a 5-year minimum. If the Target store were to make this initial investment in the project then they would probably be willing to make that minimum time commitment in any event. He reviewed the text in this version of Section 7 before the Council for their consideration. He read the text as it read in Ordinance 01-10. He stated that the second sentence clarifies what physically subdivided means. Director Valder explained that Target stores like other larger retailers often sublet pieces of their store to a franchised restaurant or separate jewelers or things like that. Barclay wanted to ensure that when Target came in and wanted to operate their store as they did in other locations that there wasn't some zoning interpretation later that would prohibit that. He stated that was never staff's intention but Barclay wanted to clarify that issue. He said that staff was not concerned with the inclusion of that second sentence and was consistent with how they would have applied the Town regulations anyway. Director Valder noted that the effective date included in Ordinance 01-10, Section 2, stated that it would not become effective until the EDA was recorded. He explained the reasoning as there was language in Section 7 that used language from EDA as a trigger and it wouldn't make sense if there weren't an EDA in place. He proposed the scenario of the Target Store failing and the likelihood that a future Town Council might mandate that the storefront be left vacant for an extended period of time because the Town staff would strictly enforce the proposed language in Section 7. Staff felt that it was unlikely that a future Council would not make some modification to the language. He suggested that if the Council were comfortable with the 5-year minimum, then the Council should approve Ordinance 01-10. Councilwoman Hutcheson asked what would happen if the project was built and instead of taking the EDA money nobody went into that 100,000-sq. ft. box. Was the Council looking at an empty 100,000-sq. ft. box? She questioned if the council would then be placed in the position of deciding if the building stayed empty or permit the space to be subdivided providing for the possibility of strip mall there. Director Valder agreed that there was some risk on the Town's part in this. Councilwoman Hutcheson wanted to hear assurances that this would not happen from the applicant. Mr. Pew responded to the concern. It was their view that there were two trigger issues that the Council should consider: • One: How can Target be forced to build the facility? • Two: Once Target does build, how can Target be forced to stay in business for an extended period of time? Mr. Pew pointed out that the Council had done all they could do to address these issues. Mr. Pew said the Council could feel some comfort that it would be Target because the Council had approved a zoning case subject to a specific site plan. That site plan had an exhibit, which was attached to the zoning ordinance and that site plan must be built, of which the footprint was that of a Target building. The other big box builder users do not build that size or that configuration. So the only way that the construction could start on that site would be if a building that the council approved were to get built. That was the first control mechanism that the council had in making sure that it is Target that is located there. He then addressed the issue of "Was Target coming to Fountain Hills". He Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 7 of 17 presented the letter from Mr. John Grimes, the regional real estate manager for the Target Corporation. Mr. Pew read the letter, which confirmed Target's commitment to open their store in Fountain Hills. Mr. Pew felt that this letter from Mr. Grimes again established Target's commitment to opening a Target Store in Fountain Hills along with the site plan that requires the building to built according to the way the Council had approved it, which provided the Council with the first level of control. Mr. Pew addressed the issue of how to control and force Target to stay in business. He expressed that the straight answer was it couldn't be done. Unfortunately, no matter how the ordinance was originally written, the Town could not force Target to stay in business. What had happened when the ordinance had been adopted the first time, he and Mr. Eakin were so focused on convincing everyone that Target was really coming and the Town feeling spirited about the issue along with the two referendums, that when the 100,000-sq. ft. language came in and they said fine. At that time the Barclay Group felt that they could live with that size limit on the major anchor with the 20,000-sq. ft. on the grocer because they were coming. The thought of adopting an ordinance to require that 100,000-sq. ft. to stay there in perpetuity, although the Council might have thought about it and considered it, that was not Barclay's focus. When the ordinance found its way into to set of due diligence documents for the Target people to review and consider before closing escrow, Target had a problem with the language in Section 7. Mr. Pew explained that when he attended the Planning Commission meeting he did not have the authority to negotiate and deal with anything. He had to stand in front of the Planning Commission and plead that they adopt an ordinance that didn't have a time limit as it was tied to the EDA. He explained that was why the commission put a time limit in the ordinance of 10-years, because he could not offer them anything else. Mr. Pew stated that after that meeting and between then and now, they've had discussions with Target and Town staff. He felt that the ordinance was now written in a way that would give the Town some assurance. He reiterated that the building must be 100,000-sq. ft., for the longer of 5-years from the commencement of the EDA or the termination of the EDA. He hoped that the Council would not look at this as Target would leave in 5-years. He argued that Target would only leave if the situation did not work in Fountain Hills. He noted that everyone in the council chambers and the citizens wanted this to work. Mr. Pew stated that Barclay had given the Council everything they could in order to make Target happen. He encouraged the Council to support the amendment to the ordinance and he assured them that Barclay was not trying to pull a fast one on anyone. He restated that the second sentence was a clarification for Target purposes because of the way Target does business. Councilwoman Hutcheson asked if the agreement in place that no certificate of occupancy would be issued until Target was opened. Director Valder answered yes under Section 8 of Ordinance 00-06. No one would open prior to Target opening. Vice Mayor Wyman made the observation that the council could require the applicant to sign an agreement that stated they would stay in business in perpetuity but the courts would set it aside because a business could not be forced to that kind of thing. He summarized the situation as being that the Barclay and Target people had come to the Council and say that they were going to build and open in Fountain Hills; but because they knew the ratified perpetuity requirement would not stand up in a court and they knew of the Town's concerns with regard to whether or not the building would be a Target store and that they would be in business, Barclay and the Target people had addressed the issue by coming up with this proposed ordinance language in order to accommodate those concerns. Mr. Pew said that Vice Mayor Wyman's interpretation was accurate. Councilwoman Ralphe pointed out that when it came to amending zoning, the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Commission became important to her. She noted that the Commission had recommended a 10-year period. She asked why she should not listen to the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Pew replied that what the commission tried to do was find a date certain rather than the duration of the EDA. Since the Planning Commission did not have the EDA in front of them, and since it was not within the Commission's jurisdiction to read it, approve it, or vote on the EDA, the Commission was asking how could they put a time limit on this based upon an agreement that they had not read or were a party to and not seen the amendment. The Planning Commission felt out of it at that point, as they did not have the authority as the Council did to look at both issues. The Planning Commission was groping for a date. He stated that Barclay had freely talked about a date with the commission (5-year or 10-year). Vlej Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 8 of 17 At that time, Mr. Pew admitted that he could not agree to anything but the term of the EDA that night. If he had had the authority that night to make some type of an arrangement as made in this ordinance now before the Council, there might have been some commissioners in support of that. He noted that the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to vote on the proposed language before the Council in this ordinance because he could not offer it to them. He knew that Target could not live with the 10-year time limit, so Barclay proposed to staff that the longer or 5-years for the EDA, which would likely be somewhere between 5 and 10-years. Vice Mayor Wyman stated he had a great deal of respect for the Planning and Zoning Commission but he also held a great deal of respect for the Town staff. Town staff had suggested that maybe 5-years would be a good compromise. Director Valder confirmed that was true. Mr. Nordin amplified that staff never intended this issue to be any kind of decision that the Council would have to make to like staff or the Planning Commission. Staff was aware of what the Planning and Zoning Commission had in front of them and what they did not have in front of them. Mr. Nordin confirmed that Mr. Pew was correct when he said that he did not have the authority at that point in time. He explained that staff met with Mr. Pew and Mr. Eakin and one of the first questions asked was "Do you have any authority to do anything, Ralph"? Mr. Nordin said that it did the Planning and Zoning Commission a disservice to suggest that they could have done anything other than what they did. Staff just had more information than the Planning Commission had at that time. Staff had the ability to arm-twist Mr. Pew and Mr. Eakin in more of an affective way when they met with them. Councilman Kavanagh noted everyone had to agree that there was no way to prevent Target from leaving if they economically can't stay. He said the Council was not trying to protect against that, as there wasn't any prevention for that. He felt that the Town was trying to protect against a double cross and/or a bad faith withdrawal. It was his understanding that there were deed restrictions against this property that would not allow a Kmart or a Wal-Mart there. The Council did not have to worry about a bait and switch there plus he did not think the Barclay Group would do that. The other consideration was an early bad faith pull out by Target and he did not think that was an issue because no one puts up $25 million dollars, all this time and effort, and then for non-economic bad faith reasons pulls out in a year or two. Councilman Kavanagh felt the 5-year limit was reasonable as well as Target's 4810, commitment. He reminded the Council that they had taken actions in the past by approving building permits and site plans with far less concrete commitment than seen tonight. Councilman McNeill had been concerned that after 5-years, the limitation of this restriction to just a 5-year period would allow the 100,000-sq. ft. space to be split up into multiple spaces. At that point the Town would have a totally different project from what the community had envisioned. That type of strip mall would directly compete with the businesses that would be promoted in the downtown area. He noted that everyone felt that a Target would not be in conflict with the downtown development efforts. If Target went away in just 5-years, for whatever reason, he would find it troubling. He said it was becoming clear to him it would be a futile gesture to impose some number higher than 5-years. Mr. Pew said that the EDA was providing an economic incentive to Target. Target terminating the agreement without a full payout was not very likely. Target would want as much of that money as possible so terminating early was not a likely event and was not a very big risk. He urged the Council to think about the fact that Barclay brought the Target Corporation to Fountain Hills. He asked them to look at their reputation and history and that was a little bit of what the Council was voting on. Mr. Pew reiterated that Target had a good track record in Arizona with very infrequent closings within the state. He asked the Council to give the Target Corporation some benefit of the doubt. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the Target Corporation made substantial contributions to local charities. Mr. Pew stated that Target had an excellent history of participating in the community by giving to charities and becoming involved in community events. Mayor Morgan stated positive thinking breeds positive actions and negative thinking breeds negative actions. She Le would prefer to think of the Target venture in a positive light. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 9 of 17 Councilwoman Fraverd asked if Mr. Pew had discussed the 5-year limitation with the Target Corporation. Mr. Pew confirmed that Target had agreed to this condition. Chris Brent, resident on Ironwood Not sure Target will make a go of it in Fountain Hills and he asked what the people who would replace the Target Corporation would provide to the community money wise. He said since the Town was going to reduce the time requirement from 10-years to 5-years, what was Target going to offer the Town. Karen Huske, Greenbriar She expressed concern for the frontage on Shea. Shea was designed to have fast food in the front and a gas station. She pointed out that Mr. Pew did not think it would but could not guarantee that the Target store in the back could go away. She wanted the Council to think about what would become of the building if Target leaves. She proposed that a few design changes in the front could help. Bob Tripp,Tombstone He asked where the 20,000-sq. ft. minor store requirement was. He asked for a list of other stores for the site. He expressed concern that in Feb. '99 that Barclay had stated they had the commitment from Target,but now it seemed that commitment had been made after the Apr. '00 approval. He noted that this would be the most highly visible project in the Town. He stated the Council would not get a second chance to make the project right and they would be remembered for this project, success or failure, than they would be for the mountain issue or the fountain renovation. Dave Combs,Planning and Zoning Commissioner(Brantley) He felt that if Target was committed to the project that they should have sent their representative and not just a letter. He urged the Council to stay with the 10-year commitment. Jerry Kirkendol, Cameron Ct. He reminded the Council that the Scottsdale Council lost the Coyotes because they kept putting things off and making things harder and harder for the developer. He stated the majority of the Town's citizens voted for the Target and they would be extremely upset if they don't get it. He stated that the Council needed to make a decision as Target and Barclay had made a fair presentation. Bill McGivern,Monterey He was not in favor of the project. He felt that Target's benefit should be reduced directly proportionally to the subleased space. He was surprised to learn about the deed restrictions that prohibit a Kmart or Wal-Mart. Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 8:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#16. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-10 REZONING 29.24±ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED SOUTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD, WEST OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF LASER DRIVE BY AMENDING SECTION 7 OF THE "C-2 PUD" ZONING DISTRICT AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 00-06,CASE NUMBER Z2001-02. Vice Mayor Wyman MOVED to approve Ordinance 01-10 as presented and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. Councilwoman Ralphe asked Director Valder if there was anything in the proposed design of the project that staff felt could be improved upon and if there were could they be traded for what this company was requesting from the Town. Director Valder said he was comfortable last April with the elevation and site plans presented. He stated that there were stipulations for landscaping requirements that met the heavy TCCD regulations. He acknowledged that the signage had been worked out as well as the parking lot lighting standards. He did not have anything else 441) that would, even in a minor way, make it look nicer. He stated that staff was sticking rigorously to the elevations Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6//01 Page 10 of 17 that the council had approved. Director Valder said that the site plan would need to be nearly identical to what the Council had approved. He pointed out that staff had made some tweaks to minor things in the subdivision improvement plan phase of the project. Director Valder observed that the he did not have any further changes he wanted to see made. Councilwoman Ralphe said that she was basing that question on dissatisfactions expressed by the public. Councilwoman Hutcheson said her comfort level increased a little because no one could pull a Certificate of Occupancy until the Target was open. She now understood that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not have the opportunity to see the 5-years or the EDA whichever was longer. She felt that the EDA might be longer and would run seven or eight years. She hoped that in 5-years that the Town would have significant progress on the downtown development plans that would be different than what was found in a strip mall and more on the order of boutiques and smaller shops that would not locate in a strip mall. She was trying to balance out in her mind the worst-case scenario of having Target leave after 5-years. Would the downtown be in a successful state of progression so as anything that might go out on Shea wouldn't conflict? She was hesitant not to support this because the EDA might very well run more than 5-years. Councilman McNeill pointed out that the 5-year period would not start until the Target store opened. The EDA would kick in at that date, approximately October of 2002. Councilwoman Fraverd expressed disappointment by the compromises that the Council was forced to make. She and the residents were disappointed that there wasn't a grocery store. She asked that Barclay try to work towards providing an AJ's grocery store in the future date at that site. She felt that the residents would appreciate it. Councilwoman Fraverd said that kicking the time limit down to 5-years was another disappointment for her. If it could have read 10-years or longer, she would have felt better about this. She understood the 5-years was a commitment to get things going. Councilwoman Fraverd hoped the downtown would be up and running by then and the Council would be able to look at something different should Target not be able to make. She stated that she would reluctantly support this. Councilwoman Fraverd did not want to see Barclay back asking for any other changes, as she would not support them. Chris Brant, Ironwood He asked that the issue of the 3-acre roof be addressed to see if something more attractive could be done. Bob Tripp,Tombstone He asked about the April '00 approval had shown a 42 ft. elevation and he understood the Town's zoning showed that the elevation should be 32 ft. He asked why there was a difference. Director Valder stated that the Town's regulations,regarding the height,were not modified at all. Jim Myczek,Firebrick(owner of Grapeables) He asked if there was a listing of other businesses committed to coming into the Target center. He wanted to know what they were. He was concerned about competition for the developing downtown. Chris Hall, 15215 E. Red Rock He stated he owned the bicycle shop in the Bashas Center. He was not worried about the competition that Target might generate. He questioned if there was an existing list of businesses intending to join the Target store. He stated that he had been approached to move his business to the Target center. He felt that Council should be concerned with the type of small businesses that would be coming in rather than Target going out of business. He asked that a list be made available to the Council of the businesses recruited to this point to join Target in that center. Councilman Kavanagh said that in addition to the convenience that Target would bring to Fountain Hills was the issue of the much needed sales tax revenue. With respect to downtown business it should not be forgotten that 1/10t of one percent of every dollar of sales tax revenue taken in would be fed back into the downtown business district to improve it. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 11 of 17 Councilwoman Fraverd asked if there was an update on what stores going into the project. Mr. Pew replied that the tenants that had committed were: Pier 1, Sleep America, and Famous Footwear. Ross was currently completing their market study. Councilwoman Ralphe asked if there were any lease commitments at this time. Mr. Pew said a few of the leases had been signed and most of the others were in the negotiation and finalization stage. A roll call vote was taken with the following results. Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye Councilwoman Fraverd - aye Councilman Kavanagh- aye Mayor Morgan - aye Vice Mayor Wyman - aye Councilman McNeill - aye Councilwoman Ralphe— nay The motion CARRIED on a vote of 6— 1. The Mayor called for a five-minute recess at 8:20 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#17. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS TO ALLOW SWIMMING POOLS AND POOL ENCLOSURE WALL/FENCES TO ENCROACH INTO STREET SIDE-YARD SETBACKS IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET, CASE NUMBER Z2001-02. Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Director Valder reviewed the issue and reminded the Council that this issue had been before them on two other occasions. This request was originally generated through the wishes of a property owner who had a home that had been constructed prior to the Town's increase of the street side yard setback. He stated that this home was in an R1-10 zoning district. He described the house as having a 10-ft. street side yard, where the current regulation was now 20-ft. The applicant would like to construct a swimming pool and a pool enclosure fence/wall at the same 10- ft. setback that the house currently observed. Director Valder listed the applicant's three options. 1. Obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment. 2. Construct the pool elsewhere on their lot. 3. Ask the Town Council to change the zoning regulation in order that they could put the pool where they wanted it. Director Valder pointed out that at the first meeting when the Council had considered initiating the amendment, he had provided the Town Engineer's comments. Once the Council initiated this item, he had written this change in such a way that if any Engineering related issues were present, the Town Engineer would have the ability to reject the wall or the swimming pool application. He confirmed that the Town Engineer's language was included under Paragraph 4. Director Valder stated that the amendment had been publicly noticed. On May 24, 2001,the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and they recommended that the Council deny this ordinance on a vote of 4—2. He explained that if the Council desired to allow swimming pools and pool enclosure walls/fences to be built within this setback area on corner lots and in a manner that would minimally affect other properties in Town,they should approve Ordinance 01-11. Councilwoman Hutcheson asked if the applicant met all the criteria of Paragraph #4. Director Valder said he thought that they would,but the Town Engineer had not reviewed the application. Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 8:34 p.m. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/Ol Page 12of17 AGENDA ITEM#18. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-11 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS TO ALLOW SWIMMING POOLS AND POOL ENCLOSURE WALL/FENCES TO ENCROACH INTO STREET SIDE-YARD SETBACKS IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET, CASE NUMBER Z2001-02. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to approve Ordinance 01-11 as presented and Vice Mayor Wyman SECONDED the motion. Councilwoman Hutcheson said she had physically looked the site and she had been surprised. She stated that normally she was not in favor of "spot zoning" and heavily weighed the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission in her decisions. Councilwoman Hutcheson felt that the Council would be facing some situations in the future where houses built before some ordinance changes had been made would create problems for owners wanting to do improvements and place them in a terrible bind. She noted that there was a mechanism in place to deal with this situation,but she admitted it was a difficult process because of the mandated conditions. Councilwoman Hutcheson described the property as the house was clearly designed to have pool on the portion of their flat backyard outside their great room where there was an existing wall that was within the now unapproved setback. She explained that the 31/2' high wall was not bothering anyone's sight. Councilwoman Hutcheson confirmed that the applicant had room to move the pool site to a side area but that area was next to a garage that did not have any windows and it was on the side of the lot that sloped requiring it to be retained and fenced. She felt that was silly. Since there weren't any discretionary provisions in the ordinances the only thing that came to her mind would be to do something such as "spot zoning". Councilwoman Hutcheson acknowledged that even with the proposed amendment currently before the Council,the wall would have to be moved,just not moved to the extent that it would have to be without this amendment. Her preference would be to allow the applicant to add on to their 31/2' wall, but she understood that couldn't happen. She felt this amendment would help the applicant. She suggested that at some point the Town would need to build in some discretion for the community development director regarding some of these ordinances. Particularly since Le the Council would be faced with the fact that many houses were older now and the new owners would want to repair and/or improve them. Councilwoman Hutcheson pointed out that some of the ordinances would be 'prohibitive. Councilwoman Fraverd pointed out that she would not be supporting this. She expressed concern that it would set a precedent for "spot zoning". She noted that individuals come to the Council to help solve problems that could perhaps be solved by a different method. Councilwoman Fraverd stated that there might be other individuals in the future that would use this ordinance and it would not be appropriate. She agreed that if there was a way to allow the community development director some discretion, that might be more appropriate method. She did not want everyone who wanted some relieve from the Town's ordinances coming to the Council asking that ordinances be revised. Councilman McNeill agreed with Councilwoman Fraverd. He felt this change would have general applications. Councilman Kavanagh said he did not think of this as spot zoning but as the removal of a sweeping generalization law, previously passed, that harmed people. This change acknowledged that the Town realized that they had taken away a lot from the public and in some cases it was ok to build between the 10 ft. and 20 ft. "no man's land" if certain criteria were met. Councilwoman Ralphe expressed concern for passing zoning modifications that would benefit one property owner or only a small number of property owners. L Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 13 of 17 Bill Vandervort, 16613 Kim Drive(applicant) He pointed to the fact that 50 similar cases had been turned down and his was the 51st case. He noted that no other mechanism existed to address this problem other than that of coming to the Town Council. He reiterated that this j was not a case of"spot zoning". A roll call vote was taken on the original motion, which included the amendments with the following results. Councilwoman Fraverd- nay Councilman Kavanagh- aye Councilwoman Ralphe— nay Vice Mayor Wyman - aye Councilman McNeill- nay Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye Mayor Morgan- aye The motion CARRIED on a vote of 4—3. AGENDA ITEM#19. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION TO PERMIT AN AUTOMOBILE FUEL DISPENSING STATION AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE "C-2" ZONING DISTRICT, PROPOSED FOR THE FOUNTAINS CAR WASH, LOCATED AT 17115 E. SHEA BOULEVARD, AKA FINAL REPLAT 704,LOT 3A,CASE NUMBER SU2001-03. Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Senior Planner Dana Burkhardt stated that gas stations were now required to obtain a Special Use Permit(SUP)due to the potential situation of being inundated with gas sales along Shea Boulevard and/or throughout the Town. He discussed the proposed changes to the applicant's building and displayed photos on the overhead. He asked the Council for direction for what basis a SUP would be denied for a gas facility, as there wasn't anything criteria defined in the ordinance. He noted there had not been any public opposition and that the only objection had come from MCO Properties. Mr. Burkhardt stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission were recommending approval with stipulations. • Mr. Burkhardt read through the ten stipulations noted in his staff report. He announced that there was already an amendment to Stipulation #3. The C-2 Zoning District allowed for 100-sq. ft. of sign area and the applicant was requesting to utilize the allowable signage as stated in the C-2 Zoning District, not the 78 sq. ft. as listed in the staff report. Mr. Burkhardt stated that with respect to Stipulation #4, the applicant was requesting that the hours of operation for the convenience store be from 5 a.m. to midnight with the car wash hours of operation remaining as listed in the staff report. Councilman Kavanagh referred to the signage issue. He asked if this stipulation restricted the use of neon signs. Mr. Burkhardt said no, that it would revert to the zoning ordinance. Director Valder inserted that if the Council wanted to make that a stipulation they were free to do so. Councilman Kavanagh said he would like to restrict the use of neon signs. Councilman Kavanagh discussed that he would like to be more liberal on the hours of operation as they should be economically feasible and the business should not be put at a competitive disadvantage. He asked if Stipulation#7 would prevent the proliferation of sandwich signs along the road. Mr. Burkhardt responded yes. Director Valder explained that temporary off premise signs, which was the technical term for the A-frame signs, were not permitted within the Shea right-of-way whatsoever. He also pointed out that A-frame signs were not permitted outside of rights-of-way. Councilman Kavanagh proposed another stipulation. Prohibit those "bell" hoses that indicate a car was on the drive. He felt the sound would disturb the people in the area. Mayor Morgan stated that she thought that it was done only in older stations. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 14 of 17 Mr. Nordin pointed out that Councilman Kavanagh had made several points in his discussion that would potentially change the existing stipulations. He noted that Mr. Burkhardt had indicated that the applicant might ask the Council to consider other alterations in the stipulations all of which the Council could do just not in the public Ilbw hearing. He reminded the Council each change would need to be done by individual motions. Councilman McNeill addressed the guidance request made by Mr. Burkhardt as to how the issuance of permits should be treated. He commended Mr. Burkhardt for obtaining Scottsdale's standards and applying them where appropriate. He reiterated that when the Council had looked at imposing the SUP requirement for fuel dispensing stations, he had been looking for an opportunity for the Council to look at whether or not it was an inappropriate use in the area and consistent with other uses that already existed in the area. He stated that this was one of the best looking gas stations that he had seen. He did not see any reason not to move forward. Tom Cosgrove, 2401 N. 24th Street,Phoenix(attorney for the applicants) He distributed a petition signed by 59 of the Fountain Car Wash patrons yesterday in support of this application. He explained that these were neighbors and business people from the community and they wanted to see this car wash become a full service car wash so they would be able to fill their gas tanks when they came in for the wash and detail services. He stated that every other full service car was in the valley allowed people to fill up their tanks on site. It was only because of a quirk that gasoline was not put into this station originally. He explained that the applicant wanted to only add something that had been missing from the original concept. As far the pumps were concerned, there were to be only eight. Mr. Cosgrove restated that the car wash hours would remain the same 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.,but the request for the convenience/deli operation hours of operation was for 5 a.m. to midnight. He noted that some days they might close as early as 10 p.m. Mr. Cosgrove confirmed that the applicant did not have a problem with the 8' wall requirement. He discussed a letter addressed to the Council from Mr. Hank Lickman/MCO. Mr. Cosgrove stated that Mr. Lickman had put a lot of emphasis on the 12-gas pumps issue and there was only going to be eight. He pointed out that Mr. Lickman's letter had also raised the issue of approval by the Committee of Architecture. Mr. Cosgrove confirmed that he had already talked to this committee and they did not have a problem with this application. He took issue that Mr. Lickman had written this letter especially after hearing that MCO had not yet closed escrow on the Target site. If Mr. Lickman was concerned about the proliferation of gas along this'section of the highway and had not closed escrow, Mr. Cosgrove asked why MCO didn't go back to Target and put a deed restriction on the property against gasoline sales. He felt this was a false issue. Mr. Cosgrove asked the Council to support this application and grant Mr. Francis the right to compete. Councilwoman Fraverd asked for clarification of the interior remodeling. She referred to the staff report, which indicated that the applicant was removing the existing deli and convenience market, but the applicant's letter sounded like they were keeping them. Mr. Cosgrove explained that the applicant was moving a limited convenience deli operation into the existing car wash building. Randy Begere, 15751 Kipling Drive He supported the project and stated that it was consistent with the other uses in the vicinity. He felt it would benefit the community by allowing for some competition in the area. Chris Hall, 15215 E. Red Rock He was in favor of this project. He indicated that the same individual owned both the 4 Sons Mobil and Texaco stations. He felt that Town residents were being price gouged and some competition would help bring the cost of the other facilities down a little. Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 9:20 p.m. L Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/0l Page 15 of 17 AGENDA ITEM#20. CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION TO PERMIT AN AUTOMOBILE FUEL DISPENSING STATION AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE "C-2" ZONING DISTRICT, PROPOSED FOR THE FOUNTAINS CAR WASH, LOCATED AT 17115 E. SHEA BOULEVARD,AKA FINAL REPLAT 704,LOT 3A,CASE NUMBER SU2001-03. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to approve the special use permit as presented and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion. Councilman Kavanagh AMENDED the motion to prohibit the use of neon signs anywhere outside the building or in any window of the building and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the amendment, which CARRIED on a vote of 6— 1. Mayor Morgan cast the nay vote. Jeff Francis, 15741 Cactus Drive(applicant/operator) He requested that the Council approve their use of the allowed signage for this zoning district. He stated that he did not have a problem with the neon signage stipulation. He pointed out that the only neon sign that they had ever had was an open sign. He asked for clarification that sign was not permitted. Councilman Kavanagh said it was not. Mayor Morgan asked if the Council was seriously considering no neon signs (open/closed). She questioned how the public would find out if the business was open or closed if they were prohibited. Councilman Kavanagh said that patrons would see lights on at the gas pumps. Mr. Francis stated that most businesses in Town did have an open sign and as far as their business was concerned he did not feel that they had gone overboard with using neon signs. He acknowledged that he would not oppose that condition. Mr. Cosgrove asked for clarification on the hours of allowed operation for the convenience store. Mayor Morgan called for the vote on the amendment. Mayor Morgan reminded the applicant that each change needed to be completed by separate motion. The amendment CARRIED on a vote of 6— 1, with Mayor Morgan casting the nay vote. Councilman McNeill AMENDED the original motion to restrict the hours of operation for the convenience store to 5 a.m. to 12 p.m. (midnight) and Vice Mayor Wyman SECONDED the amendment, which CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Burkhardt restated that the Council could allow the applicant the maximum signage allowed in that zoning district, which would not exceed 100 sq. ft. of signage. Mr. Nordin asked which stipulation was being discussed. Mr. Burkhardt responded#3. Mr. Nordin stated that the Council had already moved to approve the staff report with the stipulations. He said that if the Council wanted to allow the 100-sq. ft., they would have to amend the stipulation. Director Valder stated that if the Council would like to provide the applicant with 100 sq. ft. of signage as allowed in the C-2 zoning, an amendment could be made to remove stipulation#3 and just allow the signage as permitted by Code. Mr. Nordin simplified the reasoning for the original signage request made by stating that staff had asked the applicant how much signage was needed and the applicant had requested 78-sq. ft. so staff made the request for 80-sq. ft. Mayor Morgan AMENDED the original motion to remove stipulation #3 and Councilwoman Hutcheson SECONDED the amendment, which CARRIED unanimously. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if the applicant was still pursuing an ARCO station. Mr. Cosgrove said no that ARCO had put too many restrictions on turning it into a full service gas station/convenience store. He acknowledged that his client was pursuing other major suppliers who wouldn't require any changes beyond what was seen tonight. Councilwoman Fraverd pointed out that this was the height of poor planning with one gas station right next to another. She agreed they did have a terrific looking station. She stated for the staff's benefit that she 441) Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 16 of 17 was about gas stationed out. Councilwoman Fraverd stated that she did support this application, but she hoped that the citizens could get some relief on the gas pricing. ,,, The original motion including all of the amendments CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#21. CALL TO THE PUBLIC. Jerry Kirkendol, He requested that staff look into the traffic safety issue of no lines separating the traffic. He pointed out that there were no lines down the middle of the streets and it was an accident waiting to happen. He asked for better traffic flow on Ave. of the Fountains near the post office. He noted that Ken Martinez had brought this issue up to the engineering department before but nothing has been done. AGENDA ITEM#22. ADJOURNMENT. Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to adjourn and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By: haron Morgan,Mayor ATTEST: C tti.14A-L Cassie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk • PREPARED BY: X��-t:[.4_ ) Bev Bender,Executive Assistant CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular and Executive Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 7th day of June 2001. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 21st day of June 2001. Cassie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk L Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 6/7/01 Page 17 of 17 J J