HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003.1106.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 6,2003
Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #1 — VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38-
431.03.A.3 FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION FOR LEGAL ADVICE WITH THE ATTORNEY
OR ATTORNEYS OF THE LEGAL BODY.
Councilwoman Ralphe MOVED to convene the Executive Session and Vice Mayor Melendez SECONDED the
motion,which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nichols recessed the Executive Session at 6:15 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#2—RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION
Mayor Nichols reconvened the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m. Following the invocation by Pastor Jim Fitz,
Fountain Hills Community Church,roll call was taken.
ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council:
Councilman Archambault, Vice Mayor Melendez, Councilwoman Stevens, Councilman Kavanagh,
Councilwoman Ralphe, Councilwoman Nicola, and Mayor Nichols. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town
Manager Tim Pickering,Public Works Director Tom Ward, and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Nichols read a Proclamation declaring November 8, 2003, "World Town Planning Day." He read the
Proclamation into the record and stated that the Town of Fountain Hills desired to raise the awareness of all its
citizens regarding local planning efforts and particularly how those efforts benefited the Town Center area of the
Town. He called upon all citizens to support the students of the Town in their efforts to learn about Town
planning and said that it was his honor to proclaim November 8, 2003,"World Town Planning Day."
Councilwoman Nicola advised that the middle school was holding their World Planning Day on Friday and said
that at 12:30 they would do a public presentation on the planning they do for the Town of Fountain Hills. She
stated that she attended the presentation last year, intended to go again this year, and encouraged attendance at
the event. The Mayor stated that he too would be in attendance at the presentation.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCE/PRESENTATION
Dr. Wayne Parker, a Fountain Hills resident who is the Director for Research and Evaluation for the Virginia G.
Piper Charitable Trust, provided a brief presentation on the results of The AdvantAge Survey, which was a
cooperative project between Visiting Nurse Services of New York and The Virginia G. Piper Charitable Trust.
The subjects of the survey were Medicare recipients.
Dr. Parker discussed the senior survey (people above the age of 65 in Maricopa County and nine other
communities) and said that as a new foundation and philanthropy, they were interested in learning about the
needs of seniors in Maricopa County and sharing those results with community agencies. He noted that
Fountain Hills' Senior Services received the results of the survey and felt that the information generated should
be shared. He noted that seniors in Maricopa County, compared to other communities, were doing very well in
terms of health, income, housing and independence. He reported that only 1% of seniors in Maricopa County
said they were unable to get where they needed to go. He added that despite all the controversy about
prescription drugs, only 5% of seniors in Maricopa County said they couldn't afford to get their prescriptions
filled. He said that when asked what services they needed the most, only 2% responded that they needed
prescription drug assistance.
Dr. Parker reported that Fountain Hills' residents reported greater financial stress compared to other County
residents. He noted that the sample was not "top heavy" in terms of income and said that almost 40% of the
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 1 of 32
people surveyed earned under $30,000 a year and 20% made less than $18,000 a year. He commented that
although it would seem that Fountain Hills, being a more affluent community, would have less financial
problems than other communities, the opposite was determined. He stated that the Town's seniors felt much
more "squeezed" economically and added that when they asked seniors County wide whether they had enough
money to take care of themselves for the rest of their lives, only 10% said no. He reported that 35% of the
seniors in Fountain Hills said no and stated that this was surprising since seniors in Fountain Hills were above
average when it came to income. He said that the Town had a relatively low level of poverty yet a high
percentage of seniors stated that they could not make ends meet and were looking for work but unable to find it.
Dr. Parker said that Fountain Hills' residents above the age of 65 had very high housing costs and that was
"squeezing"them. He reported that valley wide, over 80% of the seniors owned their homes and approximately
2/3rds of them had paid them off, but that was not the case in Fountain Hills. He stated that the Town had
seniors with relatively high incomes who were extremely overextended. He said that for Fountain Hills' Senior
Services that would suggest that it would be helpful if the organization was able to locate financial counseling
services for seniors and provide seminars and information on mortgage alternatives, such as low interest and
reverse mortgages as well as job recruitment and employment counseling services. He added that County wide,
almost 13% of the residents were over 65, while in Fountain Hills, approximately 20% were over that age. He
said what that meant to the Council and the Town was that in difficult times, when they needed to increase
revenues,the Town was going to have a much more difficult time getting the people to vote for such things even
when they believed they were necessary. He added that further results of the survey would be forwarded to
Fountain Hills' Senior Services,but thought that these particular findings would be of interest to the Council.
Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Parker for his presentation.
Mayor Nichols introduced Arizona Senator Carolyn Allen who provided a legislative update. She presented
brief background information and discussed ongoing issues and work related to Child Protective Services and
the Department of Corrections.
Discussion ensued relative to low salaries for those employees in view of expected duties;case worker overload;
the importance of identifying a reliable, appropriate funding source to improve those areas; budget shortages;
the fact that there was not room for all of the prisoners at the Department of Corrections and a 400 bed shortage
currently existed; the fact that Oklahoma had a private facility that could accommodate those prisoners and
mixed emotions that existed regarding the safety and ability of the State to oversee and monitor that process;the
fact that a new Director for the Department of Corrections had been hired and her expertise and background;the
importance of preparing prisoners to function in society once they are released and the lack of funding that
currently existed.
Mayor Nichols thanked Senator Allen for her input and encouraged citizens to contact her if they had any
questions.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that two citizens had submitted requests to speak under this agenda item.
Mayor Nichols called upon the speakers to present their remarks at this time.
Wanda Burzala said that she moved to Fountain Hills approximately three years ago and last year attempted to
build an 8-plex on Saguaro Boulevard but financially she met with problems. She stated that she paid the
application and permit fees to the Town, in the amount of$4,867.75 and paid for plan review $3,164.04. She
advised that a year and a half later, she attempted to get her finances together and went back to the Town and
was told that the development fee had increased to$25,696 and she would again have to pay the plan review fee,
another $3,000+ and $4,864.75 for the permit. She informed the Council that she was a single mother and that
�r the purpose of the project was to build a pension plan for herself. She added that she had a spinal disease and in
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 2 of 32
the near future would be crippled and asked the Council for assistance in this matter by not requiring her to pay
the application,permit and plan review fees again.
Mayor Nichols requested that Mr. Pickering meet with Ms. Burzala to discuss her situation.
Phil Gaziano, 14946 E. Sierra Madre Drive, requested that the Council place the property tax and fire district
proposal on the ballot next year. He said he realized that the issues were voted down twice but stated that
perhaps hindsight was 20-20. He discussed the benefits of voter approval of these issues.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nichols read the following consent agenda items
AGENDA ITEM#1 —CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF
10/09/03 AND 10/16/03.
AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-65 ABANDONING WHATEVER
RIGHT,TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINES OF LOT 47, BLOCK 1, PLAT
604A (15221 E.RIDGEWAY DRIVE)AS RECORDED IN BOOK 165F MAPS,PAGE 16 RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA,WITH STIPULATION. EA03-20(BREZNAK).
AGENDA ITEM #3 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2003-66 ABANDONING WHATEVER
RIGHT,TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE AND A PORTION OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 48, BLOCK 1,
PLAT 505C (16819 N. STONERIDGE COURT) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 158 OF MAPS, PAGE 42,
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA,WITH STIPULATION. EA03-21 (CARLSON).
AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO E GROUP, INC.
FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR FOUNTAIN PARK—PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS.
AGENDA ITEM #5 — CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTENSION OF PREMISE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY HELGA ESSERT FOR GOLF INTERNATIONAL LOCATED AT 10440 INDIAN
WELLS DRIVE. GOLF INTERNATIONAL IS REQUESTING A PERMANENT 400 SQUARE FOOT
EXTENSION OF THE LOUNGE.
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilman Archambault
SECONDED the motion.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilwoman Nicola Aye
Mayor Nichols Aye
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Aye
Vice Mayor Melendez Aye
Councilwoman Ralphe Aye
Councilman Archambault Aye
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0).
AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Mr. Pickering advised that this issue was asked to be placed on a future agenda and said that a Developer
Advisory Committee was established and had worked very hard to provide guidance to the community. He said
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 3 of 32
that lately there had not been any reasons for the Committee to meet and it was the decision of the Council that
the Committee be dissolved.
r„ Edwin Kehe, 16620 N. Agate Knoll, said that he attended a number of the Developer Advisory Committee
meetings and had followed it closely. He discussed membership and the charge of that Committee. He
expressed the opinion that the Committee did not perform the duties it was commissioned to perform and urged
that it be dissolved. He added that when the Committee ventured into the realm of ordinance revision, it
exceeded its authority and said that honorable, well-intentioned people could sometimes do that. He said that if
a need existed for ordinance review, the Council should establish an ordinance study committee comprised of
members who represented a broad spectrum of the population.
Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Kehe for his comments.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED a motion to dissolve the Developer
Advisory Committee.
Councilwoman Stevens commented that she chaired that particular Committee and they identified eleven areas
of concern expressed by the developers and reported those concerns to the Council. She added that it was
always meant to be a committee that addressed developers' concerns. She noted that at the time there were
several ordinances which the development community found very confusing and the permit process was
extremely time consuming for those who applied and for the applicants. She said they worked their way
through nine of the eleven concerns and those in turn went to Planning and Zoning and eventually-to the
Council. She stated the opinion that the Committee followed the appropriate designated process and added that
everything they did involved public hearings and were open to the community. She emphasized that the
Committee itself did not make any decisions, only recommendations,and said that after nine months there was a
concern regarding the direction in which they were headed and they found themselves without an attorney. She
noted that for the last year and a half they had not met. She discussed a meeting she had with the Town
Attorney and said he thought that they should not address the two remaining items and that was why the
dissolution issue was before the Council this evening.
Councilwoman Stevens added that she would like the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission to
know what the two remaining issues were and requested that Town staff pass them on to the Commission. She
also requested that all of the members of the Committee be sent a letter thanking them for their time and effort.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0).
AGENDA ITEM#7—CONSIDERATION OF A LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
MISTO GRILL LOCATED AT 11056 N. SAGUARO BLVD. THE APPLICATION IS FOR A CLASS
12(RESTAURANT)LICENSE.
Mr. Pickering stated that a review was performed and the request was forwarded to the Sheriff's Department,
which came back with a positive recommendation.
It was MOVED by Councilwoman Ralphe, SECONDED Vice Mayor Melendez that the liquor license
application submitted by Misto Grill be approved.
Vice Mayor Melendez asked the applicant Mr. Al Poma to come forward and thanked him for his service to the
community.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Stevens, Mr. Pickering explained that the Vice Mayor had
requested that the item be removed from the Consent Agenda so he could recognize Mr. Poma for his efforts.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7 to 0).
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 4 of 32
AGENDA ITEM#8 — CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR "ADERO CANYON, PARCEL
1," A 23.941-ACRE, 9-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION (AKA EAGLE RIDGE NORTH,
PARCEL 1), WHICH INCLUDES A GRANT OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE
PROPOSED SCOTTSDALE MOUNTAIN ESTATES; CASE#S2002-10.
Senior Planner Dana Burkhardt addressed the Council regarding this agenda item and said that this was the first
parcel in the southern portion of the mountain development formerly known as Eagle Ridge North and currently
known as Adero Canyon. He stated that staff hoped to present one Adero Canyon plat per month as they
attempted to phase in the review for Eagles Nest. He noted that the 9-lot subdivision was located on the
southernmost portion of the mountain plat property. He added that the request included access through a tract in
Adero Canyon Parcel 1 to Scottsdale Mountain Estates (Parcel 1), the applicant's property. He noted that
Scottsdale Mountain Estates was owned by another developer at this time and they requested that MCO
Properties grant access through that parcel. He added that future access was noted on the plats.
Mr. Burkhardt noted that the developer might object to a few of the stipulations relative to the access to the
Scottsdale property and stated that tonight the Council was discussing the curb cut through the right-of-way
access through MCO's property into Scottsdale. He added that based upon the fact that there would be an
impact as a result of the 12 or 13 lots traveling through the Town's right-of-ways, the developer and the Town
agreed to assess the developer traffic impact fees that would normally be assessed at the time of building permit
if they were pulling permits within the Town of Fountain Hills, approximately $7,917, which would be paid up
front. He said that staff recommended approval with the stipulations as listed.
Councilman Kavanagh asked whether this would be the only access to the homes in Scottsdale Mountain Estates
and Mr. Burkhardt responded in the affirmative. He added that there was a small emergency only access just to
the north for one lot. He said that the Town and Scottsdale had an emergency services agreement and police and
fire service would be covered by Scottsdale, and in accordance with the agreement, cross emergency services
would be provided if necessary.
In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh relative to the number of Fountain Hills' islands that
existed in Scottsdale, Mr. Burkhardt said that the only area he was aware of was just south of Hidden Hills,
which had restrictive access from Via Linda. He added that no homes were located on the side of the mountain
that were being serviced by Scottsdale.
Councilman Kavanagh questioned why the Town was not pursuing annexation to gain the benefit of the
development fees since the homeowners would be using all of the Town's services.
Mr. McGuire stated that there needed to be a willing property owner who would sign off on the annexation
agreement and added that he was unsure whether even preliminary discussions had occurred regarding this
possibility.
Councilman Kavanagh commented that this matter should be pursued and asked whether the item should be
tabled to allow discussions to occur. Mr. McGuire said that they could table it and added that it should not take
staff very long to ascertain whether any of the residents would be willing to be annexed into the Town rather
than remain in Scottsdale. He noted that it would also depend on how far down the road they were in terms of
their entitlements.
Mr. Burkhardt commented that the developer was present and reported that they were using Scottsdale sewer
service,which would make it more difficult, but added that they could pursue that if the Council wished.
In response to a question from the Mayor, Public Works Director Tom Ward advised that the issue of
annexation had never come up.
L
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 5 of 32
Councilman Archambault commented on the fact that the homes were using Scottsdale's sewer system and said
if that was true wouldn't all of Adero Canyon be on that same system. Mr. Ward explained that a separate line
was going to be run.
Councilman Archambault said that MCO Properties was unwilling at this time to build Eagle Ridge Drive and
asked if they built part of it and maintained that and then a newer section of the road went in later, what would
be the impact of the road not aging at the same time.
Mr. Ward agreed that the Town would maintain the road from the onset because it was not a gated area, it was a
public road for which the Town would take responsibility. Councilman Archambault questioned whether the
$8,000 impact fee was sufficient for the maintenance of that road until the actual road got built all the way to the
trailhead. Mr. Ward responded that he was unable to speak for the developer about the rest of the road and
could not answer the question at that time. He concurred that $8,000 for street maintenance would not go very
far.
Ms. Bender advised that Daniel Hahn submitted a request to speak and the Mayor asked him to come forward at
this time.
Daniel Hahn, 10882 N. 123`d Street, Scottsdale, the owner of Scottsdale Mountain Parcel A, said they had been
working very hard with MCO on the entire development of Adero Canyon and would continue to do so. He
added that they did not oppose any of the current stipulations and looked forward to working with Mr.Ward and
the Council.
In response to a question from Councilman Archambault on whether they planned to have the entire road
developed at the same time, Mr. Hahn stated that it was his understanding that an agreement existed with MCO
regarding Eagle Ridge Drive. He said all they were looking for was to develop the Scottsdale portion of the plat
and reported that Scottsdale had already reviewed the plat and they were almost completely through the
approval process in that City. He added that they were using the City's sewer system as well and the only thing
they were requesting at this time was access from Eagle Ridge Drive to that property when Eagle Ridge Drive
went in. He said they had no intention of putting the road in and therefore concerns relative to maintenance
costs were moot.
Councilman Archambault asked when they planned to put the access road in and Mr. Hahn reiterated that they
were working with MCO on Adero Canyon and he did not have a timeframe at this time. He added that they
intended to work in succession with their project. He stated that the Council had to speak with MCO regarding
time estimates but he agreed that it should go in as quickly as possible.
In response to a request for clarification from Vice Mayor Melendez, Mr. Hahn stated that all they were asking
from the Council at this time was to develop the Scottsdale section of the plat.
Vice Mayor Melendez said that he agreed with Councilman Kavanagh's remarks relative to the fact that there
were 13 homes located in the Scottsdale area and questioned what would eventually happen with those
properties. He said he agreed that this was an issue and questioned how they could develop the Scottsdale
portion when they were in Fountain Hills.
Mr. Hahn clarified that the City of Scottsdale would approve the platted 13 lots and added that all they were
asking for was access to Eagle Ridge Road.
Councilwoman Stevens questioned who would provide fire and law enforcement services and Mr. Hahn
responded that as stated by Mr. Ward, an inter-city agreement existed. He added that it was his understanding
that there was emergency access on Via Linda for Scottsdale as well.
Councilwoman Nicola stated the opinion that there might be a provision in the statutes that the Town Attorney
could pursue relative to how the Town could properly bill parcels located in Scottsdale but utilizing Fountain
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 6 of 32
Hills' services. She said that this might be important to their financial policy decision regarding concerns
expressed at this time.
Councilman Kavanagh commented on the fact that MCO wanted to develop their section and Scottsdale
Mountain Estates was essentially "piggybacking" for the access. He stated that he did not in any way want to
deprive MCO of their right to develop, but questioned whether an appropriate way to address the annexation of
the Scottsdale section would be to approve this without granting the access to Scottsdale Mountain Estates. He
added that later on the Council could address the issue of annexation.
Mr. McGuire said that he was unsure whether the Town would be able to prevent MCO from granting a private
right of access over their property for the 13-lot subdivision to connect to Eagle Ridge Drive once it was platted.
He added that this was a private access right. He stated that it was his understanding that the purpose for the
platting of Adero Canyon Parcel 1 was twofold, one because it was so far along in the process it didn't make
sense to go through any kind of"hoops" to provide access to this parcel in Scottsdale prior to platting because
the plat was so far along and two was to make sure that there was some mechanism in place to provide access
into the lots. He added that until this evening he had not heard that they had any intention of developing before
MCO developed Adero Canyon Parcel 1 since they did not know whether that would occur any time in the near
future. He noted that this involved extremely hefty infrastructure for nine lots and if they were talking about just
the bottom half of MCO's property, he did not know whether they would want to cover the infrastructure costs
so it might be some time before the rest of the plats came on line.
Councilman Kavanagh asked whether it would be reasonable to approve this without the grant of easement and
then deal with the annexation issue between MCO and Scottsdale Mountain States at a future time. Mr.
McGuire responded that the grant was a private grant of easement between the two private property owners.
Councilman Kavanagh said that he understood that but hoped that MCO would understand the Town's position
that they believed they should get the benefit of the impact fees if they were going to have the impact. Mr.
McGuire commented that easements that would actually be granted were easements so the Town would have
Lie access over it for any type of public utilities if they existed up there and any type of emergency access if a
mutual aid agreement required the Town to provide those services. He explained that there were a number of
different easements involved in this and said that some were easements for the Town for utilities and access and
others were private access easements between the two private property owners to allow people to get in and out
of their homes. He stated that included on the plat was a notation of the private access easement as well as the
public dedications for the public easements.
In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh, Mr. McGuire agreed that the Council's approval would
facilitate the grant of the private easement.
Mr. Burkhardt responded to comments from Councilman Archambault and stated that discussion had occurred
relative to how to get development of their lots without MCO going in. He noted that they were all aware of the
fact that MCO would not be constructing Adero Canyon in the near future and it was left in the hands of the
developer to come up with a solution. He added that as stated by the applicant, they were working with MCO
and noted that Stipulation#1 was basically in compliance with the settlement effort. He said that it would be a
fruitful effort on staff's behalf to try to get access to their parcel. He noted that Scottsdale had emergency
access to this parcel of land. He stated that the approved final plat had a notation on it that stated that future
access through this parcel of land was anticipated.
Mr. McGuire commented that the final super pad plats, the ones that did not have any detailed lots that were a
part of the agreement, included a notation for this access.
Councilman Kavanagh asked if they granted this without the access easements to the Scottsdale section, would
they violate their agreement with MCO. Mr.McGuire responded that the Town was not granting access but was
facilitating a way for MCO to grant access over their property for the 13 lots to get to the Town's public road.
err Councilman Kavanagh said that they could then pass this without the access and not violate the agreement with
MCO. Mr. McGuire stated the opinion that technically this would be correct and added that all that was
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 7 of 32
contemplated in the final plat from the settlement agreement was that there would be access there and since the
Town would not be granting the access, approval of the plat with a notation showing a private easement was
consistent.
Councilman Archambault asked whether Tract I was a greenbelt and was advised that it was simply a
numbering/name change that occurred during the various stages of the process and added that everything else in
the plat was consistent with the preliminary plat, the final parcel plats, and the settlement agreement. He noted
that all of the tracts beyond the access easement would be covered by the Hillside Protection Easement.
Councilman Archambault questioned why this was before the Council at this time if they were not planning on
putting the road in and were going to wait until MCO brought the road through all the way to the trailhead. He
said he didn't see any rush to approve this.
Mayor Nichols stated that the Council did not have enough information to make a decision and indicated that he
would like to continue this item to another meeting.
Mayor Nichols MOVED to continue this item to another meeting and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the
motion,which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (7 to 0).
AGENDA ITEM #9 —DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO REDUCE THE
PERMIT FEES FOR GRAND OPENING AND RIBBON CUTTING BANNERS.
Mr. Pickering stated that at the last meeting, three members of the Council indicated support to place this item
on an agenda for discussion.
Planner Denise Lacey said that staff researched the Town's banner process,the establishment of its fees and the
policies of other municipalities. She briefly outlined the procedure that was followed for a Grand
Opening/Banner permit and noted that after the permit was issued, staff tracked display time to ensure that the
banners were displayed in the manner stated on the permit. She added that if the banners were displayed
incorrectly or left up longer than the permit allowed, staff requested that a Code Enforcement Officer visit the
business and ask that corrections be made. She stated that they were looking at an approximate $35 cost for
staff time,which was probably on the low side.
Ms. Lacey reported that Grand Opening/Banner Permits were a$25.00 flat fee; signs under 32 square feet were
$82.50 and signs over 32 square feet were $165.00. She noted that these were base prices only. She noted that
research was performed on Mesa, Tempe, Gilbert and Scottsdale and said that Tempe and Gilbert's fees were
the closest to Fountain Hills and Mesa and Scottsdale's fees far exceeded their amounts (Mesa $57.50 and
Scottsdale $150.00 to $160.00). She stated that based upon the information presented staff recommended that
the Grand Opening/Banner Permit fee of$25.00 remain in place. She said that the cost was determined and set
by Council in 1994 and 1998, was in line or lower than other municipalities in the area and assisted in covering
the cost of administration/enforcement of the permits. She reiterated that the present cost to process the permit
was$35.00 based upon staff time.
In response to a question from Councilman Archambault, Ms. Lacey noted that the fees shown for the Town of
Fountain Hills were only staffs review fees and the fees listed for the other municipalities were only banner
permit fees and not permanent sign fees or temporary sign permit fees excluding the banners.
Councilwoman Nicola asked whether the other municipalities that charged more money (Scottsdale and Mesa)
allowed the banners to remain up longer, be used more often, or be larger in size. Ms. Lacey advised that it
varied with 28 days being the average amount of time the banners were allowed to remain up. She added that
the Town of Gilbert allowed them to stay up for as long as 60 days but the longer they stayed up, the lower the
fee went. She said if the banner was up for two weeks it cost$50.00 but if it was up one time for 30 days it was
$25.00. She advised that their Code Enforcement staff explained that was because the length of time to check
on them differed and the longer time frame allowed easier processing and monitoring. She reported that the
Town allowed the banners to remain up 14 days for one time only.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 8 of 32
Councilman Archambault questioned the turn around time on the 14-day banners and Ms. Lacey advised that
staff attempted to grant approval on them within a 24-hour period of time.
( Mayor Nichols asked if they eliminated the fee,how much revenue would be lost.
Mr. Pickering responded that staff looked at lowering the fee to $5.00 and that amounted to a revenue loss of
approximately $300 a year. He said that those were estimates only and it would probably be more than that
because of the time needed to go through the processing.
Mayor Nichols expressed the opinion that the businesses in the Town had been assessed enough permit and sign
fees and would like to give them a break and eliminate this fee.
Councilman Kavanagh provided background information relative to this issue and stated that he was approached
by one of the Chamber members in charge of organizing the ribbon cuttings and grand openings. He said that
the Chamber, as a courtesy to new businesses, hosted those events. He noted that the business owner actually
paid a lot more than the current fee because they invariably purchased food and refreshments for people who
turned up at the events. He advised that the Chamber representative thought that it was inappropriate to charge
the new business that they were trying to welcome into the Town a fee and requested that it be nothing.
Councilman Kavanagh said that he thought the request was reasonable and spoke with the Town Manager who
said that when a fee was nothing,people thought they did not have to apply for it and so they did not. He added
that he agreed and they decided upon a nominal fee of$5.00 and the Chamber advised that they would absorb
the$5 fee so the business itself would not pay anything and it would be a nice "Welcome to Town"gesture. He
stated that that was the reason why he proposed this.
Vice Mayor Ralphe commented that she did not understand why the Council would consider lowering the fee
since it was in line with what other municipalities charge, it did not cover costs and staff recommended that the
fee remain at the present level. She added that the Council would be looking at new sources of revenue to cover
expenses and expressed the opinion that it was the wrong time to lower fees and decrease revenue.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Stevens, Ms. Lacey stated that the ordinance was written in such
a manner that a grand opening banner could be used only for the grand opening of a business or new
management and emphasized that they were issued on a one time only basis.
Councilman Archambault asked whether the Town's ordinance contained a banner regulation other than for
grand openings and Ms. Lacey said that the only portion of the ordinance that addressed banners was in regard
to grand openings and the definition just presented.
Councilwoman Nicola noted that a change in location was not allowed and Ms. Lacey clarified that the Town
did allow them to put up a banner if a business changed its location. Councilwoman Nicola commented that this
was then done on a discretionary basis and Ms. Lacey concurred.
Ms. Lacey stated that she very seldom saw a banner permit submitted along with a comprehensive sign plan but
staff did have businesses come in which were using the grand opening signs as temporary signs while awaiting
their permanent signs.
Councilman Archambault expressed the opinion that $25.00 was a nominal fee and added that the fee had not
been increased since 1994 and he had no intention of raising it. He questioned whether a $20 reduction was
really a benefit to the businesses or simply"throwing them a cookie."
Councilman Kavanagh responded that it was a"welcome with a smile"instead of a handout.
Ms. Bender stated that Mr. Frank Ferrara wished to speak at this time and the Mayor asked him to present his
remarks.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 9 of 32
Mr. Ferrara, Executive Director of the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce, speaking on behalf of the
Chamber, spoke in support of the elimination of the fee. He said they were talking about the spirit of the gesture
and not the revenue and emphasized the importance of welcoming new businesses into Town. He noted that the
cliw Chamber provided the businesses with the banners as a service and added the opinion that charging a nominal
$5.00 fee wouldn't make a difference in whether the business owners took the signs down or not because Code
Enforcement would ensure that that happen. He asked that they eliminated the fee and show businesses that the
Town really wanted them to relocate here.
Councilwoman Nicola suggested that in the spirit of cooperation, the permit fees remain unchanged for changes
in ownership, business name or location, but with the purchase of a business license for a new business, the
Town allow one free grand opening banner for a 14-day period of time.
Mayor Nichols apologized for the mixed direction provided by staff and requested that they revisit the issue and
develop recommendations.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that he would like to make a motion to direct staff to develop an ordinance to
eliminate the permit fee for grand opening and ribbon cutting banners.
Mr.McGuire advised that a motion was appropriate since it was direction to staff.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that staff be directed to draft an ordinance change to eliminate, on a one-time
basis, the banner permit fee for grand openings and ribbon cuttings. Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED the
motion.
Councilman Archambault said that a comment was made that it was a token fee or gesture to the businesses
welcoming them to the Town. He pointed out that Scottsdale's fee was $150 and stated the opinion that the
$25.00 fee was a token fee and not an exorbitant amount of money. He added that he would not support the
motion.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilwoman Ralphe Nay
Mayor Nichols Aye
Vice Mayor Melendez Aye
Councilwoman Nicola Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Nay
Councilman Archambault Nay
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
The motion CARRIED BY M AJORITY VOTE(4 to 3).
AGENDA ITEM #10 — PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ORDINANCE 03-20
AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS IN
SECTION 6.08 OF THE SIGN REGULATIONS. CASE#Z2003-08.
Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 8:12 p.m.
Mayor Nichols stated that several people in the audience asked to have five minutes rather than three minutes in
which to present their remarks and were confused as to the process to follow. In addition, some
Councilmembers indicated that they wanted to get input from people regarding any amendments to the Sign
Ordinance. He questioned whether Council wanted to allow the additional time to speak or whether they wanted
L. the people to discuss the amendments as they go through them.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 10 of 32
In response to a question from Councilman Archambault, Mayor Nichols confirmed that his question was
whether they wanted to suspend the rules.
Councilman Kavanagh commented that historically repetition occurred since people speak at the public hearing
and the actual action item where a motion was brought forward. He said his preference would be that people
who wanted to present their comments hold their thoughts until the next agenda item (#11) when the actual
motion would be made. He said at that time he would make a motion to suspend the rules and allow the citizens
to comment on the various amendments that were proposed. He noted the complexity of the issue and stated the
opinion that a significant amount of revisions will be made. He added that he would like to hear brief input on
the changes from the members of the audience, particularly the members of the business community. He said
that although this would be a lengthy process, it was also an important and worthwhile one and worth the time
that would be spent.
Councilwoman Nicola requested that the citizens who asked for the extra time be granted the additional two
minutes and said hopefully that would occur during the public hearing portion and they could then move along
in the action item to make certain amendments. She stated that at this point she would not support enforcing the
three-minute rule.
Councilman Archambault agreed with Councilwoman Nicola's comments and said the citizens should be given
the opportunity to say what they came to the meeting to say.
Councilwoman Stevens asked whether the citizens who wanted extra time had previously contacted the Town
Clerk with their request and the Mayor responded that they asked the Town Clerk tonight for the extra time. He
added that five or six citizens requested the additional time.
In response to a request for clarification from Vice Mayor Melendez,Councilman Kavanagh stated that as major
amendments were made to the Sign Ordinance, he would like the citizens to have the opportunity to speak if
they so wished. He added that for the sake of time he would hope that if the comments were already made that
the citizens do not come forward to reiterate the same points.
Councilman Archambault asked whether they were saying that under agenda item#11, when the motion was
made, speaker cards should already have been turned in but the Council was going to suspend the rules on that.
Councilman Kavanagh clarified that as the motion was made, anyone who wanted to speak on the changes could
come forward and present brief remarks. He added that although this issue had been extensively discussed, a
number of the amendments would be new and require input.
Councilwoman Stevens asked whether they were going to allow citizens to provide their input during the public
hearing and during the consideration or if they should choose. The Mayor responded that the Council could not
deny citizens the opportunity to speak during the public hearing but added that if they were made aware now
that the Council would permit multiple inputs on amendments once they got to the issue, it was his hope that
public hearing comments would be brief and the citizens would wait until the next agenda item to present their
statements.
Councilwoman Stevens stated that she would prefer to make a decision on that after she saw how long the
public hearing lasted.
Mayor Nichols suggested that during the public hearing, those citizens who already requested the extra time be
allowed to present their remarks at that time if they wanted to use up all their allotted time. He added that
anyone who did not request the additional time would be limited to three minutes. He asked citizens to try to
not reiterate the remarks of previous speakers and said that redundancy would only serve to lengthen the
meeting. He pointed out that the agenda item only dealt with four items, namely A-frame signs, neon, open
house directional signs, and real estate signs and all remarks should be limited to those issues.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 11 of 32
Planner Denise Lacey addressed the members of the Council and said that in the interest of time, a number of
the slides displayed in the Chambers would be quickly shown. She noted that in June 2002, the Town decided
to update the Sign Ordinance and staff had been working on this since that time. She referred to a slide
depicting A-frame signs in the median at Saguaro Boulevard adjacent to the frontage road. She added that they
sometimes resulted in visibility issues for people attempting to pull out from the stop sign and explained that
shorter people in smaller cars had a difficult time seeing over the top of the A-frame signs. The signs also posed
a problem in certain instances where people might not be able to see the vehicle pulling out of the side road and
that was part of the reason why staff talked about the"line of sight triangle"in their amendments.
Ms. Lacey also referred to signs located on the Avenue of the Fountains area and noted that they were not
placed in accordance with current regulations since they were on the sidewalk. She pointed out that two signs
were completely hidden by the A-frame signs directly behind them and two of those signs were specifically
related to a business directly adjacent to the signs. She discussed additional signs located on Saguaro Boulevard
and stated that there were signs hidden behind other signs and they were not placed behind the sidewalk and in
some instances were in the landscaping. She said that as you turn into the Basha's center, the existing signage
caused some visibility concerns,particularly with the close proximity to the curb. She noted that they should be
three feet behind the curb. She also referred to a slide showing signs on Palisades Boulevard towards Saguaro
Boulevard and pointed out that several of the signs were not in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. She
emphasized that the stop sign was difficult to see and said that this was a major concern.
Ms. Lacey stated that the first major change to the A-frame signs was that only businesses with a physical
location in a commercial zoning district within the Town of Fountain Hills might display an A-frame sign (a).
She said that this would prevent home-based businesses from displaying signs. She added that each business
location would be permitted a maximum of two signs and explained that although staff recommended one, the
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended two(b). She noted that the text area might not
exceed 4.5 square feet (c) and said that verbiage was added to state that "no other materials were acceptable"
other than those listed in the ordinance(e). She discussed a change which required signs to be manufactured by
cor a professional sign company (f). Ms. Lacey commented that previously the Town did not allow signs on Shea
Boulevard and staff recommended that signs be placed in any commercial zoning district except commercial
zoning districts fronting on Shea Boulevard, allowing this to remain unchanged (g). She discussed another
change that prohibited the placement of signs in the rights-of-way on Town property and pointed out that they
currently did not allow them in residential zoning districts(h).
Ms. Lacey informed the Council that the linear foot requirement was 300 feet in the past and staff reduced that
to 100 feet and referred to a slide depicting the spacing between signs (i). She said that the 100 feet was based
on the fact that the Town had a number of very short streets (the shortest being 90 feet). She added that another
change would prevent A-frame signs from being located directly beneath a permanent sign or directly adjacent
to a permanent sign (j). She noted that another change stated that signs should not be placed in a manner that
would result in a traffic vision hazard (1). She stated that they currently did not allow attachments and that
would remain unchanged and discussed a change that stated that "signs shall not be displayed during non-
business hours" (q). She explained that previously the regulations said "or between the hours of sunrise or
sunset," and said the Planning and Zoning Commission suggested that that might be regulating a business that
could be open as early as six a.m., just as or before the sun was coming up or limiting the businesses if they
remained open until 8,especially now that it was getting dark earlier.
Ms. Lacey discussed a change relative to permits and a requirement to display the permit tag on the upper right
hand corner of the sign (r)as well as a change requiring that a map be presented at the time of the permit request
(s). She added that if an unusual circumstance existed where it would be very difficult to place an A-frame sign,
the Zoning Administrator or his designee would be able to determine where a good location for the A-frame sign
would be (t). She commented on an additional change that was brought forward in the memo received from the
downtown business people, "the appearance, text, visual message and content of signs, as approved in the
L. original sign permit, must not be changed or altered without obtaining a new permit for the sign"(u). She noted
that this ran hand in hand with the Town's permanent signage requirements. She stated that (v) was a request
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 12 of 32
from the Planning and Zoning Commission that a sunset clause be placed on A-frame signs and noted that they
had asked for two years from the date of the adoption of the amendment.
Ms. Lacey also addressed the issue of neon signs and referred to a number of slides depicting "open" signs and
"informational" signs that were used throughout the country. She noted that the Town currently did not allow
neon signs and said that the idea from the Planning and Zoning Commission was that if you used a neon sign as
an open sign, it did not have to be counted toward the total aggregate sign package. She concurred with this
recommendation. She added that the signs were limited to window display only (might not be used on the
exterior of a building), and had a maximum size limit of four (4) square feet. She emphasized that the signs
could not be illuminated when the business was closed.
Ms. Lacey discussed Open House Directional Signs and explained that the Council requested that staff initiate
steps to ensure that these signs conform, at least in a good generality, to the A-frame signs. She noted that (a)
represented a slight change because it specifically stated that open house directional signs must be used to direct
traffic to a residence for sale, lease or rent. The maximum number of signs allowed, five (5), remained
unchanged. She added that another slight change (c) stated that the text area must not exceed 4.5 square feet(j).
She noted that another change (k) required that the signs be made by a professional sign company and (1)
required Zoning Administrator approval.
Ms. Lacey addressed real estate signs and explained that the proposed changes were based on information and
input received from the Town's Code Enforcement officers. She noted that(e)requiring that the signs be made
by a professional sign company was a change. She added that the following were also changes: (g) signs might
only be placed on property that was for sale, lease or rent; (h) maximum number of signs allowed, one (1) per
street frontage; (i) signs must be removed when the purpose for which the sign was erected was completed and
(j)sign placement other than as described by the Zoning Administrator or his/her authorized designee.
Ms. Lacey stated that the proposal currently before the Council was the culmination of input, revisions, and
research over a 17-month period and in excess of 700 staff hours. She noted that public hearings were held to
New solicit input, written suggestions were submitted and individual meetings with business owners, Commissioners
and Councilmembers also took place. She stated the opinion that the amendments before them would clarify the
usage of A-frame signs, neon signs, open house directional signs and real estate signs, resulting in an
enforceable sign ordinance. Ms. Lacey said that Staff requested the Council's support and approval of the
recommended revisions.
In response to a question from Councilman Archambault, Ms. Lacey stated that the Planning and Zoning
Commission's rationale for changing the number of A-frame signs from one (1) to two (2) for businesses was
that businesses located further back from view would be able to place one on the main thoroughfare and one
where drivers would have to turn.
Councilman Kavanagh questioned why stores located on main streets would also be allowed two (2) and Ms.
Lacey responded that the Planning and Zoning Commission wanted to be fair and allow all businesses the same
rights.
Vice Mayor Melendez requested the Mayor's permission to read a statement into the record of the meeting and
was told to proceed.
The Vice Mayor stated, "The perception amongst some of the members of the business community is that this
Council is not business friendly. While other members on this dais might respond separately, I would like to do
that tonight. This member is business friendly. This member does come out of a corporate business
environment. This member,following early retirement, opened a small business, had employees, paid business
taxes and was both blessed and lucky to have been successful. Being business friendly, I brought a project to
our Town this past July, with the help of Mayor Nichols, Frank Ferrara, Vladimir Hulpach, Roxanne Boryczki
and the Tourist Council, which has now become a reality. And if you would be kind enough to show the
audience what we are talking about. Shortly, at seven different locations, we will have patriotic banner signs,
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 13 of 32
which will be unique in the east valley. I know of no other valley city that has used this theme before. Not only
are they patriotic, but they will bring pride, cash flow and notoriety to the downtown businesses. Also earlier
this year I made a motion that this Council develop a performance pad at the Fountain Park. This idea my
colleagues supported and I'm proud to announce that this project, which will bring customers, cash flow and
visitors to downtown businesses, will start to be built in 2004. Finally, I would like to end by showing you a
slide in Latin, which the best teachers in the world, the Jesuits, taught me at Loyola and it says in Latin (the
Vice Mayor read the Latin verse). The translation is "without customers, there is no business." My point here
is that this Council is trying to bring customers to your businesses and will continue to do so. Thank you."
Vice Mayor Melendez stated that as far as the Sign Ordinance was concerned, everyone was wasting their time
if they could not depend upon code enforcement. He recalled that last year there were over 600 reported sign
violations but only four citations were issued. He stated the opinion that the Marshals Department had not done
their job and added that a new code enforcement system was in place, with a new but tough and fair Sheriff
Commander who would work with code officers to make sure the laws were obeyed. He emphasized that the
entire success of this program rested on the shoulders of the Town Manager, Mr. Pickering, and added that he
would do the best job he could to ensure that the rules adopted tonight were administrated in the best possible
manner. The Vice Mayor also stressed the importance of being able to compromise on issues and said that if
they were unable to compromise this evening,everyone would be a loser.
In response to a question from the Mayor,Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that three citizens submitted speaker
cards but did not wish to speak. They requested that their names and opinions be read into the record as follows:
Adi Hanson, 16913 Enterprise Drive, a local business owner, indicated support for keeping the A-frame signs
and wrote that they were important to the success of her business.
Christiana Smith Baker, 16913 Enterprise Drive, also spoke in support of the A-frame signs and noted that they
helped people locate her business and attracted two to four new clients a month. She attributed 20% of her
business to the A-frame signs; and
Sharla Shore, 16913 Enterprise Drive, encouraged the Council to keep the A-frame signs and all of the
temporary signs including real estate,garage sales and business signs or else remove all signs without exception.
She stated the opinion that otherwise they would be discriminating against certain business owners.
Lowell Janson, 13216 N. Verde River Drive, one of the citizens who requested five minutes to speak, said that
he was a local property and business owner. He advised that he was one of the members of the Committee for
the Sign Ordinance Review of the Downtown Business Community, composed of 30 citizens, which developed
the packet that hopefully was included in the Council's packet. He noted that the document was the end product
of the group's efforts to develop changes they believed were minimally acceptable to the sign ordinance
revisions now being considered. He stated the opinion that not to accept the proposed revisions would result in
the further erosion of the business community's ability to become a viable and vibrant asset to the Town. He
added that the group and other citizens and business owners spent considerable time, money, and effort
developing the recommendations.
Mr. Janson said that real estate sales and development and preservation had totally dominated general
businesses, which had been subjected to an inferior role in a "backseat" position. He discussed the businesses'
struggle for identification and recognition and added that they had been a low priority item. He stated that the
Council's recognition of the inequities contained in the sign ordinance and staffs recommendations for changes
would send a much needed signal that the Town considered the business segment of the community to be vitally
important to Fountain Hills' financial health and quality of life. He discussed legal ramifications and
constitutional violations and requested that the Council render a fair decision and not discriminate against
certain businesses. He pointed out that A-frame signs were A-frame signs, whether they were real estate open
Le house directional signs, or retail business directional signs.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 14 of 32
Lina Bellenir addressed the Council and noted how far signs had evolved since 1926 citing Burma Shave as the
example. She commented on the limited number of company employees and the tremendous success of the
business because of the road side signs. She said that the company was bought out in 1946 and the new owner
L. discontinued the road side signs not believing them to be important. As a result, sales plummeted and never
regained momentum. She added that she likened the A-frame signs to the Burma Shave signs and the
organizations she represented this evening wanted the Council to understand their importance. She said that in a
highly impulse oriented business, good signage was the difference between success and failure and represented
the most affordable means of advertising for small businesses. She added that A-frame signs were a
communication device and considered speech. In the United States they were legally protected under the first,
fifth and fourteenth amendments. She stressed the importance of visibility, accessibility, and parking and added
the opinion that the A-frame signs developed a memory for locations, products, and services, reinforced that
memory,attracted new customers,and modified customer purchases,behaviors and decisions.
Ms. Bellenir added that even temporary window signs were effective in encouraging variation from a custom
consumption pattern. Discussion ensued relative to research and data on the positive impact of signage.
Sherry Sledge, 16940 Wind Chime Drive, the owner of a local business, said her concern was that the Council
was discriminating by picking and choosing who could utilize the A-frame or temporary signs. She noted that
other high-end communities such as Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, and Old Town Scottsdale helped their
businesses prosper by allowing A-frame signs. She added that the Town seemed to be focused on hurting the
business owners by taking away those signs and not allowing any replacement. She said that calling A-frame
signs"eyesores"was simply an opinion and pointed out that hundreds of signatures were obtained from citizens
who supported them. She outlined her extensive background in the real estate field and stated the opinion that it
was not necessary to put a sign on property or hold open houses to sell them. She questioned why the Council
would discriminate against retail business signs and not real estate business signs. She requested that the
Council work with the business community.
Jim Guess, 15865 Lost Hills Drive, expressed the opinion that the sign restrictions being contemplated this
evening were arbitrary and capricious at best and personal vendettas, punitive in nature, and not at all in
anyone's best interest. He questioned the basis for the regulations and whether this was the road Fountain Hills
wanted to travel. He added that laws needed to be designed by all affected parties, be uniform and evenly
applied. He emphasized the importance of not excluding one segment of the community and instead design
laws with the common good in mind, not with what would be a punitive result. He agreed that line of sight
issues were legitimate but noted that all signs should be of concern such as the ones where people stopped to
pick up a flyer or directional signs for events in Town and even the Town monument signs that could not be
found at night. He questioned why certain signs were allowed in the right-of-way and not others. He stated that
the ordinance did not remove any potential liability upon the Town and, in fact, might open up more liability.
He discussed the importance of fairness and expressed the opinion that Town staff and the business community
had an adversarial relationship and added that the input provided by the business community had been laughed
at and ignored. He stated that he challenged the Council to put aside their own personal agendas and render a
decision that would benefit the entire community. He added that restrictions being considered would negatively
impact businesses and the Town as a whole. He requested that they start the process over again with input from
the business community and residents.
John Osmon, 16848 Avenue of the Fountains, a local business owner, stated that if the Town Council adopted
the sign ordinance as presented, 95% of all A-frame signs would be eliminated. He noted that the restrictions
applied to all retail and service businesses but not to realtors and expressed the opinion that this was clear-cut
discrimination. He commented on the negative effect on the businesses that depend on the A-frame signs and
added that their removal would also negatively impact much needed sales tax revenues. He stated the opinion
that a majority of citizens in Fountain Hills supported the use of A-frame signs if they were proper in nature. He
also discussed liability issues when the A-frame signs were located in a right-of-way and said that this could be
simply overcome by having the business person add to his/her insurance policy in Fountain Hills. He explained
that if a lawsuit was ever brought against the Town pertaining to an A-frame sign, the Town would be held
harmless and not liable. He urged the Council to make a fair decision regarding this matter.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 15 of 32
Suzanne Janson, 17324 Zaharias, said she was a property owner, realtor, and a commercial and residential
business owner. She stated that she was unaware until this evening that discussion would be limited to A-frame
signs and real estate signs and added that many issues regarding the sign ordinance remained to be addressed.
She noted that a large number of violations existed. She commented that staffs proposed changes would not
hurt the Wal-Marts, the Targets, the Big 0 Tires, and corporate stores, but they would hurt the little guy, the
backbones of business. She spoke in support of helping rather than hindering small businesses. She expressed
the opinion that this important issue required and deserved extensive discussion and analysis and that the
Council should not take action at this time. She recommended that the item be tabled since the ordinance was
only half complete.
Sal Ripoli, 13311 N. Vista Del Lago,the owner of a local small business,thanked those members of the Council
who took the time to meet with business owners in an effort to develop an acceptable solution. He stated that
personal feelings were associated with this business issue and the entire community would be negatively
impacted as a result. He agreed that this item should be tabled tonight and added the opinion that not even 10%
had been addressed. He discussed neon signs and the proposed four-foot square allowance for open signs and
stated that he did not believe that this was the consensus of everyone in Town. He suggested increasing the sign
to ten square feet in the interest of compromise. He noted that there were many instances where neon signs
would not present any problems and emphasized the importance of additional discussion regarding the extensive
issues that remain unresolved.
Frank Ferrara, Executive Director of the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce and Chairman of the Fountain
Hills Business Advocacy Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, said he was speaking on behalf of both
groups. He commented on the extensive discussions over the years that had taken place regarding signage and
stated that nothing had been resolved. He said that the Council had heard from the people who were going to be
hurt the most, the people who needed the most help. He noted that the business community developed an
amendment to the new ordinance and questioned how a vote could be taken prior to at least considering that
document. He emphasized the importance of developing long-term solutions to the problem and aesthetically
pleasing long-term signage. He requested that this agenda item be continued and that a committee be formed
consisting of the people who would be most affected. He noted that Councilwoman Stevens' group was made
up of developers who had problems with permits and although issues still existed, there had been improvement.
He added that he would like to see a group of business people working with staff,and perhaps someone from the
Council, to develop an ordinance that could be adopted for the interim while staff continued to pursue solutions
to the long-term problems, i.e. the aesthetic signage,permanent signage,etc.
Richard Frederick, 15116 E. Zapata, discussed the "clutter" of signs in the downtown area and on Saguaro. He
stated the opinion that they were unnecessary and people who wanted to find a business could look it up in the
telephone book and/or use a map to find it. He spoke in opposition to allowing A-frames and said perhaps a
compromise could be reached such as cutting back on the number of real estate signs. He added the opinion that
five would be excessive and unfair that the businesses got cut back and real estate signs did not.
Judy Dragiewicz, 10820 N. Middlecoff, said she brought up the issue of A-frame signs two years ago and the
goal was that the businesses would try to make them more aesthetically pleasing. She stated that nothing had
happened and she was opposed to the A-frame signs. She indicated a preference for monument signs and asked
the Council to seriously consider this issue.
Fred Pulve, 16915 E. Jacklin Drive, a broker with a local real estate company, provided a brief overview of his
extensive background in this area and said he was there to speak on behalf of the Governmental Affairs
Committee for the Scottsdale/Fountain Hills Association of Realtors. He stated the opinion that five signs was a
reasonable amount and noted that five were erected only when the home where an open house was located was a
mile deep into North Heights, Sunridge, or somewhere like that,four or five streets off of a main road. He asked
them to approve the five signs.
Phil Gaziano, Sierra Madre Drive, said that he was a realtor and pointed out that the signs were not for people
who lived in the Town but rather for the people who came to Fountain Hills. He stressed the importance of
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 16 of 32
tourism and attracting people to the area and providing adequate direction to them. He agreed with Mr.
Ferrara's suggestion and Councilwoman Nicola's solution to the problem. He stated that there were tubes,
similar to concrete tubes that were used in buildings that could be used in order to denote businesses that might
be located in a strip mall or off the main drag. He added that if this was done in an aesthetically pleasing
manner, the Town could be noted for being similar to a small village, very pretty and very nice. He stated that
this might reduce the need for many of the A-frame signs if the line of sight issues could be resolved or adjusted.
He requested that the Council table this issue and identify something more attractive of which the Town could
be proud.
Mayor Nichols thanked all of the speakers for their comments and declared the public hearing closed at 9:24
p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#11—CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 03-20 AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 6.08 OF THE SIGN
REGULATIONS. CASE#Z2003-08.
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED to table this issue for an indefinite amount of time to take into consideration
some of the recommendations that had been made by the members of the community and the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation that an alternative be developed.
Mayor Nichols declared the motion FAILED for lack of a second.
Councilwoman Stevens MOVED to adopt Ordinance 03-20 and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the
motion for discussion purposes.
Councilman Kavanagh commented that no one denied the fact that businesses in the Town had location
visibility problems because of the hills, twisting turns and medians but added that on the other side of the coin,
everyone moved into the Town recognizing that almost every residential area had specific aesthetic design rules
and color pallets. He added that people were willing to give up certain rights in order to achieve the desired
desert scene. He emphasized the importance of achieving a compromise and said that he believed a majority of
the amendments he intended to propose would forge a reasonable compromise.
Councilman Kavanagh noted that although he had been a strong opponent of neon signs, after meeting with
members of the business community and getting a better picture of the important part they played in the overall
success of certain businesses, he now supported controlled,limited neon.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to amend the proposed ordinance to permit neon signs, limited in size to four
(4)square feet and the word"Open." Vice Mayor Melendez SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Kavanagh stated the opinion that the word "Open" addressed the initial concerns raised by the
business community and would stop the proliferation of neon signs and not be left on all night.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Stevens, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire expressed the opinion
that the Town could not limit the content of the signs. He added that restrictions would be subject to challenge.
Councilwoman Nicola said that that was her understanding as well and she would not support the current
amendment. She added that the restriction on neon as proposed by staff was still a little too restrictive but she
would prefer that in the spirit of compromise. She stated that neon could be used very nicely and the Town was
fortunate to have a good staff to help businesses resolve certain issues.
Councilman Archambault said he could not see any reason why they could not allow four (4) square feet of
` signage. He added that the regulations read that the signs must be turned off when businesses closed and if they
�
kw
were not, the business owners would be cited and pay a fine. He stated that he did not have a problem with this
particular issue.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 17 of 32
Councilman Kavanagh commented that after hearing the Town Attorney's initial concerns regarding the
restrictions from a legal standpoint, he spoke with him and learned that if the Town passed an ordinance that
restricted the wording to "Open" and it was successfully challenged on the basis of constitutionality, the entire
neon ordinance would go away. He added that if someone said the Town could not restrict the wording,then the
neon part of the ordinance would be eliminated and there would be no neon. He stated the opinion that people
would not challenge it if they recognized that the challenge would take away their right.
Vice Mayor Melendez expressed the opinion that it would be helpful if Ms. Lacey placed on the screen the
picture of all the neon signs and emphasized that the picture said a lot. Ms. Lacey indicated that IT staff would
do so as quickly as possible and the slide was once again displayed. The Vice Mayor said that when you looked
at the signs, the question must be asked, "Where do we stop?" He again emphasized the importance of
compromise and utilizing the single word "Open." He added the opinion that problems would be created if they
allowed more than the number of signs recommended by staff.
Mayor Nichols stated the opinion that the compromise suggested by staff was fair and said that whether neon
signs were offensive or not was a value judgment based upon the person looking at them. He added that they
did not offend him and he supported staffs recommendation.
In response to a request for clarification from Councilman Archambault, Ms. Lacey said that four square feet of
neon would be allowed and if two square feet was used for an Open sign that would not be counted against the
sign package but would count towards the neon sign allowance.
Councilwoman Nicola noted that a couple of the signs said open for nails or open for ice cream and asked
whether this would create problems. Ms. Lacey responded that staff wanted Council input on that particular
issue. She said that typically when staff looked at advertising, if the sign said "nails" that was considered
advertising and if it said "open" that was considered informative. She added that "nails open" would count as
part of the sign package but if it just said"open"it would be just the"open"sign.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results
Councilwoman Nicola Nay
Councilman Archambault Nay
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Aye
Mayor Nichols Nay
Vice Mayor Melendez Aye
Councilwoman Ralphe Aye
The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(4 to 3).
Councilman Kavanagh indicated his intention to address the number of A-frame signs and said that "one size
fits all"was not fair in this particular situation and to say that all stores could have two was not fair to the music
store or others which really required three to direct people to their location. He added that to allow stores on
main roads(Saguaro,Fountain Hills Boulevard and Palisades)to have two was"overkill." He noted that almost
without exception,all the stores on those three roads only had one sign. He questioned why they would increase
this number and stated the opinion that only one sign was needed on those major streets while smaller
businesses out of view needed one to get the cars to turn off the main road, one on the first street they needed to
get onto and one to identify the street where their enterprise was located.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that stores on main roads (Saguaro, Palisades and Fountain Hills Boulevard,
but not Shea Boulevard)be allowed one(1)A-frame sign; stores that were one street off the main drag would be
allowed two(2)and stores that were three streets off would be allowed three with the provision that only one per
street would be permitted.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 18 of 32
Mayor Nichols stated that the MOTION FAILED for lack of a second.
In response to a question previously posed by Councilman Kavanagh relative to inverted "T" signs, Ms. Lacey
read the definition for A-frame signs and said that"T"signs would fall under the definition.
Councilwoman Stevens commented on the fact that the signs would require permits and probably a fee. She
expressed the opinion that those items should be placed in its own section and questioned what fee amount and
process was being considered.
Ms. Lacey advised that the amendment before the Council was an excerpt from the Sign Ordinance and all of
the items that were not shown as deleted from the ordinance would remain in place. She added that the
ordinance stated that all signs required a permit unless otherwise stated. In addition, a permit sticker must be
placed on the A-frame signs. She stated that staff had discussed fees but the issue required further research. She
said that if Council wanted the ordinance to specifically state that a permit was required,they could do so.
Councilwoman Nicola noted that enforcement was a continuing problem and she believed that if the business
community were more proactive in knowing and following the existing ordinances, such as placement back
from the curb, no placement on sidewalks, etc., the problem would be resolved. She added that enforcement
would have eliminated the proliferation of signs all around the Town. She stated that she still believed that the
permit process was a good thing but said she would not support a sunset clause on A-frames and noted that
enforcement had not been given a real chance and neither had the business community to abide by the ordinance
that was adopted. She requested that they start at the beginning and go through it rather than jumping all over
the place.
Mayor Nichols referred to Section A of the proposed ordinance, on page three and determined that it was the
consensus of the Council that only businesses that were physically located within the Town commercial zoning
districts could display A-frame signs.
Mayor Nichols asked whether any members had a problem with limiting the number of A-frame signs for
businesses to two.
Vice Mayor Melendez stated that real estate businesses were allowed five (5)directional signs, open house, etc.
while other businesses would be limited to two. He asked the Town Manager to provide input relative to the
equity issue.
Mr. Pickering responded that there were two different reasons for the signs, one sign was for businesses which
were located in commercial areas and said that the number of signs needed to direct people were not as many as
were required for real estate. He added that real estate directional signs were temporary while a majority of the
A-frame signs were displayed on a daily basis.
Vice Mayor Melendez commented that open houses were moving targets and he understood why they might
need up to five signs but added that businesses were situated and did not require that many signs. He agreed
with the Town Manager's comments.
In response to a comment from Vice Mayor Melendez, Councilman Archambault advised that he owned a
business on Laser Drive and was prohibited from putting up A-frame signs because of the Town ordinance. He
acknowledged that A-frame signs would positively impact businesses in that area but said he and the other
business owners were not complaining about it
Councilman Kavanagh stated that they were changing the sign and format of the signs and Ms. Lacey advised
that currently 4.5 square feet of signage was allowed and staff had recommended that the text area be 4.5 square
feet and the maximum size of the sign would be 24 by 36. She explained that this would lend conformity
throughout the Town.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 19 of 32
Councilman Kavanagh commented that he would not like to penalize a business owner who obeyed the current
law and had a sign that would no longer be in conformance and said he would like to have a grandfather clause
added if necessary. He questioned whether all current existing signs would be in conformance with the
proposed ordinance. Ms. Lacey responded that the ordinance read that the maximum size shall not exceed 4.5
square feet in area and therefore all existing signs would remain legal.
Councilwoman Nicola questioned whether that would be on each side and Ms. Lacey clarified that signs were
defined as single faced or double faced and these would count as one 4.5 square foot sign even though it was
double sided because there was more than a 90 degree angle.
In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh,Ms.Lacey advised that the maximum allowable height of
the signs was three(3)feet.
Mayor Nichols referred to item f on page three that stated a professional sign company must manufacture signs
and requested input from the Council on this item. There were no comments from the Council.
Mayor Nichols moved onto item g at the top of page 4 relative to the fact that signs could be placed in any
commercial zoning district except commercial zoning districts fronting on Shea Boulevard. There were no
comments from the Council
Mayor Nichols addressed agenda item h, in no case shall signs be located within rights-of-way on Town
property or within residentially zoned areas.
In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh,Ms.Lacey explained that signs could not be placed in the
Town's rights-of-way but if the stack of the sidewalk was outside of the right-of-way, you had to be so far in.
Councilman Kavanagh said that they would eliminate all A-frame signs if they said they had to be 10 feet in.
He said he would like to offer an amendment that allowed signs to be placed in the rights-of-way if they
complied with other sidewalk restrictions, i.e. three feet in from the curb and not on the street side of the
sidewalk.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that the prohibition related to rights-of-way not be the blanket 10 feet and that
signs could be placed there as long as they complied with the other restrictions, namely three (3) feet from the
curb and not on the sidewalk. Vice Mayor Melendez SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Archambault questioned whether the liability issue should also be addressed and Councilman
Kavanagh stated that he did not see where liability issues would exist.
Mr. McGuire requested clarification relative to the signs along Saguaro and asked if this meant that they would
be placed inside the median between the frontage road and Saguaro. Councilman Kavanagh said that he would
address the median issue with a separate motion and instead discussed Palisades which had numerous sidewalks
located right next to the curb and there were landscaped areas on the store side of the sidewalk. He noted that
four to five feet of that was in the Town's right-of-way because it was ten feet from the curb but it was on the
store side of the sidewalk,where most of the signs were.
Councilwoman Nicola discussed item h and said that the permit process could take care of this and said she had
talked with Mr. McGuire on this issue and learned that in the past the Town issued encroachment permits for
other types of signs. She questioned why they could not be used in this case and added that they would remove
the liability from the Town and place it back on the business owner. She indicated that she would not support
the amendment and if it failed she would sponsor a motion to eliminate item h altogether. She added the
opinion that staff, through the permit process, could determine rights-of-way and the Town Manager and Town
Attorney could assist in the development of a policy.
Councilman Kavanagh reiterated that he did not believe liability problems would arise and said that currently
there are monuments,trees, shrubs rocks, and boulders all in the 10-foot right-of-way.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 20 of 32
Mayor Nichols questioned whether item t on page 5 (placement other than as described above may be approved
by the zoning administrator or his/her authorized designee) would allow the Town Manager the flexibility to do
what they wanted. Councilman Kavanagh responded that the Council sets the policy and it should be written
into law.
Councilman Archambault stated that anytime you placed something in the Town right-of-way, they opened
themselves up for liability and that was why the Town Engineer engineered street signs and conducted studies
on intersections. He said that some people sued "at the drop of a hat." He noted that landscaping was handled
totally differently.
Councilman Kavanagh reiterated that the rights-of-way already contained items that could be the subject of
lawsuits and questioned why they were okay but the signs were not.
Councilman Archambault stated that he liked the suggestion that came from the business community relative to
indemnifying the Town by adding the Town as additionally insured as long as the Town Attorney could work
that out to his satisfaction.
Councilman Kavanagh said he did not believe that to be necessary and added that they would make it virtually
impossible for anyone to put one up.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Stevens, Mr. McGuire stated that he had very specific areas in
mind, which he believed would present a dangerous situation if A-frame signs were placed within the right-of-
way. He noted that the median along Saguaro was one of those areas. He added that the Town received claims
for everything, the smallest incidents, and therefore it depended on the Council's tolerance for risks. He said
that the Council needed to make a policy decision relative to the level of risk with which they felt comfortable.
He noted that of particular concern to staff were the areas that contained site triangles in the medians.
ktrir Councilman Kavanagh clarified that his proposed amendment would not allow them on the sidewalks. He
explained that this would take the existing wording, which dealt with distance from the curb and prohibition of
sidewalk and stated that any area within the 10 feet that did not conform to those two categories(three feet from
the curb,not on the sidewalk)would be okay.
Vice Mayor Melendez requested that Councilman Kavanagh provide a specific example of what he was talking
about. Councilman Kavanagh responded that most of the stores on Palisades by Radio Shack would be a good
example and on the other side by the meat market.
Mayor Nichols indicated his support for the proposed amendment and called for the question.
Ms. Bender read the proposed amendment for clarification purposes: To allow A-frame signs if they comply
with the other street and sidewalk restrictions, i.e. they can be anywhere within the ten foot right-of-way on the
side of the road as long as they were not three feet from the curb or on a sidewalk.
Councilwoman Stevens questioned whether it included the site triangle and Councilman Kavanagh said that that
was understood as well.
Discussion ensued relative to the fact that the Council was considering eliminating h and replacing it with
Councilman Kavanagh's motion.
Mayor Nichols asked whether signs would be allowed by the fountain at Saguaro because they would be three
feet off of the curb and not on the sidewalk. Councilman Kavanagh said his guess would be that they only be
allowed by the stores.
o The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (7 to 0).
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 21 of 32
Councilman Kavanagh stated that another issue needed to be addressed and he separated it because it was
somewhat different. He said that some relief needed to be given to a small group of storeowners who are
located on Saguaro between Colony and Desert Vista Drive(the secondary median on Saguaro).
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to amend the ordinance to allow no more than two abreast as long as they were
not within three feet of the curb and not within site distances. He added that there would be a limit of one per
store on that road. He clarified that within that one zone there would only be one per store but they would be
allowed no more than two abreast so long as they were not within three feet of the curb.
Mayor Nichols stated that the motion FAILED for lack of a second.
Mayor Nichols said that they would move onto items i and j.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that there be no more than one A-frame per store per road. He explained there
would not be any purpose for the 100-foot linear spacing if only one sign were permitted per road.
Councilwoman Stevens SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Archambault stated that item i particularly talked about any other signs advertising the same
business and asked whether staff had recommended that any signs that were for identical businesses not be
placed within 100 feet of each other. Ms. Lacey said that that was the idea and added that she did not have a
problem with there being only one per roadway.
Ms. Bender read the proposed motion for clarification purposes: i,no more than one A-frame sign to be allowed
per road.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilman Archambault Nay
Vice Mayor Melendez Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Aye
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
Councilwoman Ralphe Aye
Councilwoman Nicola Nay
Mayor Nichols Aye
The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(5 to 2).
Mayor Nichols said they would move on to item j.
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED to amend item j to state that signs shall not be located within 50 linear feet of
any permanent sign advertising the same business. Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion.
Councilman Kavanagh said he would argue for the defeat of this amendment and would make a new amendment
right after the vote to eliminate this restriction completely. He stated the opinion that most people wanted to
have them in front of their stores and to place them elsewhere would confuse motorists.
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED TO WITHDRAW her amendment and Councilman Archambault withdrew
his SECOND.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to strike item j and Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED the motion.
Lor A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilwoman Ralphe Aye
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 22 of 32
Mayor Nichols Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Nay
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
Vice Mayor Melendez Aye
Councilman Archambault Nay
Councilwoman Nicola Aye
The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(5 to 2).
The Mayor moved onto item k and there was no discussion on that item or 1.
Mayor Nichols brought forward items m,n,o and p and there was no discussion among the Council.
In response to Vice Mayor Melendez, Mr. Pickering confirmed that code enforcement staff would monitor the
condition of the signs.
Councilman Kavanagh referred to item q and said he thought that the signs should be removed after one half
hour after sundown and not erected prior to one half hour before sunrise.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Councilmember Nicola SECONDED a motion that the signs should not
be put up before one half hour before sunrise and must be taken down after one half hour after sunset.
Councilwoman Nicola asked if they go could back to h and state instead that signs shall be placed as permitted
between sunrise and sunset,instead of the public right-of-way.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED TO WITHDRAW his motion and Councilwoman Nicola WITHDREW
HER SECOND.
LY It was MOVED by Councilwoman Nicola that signs would be placed in the permitted areas only between
sunrise and sunset.
She added that staff could add the additional language.
Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion.
Mayor Nichols clarified that they were discussing item q on page 4 which corresponded to the old h on page 3.
Mayor Nichols stated the opinion that the proposal was too restrictive since some businesses remained open
after sunset. He discussed enforcement difficulties and said the signs should be taken down when the businesses
closed. Vice Mayor Melendez concurred with the Mayor's comments.
Mayor Nichols asked that the citizens who filled out requests to speak cards do so at this time.
Sherry Sledge, 16913 Enterprise, said that the A-frame signs were very beneficial and assisted people in finding
their destination points. She spoke in strong support of the signs.
Councilwoman Nicola commented that she had concerns relative to safety, particularly at night, and Ms. Sledge
responded that there had never been any incidents or safety hazards.
Sharla Shore, 16913, spoke in support of allowing the A-frames and all temporary signs to remain in place,
including real estate, garage sales, and business signs or else all the signs should be removed without exception.
She added that the sunset clause was a waste of time. She said that to do otherwise would be viewed as
discrimination against business owners.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 23 of 32
Mr. Pickering commented that the point of enforcement was a difficult one and if they allowed it to remain as is,
when the businesses closed, code enforcement would have to go and check every business to determine whether
they were closed or not and whether to remove the sign. He added that a specific time would be preferable or
the sunset, something with a definite start and end time.
Councilwoman Nicola asked whether 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. worked and the audience response was no.
Phil Gaziano, Sierra Madre Drive, commented that if someone was in violation, it would be quickly known and
addressed and would not impact code enforcement as much as they thought.
In response to a question from Councilwoman Nicola, Mr. Pickering said that making hours of display part of
the permit process would be extremely difficult to keep track of and result in confusion.
Mayor Nichols agreed with Mr. Pickering and added that 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. would work for a majority of the
restaurants and stores that were open.
The Mayor called for the question on the sunrise/sunset issue.
The motion FAILED for lack of a majority vote(2 to 5).
Mayor Nichols MOVED and Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED a motion that the signs be allowed from 7
a.m.to 9:00 p.m. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (7 to 0).
The Mayor said that they would move onto item r, which required all signs to have a current permit tag on the
upper right hand corner of the sign.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to strike this and all other references to permits.
The Mayor stated that the MOTION FAILED for lack of a second.
The Council moved on to item s, a map showing placement of sign must be provided at time of application and
strictly adhered to and asked if there was discussion regarding this item.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to strike item s.
The Mayor stated that the MOTION FAILED for lack of a second.
Mayor Nichols requested that they move along to item t, which was to give the Town some administrative
leeway. No discussion occurred on this item or item u.
Councilwoman Nicola commented on item v (no A-frame sign is permitted anywhere within the Town of
Fountain Hills two years from the date of the adoption of this amendment). She said that enforcement and
compliance had been the issue
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED to strike this entire item and review it in another two years when a possible
alternative might be in the works. Mayor Nichols SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Melendez said he believed that if you gave people a year they would take three and if you gave
them five they would take seven. He added that he had talked to a lot of merchants who were willing to pay out
of their own packets for class one monument signs to eliminate these. He stated that he was all for the business
people but if you gave them two years it would continue to go on. He suggested that they put together an
aggressive plan within a one-year cycle to all work together (staff, the developers, contractors, the various
groups,everyone involved)to have monument signs installed.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 24 of 32
Councilwoman Nicola commented that they were asking the business community to go to a great deal of
expense to either redo signs, have new signs made,undergo a permit process and by the time they got their signs
back it could be three months down the road. She added that she agreed that some type of monument or
permanent sign would be the better way to go and said that by default the amount of A-frame signage would
lessen. She commented that there was no reason for setting a "drop dead date" for eliminating A-frames in the
Town altogether and stressed the importance of being fair minded.
Councilman Archambault said that he too had been approached by members of the business community and
received positive input on monument signs or something of that sort. He stated the opinion that they needed to
"hold their feet to the fire" and added that he would like to see them aggressively approach this issue where
perhaps they could use some type of a monument that actually was a flag banner like the one on Shea
Boulevard. He added that they could put some nice signage down below that directed people to a particular
area. He commented that the two-year period provided sufficient time to develop a comprehensive plan and he
believed that was the manner in which they should proceed.
Sherry Sledge again addressed the Council stating that this showed poor faith on the part of the Council. Ms.
Sledge noted that when she first said she would get involved, no one from Planning and Zoning or the Town
Council,except for Vice Mayor Melendez, had wanted to get involved with the businesses. She added that they
needed to put the Council's "feet to the fire" because despite extensive effort and time nothing had been
accomplished. She felt that the group should consist of business people and P &Z in order to come up with an
idea as the ideas they had brought forward so far had been discarded. She noted that it cost approximately $200
for each of the signs and said that they don't need a sunset clause,they needed something that stated they would
all pull together as a team to come up with an idea. She expressed that she wanted to be part of the process
without the deadline.
Lina Bellenir, 16301 Jacklin, stated that the Council was putting a stake through the heart of the very business
she has slaved to build over the last 42 years. She said that she was very upset that they were not allowed to
place a sign on Saguaro simply because it was a street that was considered a major thoroughfare. She discussed
Noy difficulties people had finding her business. She added that they had followed all of the rules and picked
Fountain Hills because they lived here and wanted to build up a business that now she might be forced to
relocate.
Frank Ferrara,Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Town Manager must immediately give direction to staff to
come to a permanent solution to develop some type of permanent sign. He added that the business people were
willing to spend a reasonable amount of money. He said that if they did not take the bull by the horns and put a
permanent solution together and have the Town do it,it would not get done.
Jim Guess, 15865 Lost Hills Drive, said he believed Councilwoman Nicola "hit the nail on the head" with a lot
of the issues as far as enforcement and playing fairly by the rules. He expressed the opinion that staff and the
Council refused to hold themselves accountable for what was going on but were ready to hold the business
owners' "feet to the fire." He stressed the importance of listening to and working together with the business
community.
Sal Ripoli, 13311 N. Vista Del Lago, asked whether anyone had considered putting in a sign right-of-way at a
location such as Saguaro Boulevard, similar to that of a bicycle path. He said that perhaps that idea could be
pursued before businesses were forced to leave the Town.
In response to a question from Louis Mirabella, Ms. Lacey clarified that signs were going to be allowed in the
rights-of-way off the sidewalk area and back ten feet from the right of way and on Saguaro, in the medians,they
were allowing one per store maximum,no more than two abreast.
Mr. McGuire stressed the importance of making the proper amendment to item m that would by definition
eliminate everything in that median.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 25 of 32
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Councilwoman Nicola SECONDED a motion to amend item m to except
out the secondary median on Saguaro Boulevard to allow for one A-frame sign per business as long as they were
three feet from the curb,not more than two abreast and not within the site triangle of traffic.
Mayor Nichols noted that a motion was on the floor relative to the sunset provision.
Councilman Kavanagh clarified that the three feet from the curb included in his motion should be stricken since
it did not apply in this instance. He added that it only applied to the side of the road not the medians.
Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the sunset provision motion and explained that it was to eliminate item v.
Councilman Archambault said that this issue continued to come forward year after year and added the opinion
that there was a way of eliminating the A-frame signs and still appease everyone. He stated that it was not
necessarily the business community's fault that this issue kept coming forward and added that he would like to
see them take the two year time limit and start as a Town and a community to work together and brainstorm to
reach an acceptable conclusion.
Vice Mayor Melendez agreed that the Town, the business people, contractors, developers, and other interested
and involved parties should work together to get a permanent sign structure for the Town and put this issue to
rest. He said that without the businesses the Town was nothing and they had to put more time and money into
this and assume the lead.
Councilwoman Nicola stated that she agreed with comments made by the Mayor and added that they were
talking"apples and oranges"when right now all they need to be thinking about was item v. She questioned why
they would want to eliminate them 24 months from now when there was such as expense and they had come this
far. She suggested that they move away from permanent signs right now and decide at this time whether they
wanted to put this many "hoops to jump through" to have an A-frame sign only to say in 24 months they were
gone. She requested that this section be eliminated.
Councilman Archambault stated the opinion that a compromise might exist and suggested that the verbiage be
revised to state that no A-frame signs would be permitted anywhere in the Town of Fountain Hills once the
Town developed acceptable permanent signage.
Councilwoman Nicola said that there might be one or two businesses that would still like to use the A-frame
signs even after permanent signage has been developed but said there was no reason to eliminate A-frame signs
altogether at any time. She requested that the Mayor call the question.
Mayor Nichols stated that Mr.Richard Frederick, 15116 E. Zapata, wished to speak.
Mr. Frederick agreed with Councilman Archambault's comments and added that every attempt should be made
to resolve this matter within two years. He said that did not mean that any A-frame signs should be taken down
in two or three years,but instead they make an attempt to resolve this situation within two years.
The Mayor called the question.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
Councilwoman Ralphe Nay
Vice Mayor Melendez Nay
Mayor Nichols Aye
cre Councilwoman Nicola Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Nay
Councilman Archambault Nay
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 26 of 32
The Mayor declared the motion FAILED for lack of a majority vote(3 to 4).
Councilman Kavanagh restated his amendment on the floor was that A-frame signs (one per business)should be
allowed on the second median on Saguaro Boulevard as long as they were not more than two abreast and not
within the vehicular site triangle. Councilwoman Nicola agreed that this was the motion she seconded.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilman Archambault Aye
Vice Mayor Melendez Aye
Councilwoman Stevens Nay
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
Councilwoman Ralphe Aye
Councilwoman Nicola Aye
Mayor Nichols Aye
The Mayor declared the motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(6 to 1).
Councilman Archambault MOVED to amend item v by striking two years from the date of adoption of this
amendment to such time that the Town developed a permanent signage package.
In response to a question from Councilman Archambault, Mr. McGuire said that he would prefer that staff craft
a letter relative to allowing businesses off of the main thoroughfare to continue to use one sign or more at a later
time.
Councilman Archambault clarified that the motion would read "no A-frame signs were to be permitted
anywhere within the main thoroughfares of Fountain Hills until after such time that the Town develops a
permanent sign package."
The Mayor declared the motion FAILED for lack of a second.
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED to amend item v to read five (5) years from the date of the adoption of this
amendment.
The Mayor declared the motion FAILED for lack of a second.
Mayor Nichols said that the Council was hearing the business community telling them that they wanted to work
together to develop a better signage program and added that they as a Council had the responsibility to do so.
He stated that they,as a Council,would give staff direction on how to do that.
Councilwoman Stevens suggested that a Work Study Session be scheduled for the purpose of discussing only
permanent signs.
Mayor Nichols agreed with Councilwoman Stevens and stressed the importance of being proactive within the
next three to four months on that issue.
Vice Mayor Melendez said that instead of waiting three months, they should start working on this next week.
He added that the Town Manager should carefully select the types of people that should attend the Work Study
Session, namely those who were going to contribute financially and participate in other ways to carve a
permanent sign package.
Mayor Nichols commented on the fact that it was 11 p.m. and asked whether he had the authority to ask what
Le agenda items could be delayed until another time. Mr. McGuire responded that#14 was time sensitive and#12
and#13,which had been noticed, should also be discussed.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 27 of 32
Councilman Kavanagh suggested that the next agenda contain an item for discussion on how to proceed with
developing a permanent sign proposal.
Sherry Sledge addressed the Council and asked whether business people would be included in the discussions.
The Vice Mayor stated that it was his intention to have members of the business community participate in the
process.
Mayor Nichols said that they would now address the open house directional sign section.
Councilwoman Nicola commented that she didn't see that open house directional signs must be permanent. Ms.
Lacey responded that they discussed the fact of whether or not open house directional signage should be
permitted and added that it was her recollection that based upon the input received from members of Council
and the real estate community, that sometimes open houses were scheduled at the last moment and permitting
would be very difficult. She noted that the Town did not have a problem with its open house directional signs at
this point in time and did not feel that the permitting process was necessary.
Councilwoman Nicola said that her question regarding item 1 and when and why this would come into play. Ms.
Lacey stated that there were criteria relative to where the signs were allowed to be placed. She explained that if
a real estate agent wanted to post a sign for example on the golf course to advertise the sale of a home that
backed up to that, permission would be granted through the Zoning Administrator. She added that it was a
"catch all."
Mayor Nichols requested that they move onto the real estate sign section on page 7. Ms. Lacey stated that she
had an amendment she would like to make under item e where it said, "signs must be professionally made." She
said that it should state, "signs must be made by a professional sign company."
Mayor Nichols MOVED to approve the amendment to item e as stated. Councilman Archambault SECONDED
the motion which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (7 to 0).
There being no other comments or questions,the Mayor called for a vote on approving Ordinance 03-02.
Mayor Nichols MOVED and Councilman Archambault SECONDED a motion to approve Ordinance 03-02 as
amended. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (7 to 0).
AGENDA ITEM #12 — PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON A SPECIAL USE
REQUEST FOR "FOUNTAIN MIST VILLAS," A 17-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN A TOWN CENTER COMMERCIAL "TCC" ZONING DISTRICT
LOCATED ON EL LAGO BLVD. EAST OF SAGUARO BLVD. AKA PARCEL 12, LOT 2; CASE
#SU2003-07.
Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 11:06 p.m.
Planner Denise Lacey addressed the Council regarding this agenda item and stated that this was a request for
approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a 17 multi-family residential condominium project to be located
within the TCC zoning district. She noted that the units would contain two bedrooms and the project included a
pool area and clubhouse as well as visitor parking. She noted that the zoning ordinance allowed multi-family
residential dwellings within the TCC zoning district by Special Use Permit. She added that the use must meet
the regulations set forth in the M-3 zoning district unless those regulations differed from the regulations
contained in the TCC district in which case the TCC regulations would apply. Ms. Lacey stated that staff and
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Special Use Permit based on stipulations
pertaining to site development that would be addressed at building permit issue.
There being no citizens present wishing to speak on this item, Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing closed
at 11:07 p.m.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 28 of 32
AGENDA ITEM #13 — CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE REQUEST FOR "FOUNTAIN MIST
VILLAS," A 17-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN A TOWN
CENTER COMMERCIAL "TCC" ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED ON EL LAGO BLVD., EAST OF
SAGUARO BLVD.,AKA PARCEL 12,LOT 2; CASE#SU2003-07.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED and Councilman Archambault SECONDED a motion to approve the Special
Use Permit for Case#SU2003-07.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (7 to 0).
AGENDA ITEM #14 — PRESENTATION OF CIVIC CENTER — PHASE II RESEARCH, WITH
POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PREDESIGN SERVICES.
Mr. Pickering stated that they were looking at this issue to save money and said that the Town spent
approximately $600,000 per year on leasing, taxes, and maintaining and landscaping the three Town buildings,
which consisted of approximately 43,000 square feet. He noted that they did not have a signed lease although
staff had been working with the owner. He added that there was too much space, with one building practically
empty at the current time. He stated that there were four options: 1)do nothing and continue as is,which over a
30-year period would cost the Town approximately$33 million; 2) they could purchase the existing building but
pointed out that significant remodeling, estimated at$2.5 million,would need to occur to bring the building into
ADA compliance making the grand total approximately $6.1 million. He noted that that would only last another
15 years so over a 30-year period,it would be an estimated $15 million cost. He added that 3)they could lease
another building at a cost of$18.2 million over 30 years or 4) they could construct a new building. He stated
that #4 was the cheapest option over the long run. He estimated the cost to be anywhere from$3.3 million to
$4.8 million and it would be a Town owned asset.
Mr. Pickering recommended that they "pay as they go" over two to three fiscal years and added that they had
learned from the five year financial plan that revenues did exist and they would have to do a few new revenue
enhancements and use development fees. He also discussed the possibility of obtaining grants, specifically from
Le Proposition 202,for the Police portion of the Town Hall.
Mr. Pickering advised that staff recommendation was to construct a new building, which would result in a
savings of almost $30 million dollars over a 30-year period of time. He added that they could pay off the
building in less than six years and commented on the extensive planning that had gone into this since 1995. He
noted that this long-term solution would get the Town out of its current tenuous situation. He referred to slides
that depicted the site and said that an exact location had not been determined but it would be basically across
from the Post Office and would definitely create a town center synergy with the community center and library
right next door. He said that the land was purchased for this very purpose and discussed anticipated space
needs.
Mr. Pickering informed the Council that since August when staff brought this issue up to the Council, they had
been working on identifying a long-term solution and believed that a design-build process would be the best
method because it was the quickest. He added that they only had 19 months left and they had to select an
architect and contractor team and have the building ready to move into by May of 2005.
Discussion ensued relative to securing the services of a pre-design services firm,namely a project manager,who
would oversee, analyze and verify the Town's space needs; conduct a site analysis, develop the Request for
Qualifications; present their recommendations to the Council; and assist in the interviewing and hiring process
for the design build team; and the fact that the firm would not be able to perform as either the architect or the
builder but instead would be the Town's representative.
Mr. Pickering advised that staff looked at four different pre-design firms, Kitchell, Pinnacle One, Aversa and
Breckenridge Group and recommended Kitchell, who they believed to be the most thorough. He added that
their scope of services was the most detailed and their time estimates and cost estimates were realistic. He noted
�,. that their cost was $19,880 to assist in the pre-design phase to begin the project. He pointed out that $25,000
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session I I-06-03.doc Page 29 of 32
had been budgeted for this purpose. He stated that they needed to finalize the financing within this quarter, hire
a design-build team,design and construct the building,and be in it by May 2005.
Councilman Kavanagh noted that the seniors would prefer to have a separate building for a senior center on the
same site and believed that they might be able to obtain additional grant monies for that purpose. He said he
wanted to ascertain that approval of this tonight, as presented, would allow that option to remain open. Mr.
Pickering assured Councilman Kavanagh that approval this evening would not limit that option and an initial
analysis of that would be undertaken. He added that they knew it would be more cost effective to do it in-house,
but said if the seniors were able to obtain a grant,a stand alone building would not be out of the questions.
Vice Mayor Melendez commended Mr. Pickering and his staff on the hard work they had done on this proposal
and said it made a lot of sense to him.
In response to a question from Councilman Archambault,Mr. Pickering advised that a motion is needed in order
to proceed.
Councilman Archambault MOVED that staff be directed to proceed with the hiring of the pre-design team as
recommended and MAYOR NICHOLS seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Ralph stated that although an excellent case had been made for a new office building and the
ultimate savings over time, she was concerned that the timing was wrong. She pointed out that not too long ago,
Town staff was reduced by 20% and said it made her very nervous to think that after departments were
consolidated and hard work was expended to take up the slack, that this amount of money would be spent on a
building. She added that the timing was not appropriate and although they did need the building, she could not
support the motion at this time.
Edwin Kehe addressed the Council requested that the Town Manager be more specific on the funding and
questioned whether impact fees would be used. Mr. Pickering responded that a specific development fee
existed, namely general government, which was for governmental buildings. He added that the theory was
whenever there was development there would be demands for more government services and government
facilities had to be built. Mr. Pickering provided a brief overview of the funding sources for the project over the
next three fiscal years and staffs intent to identify new revenue sources.
Councilwoman Nicola asked how much of the cost would be recouped from revenue enhancements and Mr.
Pickering reported that approximately a half a million dollars would be recouped.
John O'Flynn, 16538 E. Sullivan Drive, President of Senior Services of Fountain Hills, expressed support for
the motion before the Council. He stated that the seniors would need a minimum of 5,000 square feet with a
1500-foot patio. He noted that the organization had 700 members at the current time and estimated that eight to
ten years down the road, they would again need to expand. He requested that they keep future expansion needs
in mind when they designed the building.
The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(6 to 1)with Councilwoman Ralphe voting nay.
AGENDA ITEM #15 - COUNCIL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW OF THE MEETING TO IDENTIFY
PROCEDURAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.
Councilwoman Nicola said she wanted to reiterate that when an item arose that involved a lot of discussion and
public comment,a separate meeting should be held
Mayor Nichols thanked the Council for their positive work on the sign issues.
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 30 of 32
Mr. O'Flynn interjected that regard to the previous agenda item, that as soon as definitive cost figures were
available,the seniors would embark upon an aggressive grant seeking campaign,both local and federal.
L., Councilwoman Stevens recommended that when they invite other elected officials to speak, that they be given a
specific time frame in which to present their remarks. She added that they should also be given some type of a
procedure to follow.
AGENDA ITEM #16 — COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. ITEMS
LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF (i) PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON
A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR (ii) OR DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER
RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL:
A. REQUESTED BY VICE MAYOR MELENDEZ: PLACING THE DISCUSSION OF A BRIEF
STAFF REPORT ON A FUTURE AGENDA ON THE SUBJECT OF THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC
CONTROL ACTIVITY AND/OR STANDARDS WITH REGARD TO THE STATUS OF
CURRENT ENGINEERING,EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES.
Vice Mayor Melendez said that sometime after the holidays he believed it would be appropriate to have a report
that included what was being done with respect to traffic enforcement engineering and the three "E"s that had to
do with engineering, education and enforcement issues. He said he believed it important since there had been a
change in management and welcomed the Captain to the meeting.
Councilwoman Nicola suggested that the issue be discussed at the quarterly meeting in January. The Vice
Mayor agreed.
The Mayor stated that sufficient support existed to place this item on the agenda at that time as requested by the
Vice Mayor.
AGENDA ITEM#17—SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER
Mr. Pickering said staff would send the members of the Development Advisory Commission a letter thanking
them for their service to the community. He added that they would work on developing the banner permit fee
reduction ordinance. He said that they would place on a future agenda the issue of permanent signs for
discussion. He advised that during the quarterly report in January, staff would provide a more succinct report on
what they are doing regarding engineering, education,and enforcement issues.
Councilwoman Nicola also requested that Mr. McGuire look into how they might make it more equitable for
properties that existed in Scottsdale but utilizing Fountain Hills' services in terms of reimbursing the Town. Mr.
Pickering stated that this issue would be brought back for reconsideration in the future.
AGENDA ITEM#18—ADJOURNMENT
Councilwoman Nicola MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the
motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 11:29 p.m.
L
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 31 of 32
TOWN OF FOUNTAI HILLS
Cor
By
Wa y Nic Is,Mayor
A LEIST AND
PEPARED BY:
Bevelyn J. B er, wn Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Session held
by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 6th day of November 2003. I further certify that the meeting was
duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 20th day of November 2003.
Bevelyn J. Bende n Clerk
L
E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Regular and Executive Session 11-06-03.doc Page 32 of 32