Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.1103.TCRM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 3,2005
Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
INVOCATION—The invocation was led by Pastor John Nichols,New River Community Church.
Mayor Nichols advised that Pastor Nichols was his son and the Pastor at the New River Community Church in
Windsor, Connecticut. He thanked him for the invocation.
ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council:
Councilman Archambault, Mayor Nichols, Councilman Kehe Councilman Kavanagh, Vice Mayor Schlum and
Councilman McMahan. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire,Town Manager Tim Pickering,Town Clerk Bev Bender,
Director of Parks and Recreation Mark Mayer, Planning and Zoning Administrator Richard Turner, Lt. John
D'Amico and Captain John Kleinheinz with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Senior Planner Bob Rogers
were also present.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS:
The Mayor introduced Maricopa County Board of Supervisor Don Stapley, who spoke on current issues that affect
Fountain Hills' residents.
Supervisor Stapley said that he was pleased to represent Maricopa County and the Board of Supervisors, the
governing body of the County, to report to the citizens on some of the accomplishments that had taken place over
the last three to five years and the priorities/strategies for the future. He said that pamphlets depicting the goals
lbw were available in the rear of the Chambers. He briefly outlined the material contained in the pamphlet and
commented that the material contained data regarding the County's last Strategic Plan as well as priorities for the
coming cycle. He encouraged the citizens to read the information and/or access their website at www.maricopa.gov
for additional details.
Supervisor Stapley briefly discussed the following projects and topics: the adult/juvenile detention jail facility; the
population growth of Maricopa County (3rd largest in population in the United States); the Human Services Campus
to serve the homeless community which will have all services in one location; the reduction of the property tax rate
by 10%; the partnership projects such as the purchase of Spur Cross Ranch for open space, the investment of funds
for construction of roads and bridges in the County„ helping to create one of the largest public health care systems
with a district board, and the regional trail system.
Mayor Nichols thanked Supervisor Stapley for his presentation and his friendship with the Town of Fountain Hills.
Kirk Dymbrowski from Maricopa County Vector Control gave a presentation regarding West Nile Virus.
Mr. Dymbrowksi discussed the County's involvement in the West Nile Virus issue and actions that citizens could
take to prevent the virus from spreading. He provided the audience with his Department's telephone number(602)
506-0700 and website, www.maricopa.gov/wnv and encouraged them to contact the department with any questions
and/or concerns. The department's number one priority was to use integrated pest management to control the West
Nile Virus which meant that instead of attacking only one phase of the problem, they go after the adult, larvae
stages as well as engineering prevention (modifying environments, educating the public and enforcement). He
informed the audience that in standing bodies of water, comma-shaped objects were often seen which were most
likely mosquitoes, particularly if they were near the surface of the water. He added that other insects also bred in
Noe water but the larvae tend to be near the bottom
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 1 of 16
•
He discussed the various criteria followed regarding testing, detection, and eradication. He reported that once West
Nile Virus carriers had been detected, fogging occurred in the evenings. He stated that and the active ingredient in
the pesticide became harmless when the sun rose.
Mr. Dymbrowski advised people to wear protective clothing, i.e. long-sleeves and he encouraged residents to use
")
insect repellant and modify outdoor activities (walk during the day rather than evening) and screen household
windows and doors. He emphasized that the mosquitoes that carry the disease are almost entirely "backyard
breeders" and noted that they feed 50/50 on humans and birds. He added that pools simply need to be running and
circulating. He stated that the elimination of standing water was also critical as well as the removal of clutter. He
encouraged residents to adjust their sprinklers to avoid run offs that result in pools of water and said that all
standing water (bird baths, dog's water bowls) should be dumped and refilled at least every two days. He also
reminded the citizens who have rain gutters to clean them out.
In response to a question from Councilman Kavanagh, Mr. Dymbrowski advised that the Environmental Protection
Agency(EPA)deemed that any pesticide had to be labeled as"dangerous"or"hazardous". He said that if someone
was susceptible to broad-spectrum chemicals, etc., the fogging could cause asthma-like symptoms. He said that if
someone was susceptible, they should contact the County to have their name placed on a list and the person would
be notified if there was going to be any spraying in the immediate area. He added that they could then take
precautions such as turning off the air conditioning in the evening. He emphasized that the "fogging" was as mild
as it could get and still be effective. He reported that "fogging" was scheduled 72 hours in advance whenever
possible and when it occurred earlier than that, it was only because a positive virus had been detected in a
neighborhood and immediate action was required(that night or the next day).
Mr. Dymbrowski informed Councilman Kavanagh that there was a hot line number that citizens could call that
advised what was projected for that night or over the weekend. He added that they could not provide 72-hour
notice over the hot line. He agreed that anything that attracted birds (feeders, baths) also attracted mosquitoes and
increased the chances of the virus unless the yard was maintained in such a way those mosquitoes could not breed
and/or citizens failed to take precautions. He said that the Board of Health was not suggesting that people not have
birdbaths—just that they were proactive in changing the sitting water on a regular basis.
Mr. Dymbrowski stated that the "fogging" activity was at a minimum at the current time since mosquitoes are
starting to slow down because of the season
Discussion ensued relative to the water that existed in many of the Town's washes and regular inspections that
would be scheduled to detect larvae; the fact that the most susceptible time was in the fall and early part of the
summer when new birds were being born and did not have the immune system to fight off the virus; the fact that
during the colder months, the birds were in a migratory phase and not "hanging around long enough," the fact that
in the future the number of West Nile Virus cases could drop; and other viruses exist and were being monitored and
treated.
Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Dymbrowski for his informative presentation and encouraged the media to publish a
story on the information that they received.
Town Manager Tim Pickering advised that Philip Blackerby from Blackerby Associates was present (Town's
facilitator of its Strategic Plan). He noted that the Strategic Plan had been an on-going process since the beginning
of this year. He stated that the consultants would provide a synopsis on the culmination of the process.
Mr. Blackerby, Project Manager for the Town of Fountain Hills Strategic Planning Process, addressed the Council
and acknowledged the members of the Technical Advisory Committee present and emphasized that the survey was
just one important step in the overall Strategic Planning process. He discussed the various components/steps that
were involved as part of this process, including surveying 1300 random citizens. He indicated his intention to
present the Council with an early draft of the Strategic Plan next week to solicit their input. Mr. Blackerby
introduced Chris Tatham from the ETC Institute and noted that the firm was selected through a competitive bidding
process.
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 2 of 16
•
Mr. Tatham advised that his organization served city and county governments across the country and said that they
take what they learn in other communities and apply it to their current projects He praised the Fountain Hills'
project and stated they would share it with other municipalities in the future, especially the community
involvement. He noted that the purpose of the survey was to gain input from a wide range (random representative
sample) of people from the community and added that they administered the survey to two separate groups — a
randomly selected group of residents and the people who participated in the Town Hall process. He indicated his
intention to focus mainly on the random sample but said that they would see similarities to the Town Hall sample.
Mr. Tatham reported that the survey results had a precision of about plus or minus 2.8% and, in layman's terms, if
they did this survey 90 out of 100 times they would get the same answer within approximately plus or minus 3%, a
pretty good indication of what people think. He noted that they added to the survey GIS mapping capabilities and
referred to a map that showed where the respondents lived (most of the developed part of the community). He
referred to charts that showed that overall citizen perceptions indicated higher ratings than his firm had seen
nationally. He added that 93% of the residents surveyed gave positive ratings for the overall quality of life while
the national average is 77%. He advised that as far as a place to live, 97 out of 100 people surveyed gave positive
ratings compared to 84% nationally. He said that they asked people to rate 15 items on the survey that would keep
them living in Fountain Hills and five of the items that were really "key" included the small town atmosphere, the
low crime rate, the overall appearance and beauty of the community, the level of taxation, and the overall quality of
housing.
Mr. Tatham also discussed the Strategic Plan and emphasized the significant number of residents who knew about
the Plan (3 out of 4) and noted that typically this number was less than 30%. He advised that a majority of the
residents surveyed indicated that they wanted new development in the downtown area to serve residents primarily
but others felt that destination points were also important. There was not a clear-cut answer but the majority was to
serve the residents. He commented on the citizens' response to arts and cultural endeavors and noted that the
community was divided on this issue; one third thought it should serve mainly residents; another third thought it
should be "destination oriented" to bring people into Town and one in four did not want any arts and/or cultural
(40, facilities.
Discussion ensued regarding the Town's future projected operating deficit at buildout; the fact that 48% of the
respondents selected some sort of tax, levying a property tax (25% of respondents) or levying a sales tax (23% of
respondents) and the fact that 30% of those surveyed did not have an opinion and 22% thought that the Town
should cut or reduce services now or wait until later to raise taxes; indicates the importance of implementing a
significant education effort prior to initiating any action. The fact that 48% of the residents were currently willing
to consider some type of increase and the importance of reaching the 30% that did not have an opinion before
proceeding too quickly; the fact that the Strategic Plan came up with 21 initiatives that were addressed on the
survey (with costs) and materials provided indicated the citizens' response/support of taxing initiatives. He also
referred to charts that depicted the citizens' support for doing initiatives independent of the funding. In other
words, the survey was structured and they asked people how much they would support having the Town annex
State Trust Land, etc. In a subsequent set of questions they were asked how willing they would be to pay for those
items (based on a certain fee). He reported that high quality housing rated very highly before being asked whether
they would pay for it and a new community park/performing arts center/resurfacing streets were not things that
people identified as strongly with as far as initiatives on which the community should move forward. He added that
partnering with local schools, however, ranked very high whereas other issues such as a stand alone Senior
Center/performing arts center/curbside recycling had greater costs associated with them and people were less
willing to give their support.
Mr. Tatham referred to the charts that identified the various categories and desires of the community as identified
by the survey. He advised that certain groups within the community would want some of the initiatives but there
was also a group that had expressed an unwillingness to fund them and there was disagreement regarding their
implementation. He referred to a chart that depicted the ranking of the various items and the amount that citizens
were willing to pay for them. He discussed the "short list" of priorities they developed from the rankings that
Itsre included working with local schools, requiring local development to use native vegetation, looking at strict
enforcement of Planning and Zoning ordinances, setting up an architectural review board to ensure strong
architectural controls, and annexing State Trust Land. He also reviewed items that citizens indicated the Town
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 3 of 16
•
should look at in the near or future term and added that the items at the bottom of the list were not community
priorities. Mr. Tatham stated the opinion that the Town had done a good job as far as community involvement and
developing a good list of issues to gauge community support.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the recreational amenities described by the citizens in the survey(8d).
Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Tatham for his presentation and stated that he was impressed with the results. He also
expressed appreciation to Mr. Blackerby and the Committee for all of the time they had spent on this issue.
Councilman Archambault asked the members of the Committee to stand and be recognized and the Council and
audience applauded them for their efforts.
(4) Presentation of the design for the Skate Park by Brad Siedlecki, Site Design Group,Inc.
Mark Mayer addressed the Council regarding the agenda item concerning the design for the Skate Park. He noted
that the Town had been involved in this issue for quite some time. He noted that the Council recently approved a
package and set aside some funding for the Skate Park and a particular site had been identified. He introduced Mr.
Brad Siedlecki with the Site Design Group and commented on his firm's expertise in this area. He noted that the
Parks &Recreation Commission was supportive of the recommendation being presented this evening.
Ms. Siedlecki addressed the Council and provided a brief presentation on the proposed Skate Park for the Town of
Fountain Hills, Phase I and Phase II. He described the two phases and his firm's attempt to address the requests
that came from the Town's youths. He stated that Phase I would be built and Phase II was something that was
brought up by the community that contained some transitional aspects He referred to a map that depicted the site for
the skate park and said that at some point spectator seating might be added on the hill to overlook the park. He
indicated his willingness to respond to any questions from the Council regarding this agenda item.
Mr. Siedlecki confirmed that Phase I was in the foreground and the hill was located in the back and noted that other
than skateboards, rollerblades and bicycles would be allowed at the park— anything with wheels except motorized
vehicles.
Mayor Nichols noted that there would be posted times that depicted when the various devices could be used. Mr.
Siedlecki advised that the construction documents should be completed within the first couple months of next year'
it would go out to bid and be completed by year-end.
Mr. Mayer explained that as soon as the construction documents were done staff would seek Council approval for
bidding as required, and construction would last from three to four months. He estimated that completion would
take place in late spring/early summer, assuming that the bids were in line with budgeted funding.
Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Siedlecki for his presentation.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nichols requested a motion to approve the consent agenda:
AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES FROM
OCTOBER 6,2005.
AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A STREET NAME CHANGE IN EAGLES'
NEST PARCEL 5 TO"WHITE WING COURT.
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 4 of 16
•
AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-60, APPROVING AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI INDIAN
NATION REGARDING PROPOSITION 202 FUNDING REQUESTS.
AGENDA ITEM #4- CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY
THE AMERICAN LEGION POST #58. THE REQUEST IS FOR A FUNDRAISER SCHEDULED FOR
NOVEMBER 11 - 13, 2005 FROM 9:00 A.M.TO 11:00 P.M. ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY FROM 10:00
A.M.TO 10 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM#5- CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY
THE AMERICAN LEGION POST #58. THE REQUEST IS FOR A FUNDRAISER SCHEDULED FOR
DECEMBER 3,2005 FROM 9:00 A.M.TO 11:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF A LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
XIANG PING MA FOR PING'S CAFÉ LOCATED AT 17115 E. SHEA BOULEVARD. THE
APPLICATION IS FOR A NEW CLASS 12(RESTAURANT) LICENSE.
AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF A LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
RANDY NATIONS FOR WATERS EDGE RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 13014 SAGUARO
BOULEVARD. THE APPLICATION IS FOR A NEW CLASS 12 (RESTAURANT)LICENSE.
AGENDA ITEM #8 - CONSIDERATION OF A LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
MARIA SOTO-PAYNE FOR PARKVIEW TAPHOUSE LOCATED AT 16828 E. PARKVIEW. THE
APPLICATION IS FOR A NEW CLASS 12(RESTAURANT) LICENSE.
AGENDA ITEM #9 - CONSIDERATION OF APROVING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH
ATLANTIC MACHINERY, INC., THROUGH THEIR FACTORY AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR IN
ARIZONA, BALAR EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, FOR A STREET SWEEPER IN THE AMOUNT OF
lbw $206,294.37.
AGENDA ITEM #10 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-54, ESTABLISHING THE SENIOR
CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AND ADOPTING BYLAWS FOR ITS GOVERNANCE.
AGENDA ITEM #11 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-53, CONTINUING THE
MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVE COMMISSION AND ADOPTING BYLAWS FOR ITS
GOVERNANCE.
AGENDA ITEM #12 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
FOR "MIMOSA CONDOMINIUMS," A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 13037 N.
MIMOSA DRIVE,AKA PLAT 6-1A,BLOCK 3,LOT 34, CASE#S2005-15.
AGENDA ITEM #13 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
HIKING LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH MCO PROPERTIES,L.P.
AGENDA ITEM #14 - CONSIDERATION OF APROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH OLSSON ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,302.58, FOR A REVISED
MASTER PLAN, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR DESERT VISTA
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK-PHASE II.
AGENDA ITEM #15 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-51, ABANDONING WHATEVER
RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 107, BLOCK 3, LOT 17
(1443 N. SAN CARLOS DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 141 OF MAPS, PAGE 18 RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. EA05-21 (LUSARDI).
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 5 of 16
•
AGENDA ITEM #16 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-61, APPROVING AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SCOTTSDALE RELATING TO
COORDINATION OF INCIDENT RESPONSE AND TEMPORARY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS FOR
SHEA BOULEVARD.
AGENDA ITEM #17 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
TOWN MANAGER'S ANNUAL CONTRACT.
AGENDA ITEM #18 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING AN AMENDED REPLAT FOR FOUNTAIN
VIEW VILLAGE LOT 2 TO LOTS 2A AND 2B,LOCATED AT 13525 FOUNTAIN HILLS BOULEVARD,
AKA FINAL REPLAT OF FOUNTAIN VIEW VILLAGE. CASE#S2004-26.
Councilman Archambault MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilman McMahan
SECONDED the motion.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilman Kehe** Aye
Vice Mayor Schlum Aye
Councilman Kavanagh Aye
Mayor Nichols Aye
Councilman McMahan Aye
Councilman Archambault Aye
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6 to 0).
** Councilman Kehe temporarily left the meeting but voted aye on the motion upon his return shortly after the vote
was taken.
ACTION AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM#19—PRESENTATION BY THE PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION CHAIR
LARRY MOYSE REGARDNG THE RECOMMENDATION ON UNLICENSED MOTORIZED
VEHICLES AND PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ORDINANCE 05-15,AMENDING
THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12 TRAFFIC, ARTICLE 12-5, MOTORIZED
SKATEBOARDS, RELATING TO REGULATING THE USE OF MOTORIZED SKATEBOARDS AND
MOTORIZED PLAY VEHICLES.
Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 7:30 p.m.
Public Safety Commission Chair Larry Moyse thanked the Council for the opportunity to address them and stated
that it was an honor to serve the community and the members looked forward to their next assignment. He said that
they were a new committee and were told not what they could do but what they could not do and they had to work
their way through that and make sure that they did everything "by the book." He referred to a letter contained in
the Council packets, which stated, "We, the members of the Town of Fountain Hills Public Safety Advisory
Commission, have studied the situation of unlicensed motorized vehicles as requested by the Town Council. After
conducting two public hearings and researching how other municipalities have approached the subject, we have
unanimously agreed on the following recommendation: All unlicensed motorized vehicles should be banned from
public streets and property in the Town of Fountain Hills, with the exception of those vehicles that are medically
necessary as defined under the AMERICANS WITH DISABILTIES ACT, with strict enforcement by the agencies
responsible for enforcement of same."
Mr.Moyse advised that the above recommendation was approved unanimously by the Commission and emphasize
that their main concern was the safety of the people who operated the vehicles. He said that he was disappointed in
the response they experienced as far as their hearings and said to him that meant, "we don't want to see these things
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 6 of 16
around so go and do what you have to do." He reiterated that the Commission unanimously supported the ban as
stated above and indicated his willingness to respond to questions.
Mayor Nichols explained that this was a public hearing and stated that he would like to hear from anyone who
wished to speak on this item. He added that after the comments, he would close the public hearing and call for a
motion to accept the change to the ordinance.
Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that there were no citizens wishing to speak on this issue.
Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing closed at 7:35 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #20 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 05-15, AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN
HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12 TRAFFIC, ARTICLE 12-5, MOTORIZED SKATEBOARDS
RELATING TO REGULATING THE USE OF MOTORIZED SKATEBOARDS AND MOTORIZED
PLAY VEHICLES.
Councilman Kehe MOVED to approve Ordinance 05-15 and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the
motion.
Vice Mayor Schlum asked Mr. Moyse to discuss the comments they received from the one youth who attended the
hearing regarding this matter. Mr. Moyse responded that he used his scooter (and emphasized that this issue was
not just about scooters, it was about motorized vehicles in general) to go back and forth to work. He said that the
Commissioners discussed liability issues associated with this and in fact an incident did occur wherein someone
was hurt in a similar situation. He added that they were going to "kick"this issue back to the State and say that an
unlicensed vehicle on a roadway was unlicensed and it was their opinion that it should not be allowed on a road.
He emphasized that their goal was to address issues on the roads and to make sure that everyone on the road is safe
and that the laws of the State of Arizona were complied with.
Lie
Councilman Archambault asked whether any of these types of vehicles could be licensed(such as pocket bikes) and
Mr. Moyer responded that those that were covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), such as
electric scooters, were allowed as long as the proper State requirements regarding motorized vehicles were met.
Councilman Kavanagh asked whether the issue of Segways came up and Mr. Moyer stated that it came up under
the ADA Act and explained that citizens with disabilities who needed these types of vehicles could utilize them.
He added that according to the opinion that they received,the users of those types of vehicles must have a disability
or reason to use them; otherwise operating them on the streets would be illegal. He said that there was no way to
license them under the State of Arizona at this point and emphasized that this was simply the opinion of the Public
Safety Commission.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire commented that he was not sure that the Segway vehicle had been addressed in
the State Statutes (as to whether or not it was considered a motorized vehicle subject to licensing). He said that
they had been operating much like motorized skateboards, both on and off the sidewalks but added that he did not
see anything in the last legislative session that addressed this issue and they were clearly not within the definition of
motorized skateboards, which was currently deemed not a motor vehicle in the statutes. He commented that
although the definition of Segway fell between both State law and Town Ordinance, he believed that the Town's
Ordinance was broad enough to deem Segways illegal, when operated on public streets and sidewalks. He pointed
out that the Ordinance's "reach" was beyond just public streets and sidewalks, the "reach" was to private streets as
well and the purpose of that was a large segment of the population over at Eagle Mountain lived on private streets
and the "reach" here was to state that the operation on private property had to be with the express written
permission of the property owner or the Eagle Mountain HOA. He added that all of the traffic laws would have to
be followed as well, even on private roads. He emphasized that this would apply to people who lived in gated
communities.
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 7 of 16
Councilman Kavanagh asked whether the Commission was seeking to ban all uses of the Segway and Mr. Moyer
reiterated that their opinion stated that, "all unlicensed motorized vehicles" shall be banned. He said that if a
Segway falls under that category, then yes,they were calling for a ban.
Mr. Moyse advised that the biggest objections had to do with safety and noise and Councilman McMahan noted
4111.
that scooters with quiet electric motors were available and he had found that the"chain saw engine" noise had been
a major concern. Mr. Moyse responded that at the two hearings that were highly publicized, they did not have
anyone attend and complain. He said that it was not a noise issue, it was a safety issue. He further stated that
citizens spent "X" amount of hours in order to be issued drivers' licenses while other people, not only youths, were
out on the road on these vehicles and they were not aware of the rules of the road. He added that one person did
express concern regarding noise
Councilman McMahan commented that perhaps electric powered scooters could be exempt and Mr. Moyer replied
that the Commission believed that the ban should apply to all unlicensed motorized vehicles.
Councilman Kehe discussed the disabled gentleman who told the Commission that he wanted to be able to operate
his vehicle in the park and said that it was his understanding that operation of these vehicles was prohibited in all
Town parks according to the Town Code. Mr. McGuire explained that ADA vehicles needed for mobility were
excluded from the ban and allowed in the parks and said that the Commission concurred with these exceptions.
Discussion ensued relative to the fact that standard violation provisions were included in the proposal to make
people aware of the fact that if they were cited on one day, that did not give them a"free pass" for another day; the
fact that "double jeopardy arguments" had been raised and staff's intention to clarify that each and every time the
law was broken,the person doing so was subject to penalties;the fact that the wording could be changed to omit the
word "day;" the fact that the penalty provision also applied to licensing dealerships as well who were required to
hand out notifications regarding the Town's policies and were selling the vehicles without doing so, and the fact
that the amendment before the Council must cover the dealerships as well.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that he did not have a problem with requiring businesses that sell the vehicles to post
signage notifying people that they could not be used in Town but stated the opinion that it was "overkill" and
placed a burden on store owners to additionally require them to hand out written notification.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that they keep the posting notification requirement but drop the requirement,
along with the penalty, that stores that sell the vehicles must also give a copy of a notification form to the buyers.
Councilman McMahan SECONDED the motion.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item.
The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(5-1) with Vice Mayor Schlum voting nay.
Mr. Moyse, speaking on behalf of the Commission,thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve the community
and said that they looked forward to their next project.
AGENDA ITEM#21—CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A NURSING HOME AT A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 40-FEET IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL LAGO BOULEVARD AND VERDE RIVER DRIVE, AKA FOUNTAIN
VIEW FINAL PLAT. CASE#SU2004-04.
Mr. Pickering advised that this issue had been before the Council before, was tabled, and was now back before
them for consideration.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Richard Turner provided the Council with a brief overview of this agenda item
and said that the vicinity map shows the location of the property and surrounding development, which was multi-Ngir
family. He added that the aerial map, which was the basis for the vicinity map, was taken before condominiums
were built north of the property. Most of the surrounding property was zoned R-4, the property to the north was
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 8 of 16
zoned C-2 with a Special Use Permit for condominiums, many of which had been constructed. The property in
question was two acres and had been graded as part of a previously approved construction project. The
applicant/owner had twice before received approval for a Special Use Permit for the development of a nursing
home on this property and both times the Special Use Permit expired due to inactivity. On March 10th of this year,
the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denial of this application citing non-compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance, noting that this would not be a good business for this area considering the
condominiums that had been built in the last few years. On April 7th, the Town Council granted the applicant's
request for a continuance to resolve the issue of building length. At the time, the proposed nursing home's building
length was over the 200-foot maximum and the applicant requested that the Council continue the case for an
ordinance amendment that would decide the building length issue one way or another.
Mr. Turner further stated that on August Lich an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove the 200-foot
building length limit from buildings such as the applicant's proposed nursing home project was denied by the
Council. The applicant then revised his plans to comply with the 200-foot building length limit. He referred to the
applicant's proposed site plan and discussed other changes that had occurred, such as a reduction in the number of
beds, square footage, lot coverage, parking spaces and noted that the parking area had been relocated. He noted
that access to the parking lot had been improved and more landscaping had been provided at the northwest corner
of the site. He commented that the changes were made in response to staff requests and to conform to the Zoning
Ordinance. He said that if the Council determined that the changes were significant, the application should be
returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and recommendation. He advised that five e-
mails had been received in opposition to this case from surrounding residents and added that staff believed that the
design of the proposed facility was acceptable, parking was more than adequate for the intended use, and believed
that the building height was justified in view of other buildings in the area. He added that if the Council should find
that the changes made to the plan since the Planning and Zoning Commission were not significant, then staff
recommended approval of the application subject to the four conditions listed in the staff report.
In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr.McGuire advised that in order to uphold the process this evening, the
Council should first determine whether or not they believed sufficient significant changes had been made to the
plan. He added that if they did not believe that the changes warrant being sent back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission,then they could open up the matter for full discussion.
Councilman Kavanagh requested that if they did decide to send the case back to Planning and Zoning that they
provide anyone who attended the meeting for the purpose of providing input an opportunity to do so in order for the
comments to be contained in the minutes that would be forwarded on to the Commission.
Councilman Kehe discussed the last meeting that was held regarding this case and said they acted upon the 200-
foot building length with the stipulation that if they turned that down, they could still consider the project under a
Special Use Permit. They did not have to send it back to Planning and Zoning. He requested clarification
regarding this issue.
Mr. McGuire concurred with Councilman Kehe's comment and said that the issue of whether or not the case goes
back to Planning and Zoning was the State law provision that they generally followed for zoning actions; that if
there was a significant change in the plan between the time the case went to Planning and Zoning for the first
hearing and came back to the Council, they traditionally sent the cases back to P&Z in its amended form for a new
hearing. He added that the Council maintained the option not to do so but it had been their usual practice.
Discussion ensued relative to the fact that since the 200-foot issue had been clarified, staff was leaning towards
sending the case back to P&Z for the opportunity to be reheard; the Council's recent commitment to P&Z to be
more sensitive to and conscious of any ordinance changes and how they might apply to their decision; the fact that
the building now conformed to the building length requirements;the fact that P&Z questioned whether the 200-foot
limit applied to this particular situation or whether it applied only to multi-family, and Councilman Archambault's
L., opinion that the Council decided that question and what was before them this evening complied with the Ordinance
Mayor Nichols asked whether the proposal complied with the Town's Ordinance and Mr. McGuire responded that
it was his understanding that the reductions in the building had brought the case into compliance except for the
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 9 of 16
height, which was a Special Use Permit issue. He said that by issuing a Special Use Permit they could grant the
height variance.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that he believed the case should be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commissior
and Councilman McMahan agreed.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED that the case be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the
understanding that citizens who came to speak on this matter be provided that opportunity. Vice Mayor Schlum
SECONDED the motion.
The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE(5-1) with Councilman Kehe voting Nay.
Mayor Nichols requested that citizens who wished to speak on this agenda item do so as their names were called.
Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that twelve speaker cards were turned in and Jo Neimic indicated on the card
opposition to the case but did not wish to speak.
John Connelly, 16715 E. El Lago, said that he attended previous meetings regarding this case and stated the opinion
that the real question was whether they wanted a nursing home in a residential area. He noted that the operation
would be a 7-day, 24-hour operation that would generate traffic and parking congestion. He discussed the poor
condition of the site at the current time but noted that changes in the area had occurred and deluxe condominiums
existed on both sides. He asked the Council to reject the petition and not allow the mis-use.
Justin Hoberg, a resident of Casa Bella Condominiums, also spoke in opposition to the project and said that a 122-
room nursing home was likened to a 122-room motel in the midst of a residential area. He stressed the importance
of taking this point under consideration and protecting the residential area.
Robert Jeffrey, 16616 E. Gunsight Drive, concurred with the previous speakers' comments and said that the project
would generate considerable traffic and noise. He added that he adamantly opposed the request. He said that he
had a letter from a neighbor of his who was currently out-of-state and read the following into the record: "Mr.
Mayor and Councilmembers: I am writing to express my concern with the proposed Special Use Permit for a
senior living facility, which is under consideration by your membership. It is my understanding that this facility is
being considered for the southwest corner of Verde Drive and El Lago Boulevard. I have lived in Fountain Hills on
Gunsight Drive, directly behind the property in question for five years. As you are aware, this area is entirely
residential and a facility of this type will have a negative impact on property values of all the current residents. I
sincerely hope that the Council will consider the wishes of the residents most affected by this business and vote to
deny the construction of this facility. Respectfully, Carol Scarvi."
Terry Burke, a full time resident of Plaza del Lago, speaking on behalf of the Plaza del Lago Homeowners'
Association, noted that many of the residents were present this evening and many owners were winter residents
who had also voiced concerns. She questioned why the hearing was being held in November when a large segment
of the population was not in Town. She said that many of the residents had voiced their opposition thru e-mails and
letters to the newspapers and City Council and added that concerns included the height of the building, whether the
project was appropriate for the neighborhood, the generation of heavy traffic, parking and overflow parking
problems, noise and pollution, night time deliveries, and negative impacts on the entire neighborhood. She
questioned what else the building could be used for should the nursing home venture fail and urged the Council to
vote no on the issuance of a Special Use Permit.
Robert Alonzo also addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He commented that since the project was
first brought up, the Town had changed drastically and was now a fast paced resort community. He stated the
opinion that the site could not support adequate parking, noted that El Lago Boulevard was a major pedestrian
walkway, and raised questions regarding safety. He asked the Council to vote in opposition.
Elizabeth Alonzo, El Lago Boulevard, expressed the opinion that ten years ago when the project was proposed, a
"pig farm" could have been built on the site but much had changed and El Lago was now lined with luxury condos.
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 10 of 16
She said that this type of 24/7 operation did not fit into the residential community and pointed out that it would be a
skilled nursing facility with 122 residents where a ratio of one staff per person was required for 24-hour care. She
added that the business would require an extensive support system, not just nurses and caregivers, bringing a high
volume of traffic, pollution, and noise into the area. She also commented on the fact that the Council was
considering the issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow a maximum height of 40-feet and asked who would
benefit as a result of issuing the requested permit.
Emmanuel Ursu, the applicant's representative, addressed the Council and thanked the neighbors who agreed to
meet with them in an effort to describe the project and the nature of the proposed operation. He stated the opinion
that most of the neighbors with whom they had the opportunity to meet agreed that this was a facility that was
compatible with its surroundings and should be allowed on this site. He discussed revisions to the plan in an effort
to comply with the standards of the Zoning Code and said that the changes had resulted in a reduction of 6,000
square feet in the size of the project; they were at 25% lot coverage although up to 50% was allowed; they had
reduced the number of beds and at the current number, and the same number of vehicle trips per day would be
generated as a multi-family residential use. Mr. Ursu stated that nursing home residents did not have a reputation
for creating a lot of noise and clarified that the staffing ratio is .8 to 1 ratio and they were not all there at the same
time. Most of the staff were there during the 8 to 5 shift. He added that deliveries would be made after 8 a.m. and
no later than 5 p.m. He also commented on the building height and explained that a small segment of the building,
because of a drop in the topography, was at 40 feet but said that they believed that as designed, the project looked
best this way. He added, however, that if the Council so desired, they could alter the roof design and change the
front portion over the front wing to a flat roof from a sloped roof.
Sandra Wimmer, 16715 E. El Lago Boulevard, stated opposition to project because of the height increase and the
fact that it would result in more traffic in the area due to visitors, shift changes, and large food delivery trucks. She
added that Verde River Drive was not conducive because it was a short, narrow road. She discussed safety hazards
and emphasized her opposition to the project.
Frank September, 16206 E. Palisades Boulevard, spoke in support of allowing a second nursing home in Town to
Nire move forward. He noted that it would represent competition. He pointed out that Charter Schools were established
because people wanted to have competition and said that this field needed the same thing. He said that his mother
who spent time in the facility facing the front and when he questioned her about noise, she responded that she was
never disturbed by fire trucks and/or ambulances.
Robert Tripp, 16410 E. Tombstone, stated that once again the residents of Fountain Hills had no idea whether
height limitations were going to be exceeded or revised. He said that despite a recent attempt to stop a height
change at an industrial park (80 petitions submitted in opposition), the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
unanimously to approve the height change. He added, however, that after meeting with Council and presenting
their point of view, the Council voted unanimously against the change. He emphasized the importance of
remaining consistent when dealing with zoning issues and ensuring that Special Use Permits were only issued for
special uses.
Mayor Nichols thanked the speakers for their input.
Councilman Kavanagh requested that staff put together a "side elevation" showing the height of the building in
relation to height of the buildings behind it in order to determine whether view obstructions would occur. He added
that this information should be forwarded to Planning and Zoning before their meeting to help them in making their
determination.
Mr. Pickering noted that the north elevation might be sufficient to show the comparison Councilman Kavanagh had
requested(A1-4). Councilman Kavanagh said that he would like to see it in relation to the buildings around it. He
stated that when he spoke with Mr. Turner, he was advised that at one point there would be 18 feet of building over
ground level and questioned whether he was stating that there would be an 18-foot blockage. Mr.Turner responded
that he looked at the natural grade of all the surrounding property and then the natural grade of this property. He
reported that the natural grade of that particular piece of property was 18 feet higher than the natural grade of the
finished floor of another property. Discussion ensued regarding the roof grade and Councilman Kavanagh
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 11 of 16
commented that part of the building would then be over the grade of the buildings behind it. Mr.Turner agreed that
it would be over the grade but pointed out that those buildings were high as well (two and three stories). He
confirmed that they were not on stilts and added that the buildings behind the one under discussion were much
higher because the ground was much higher but they were about the same elevation at the sides.
Councilman Kavanagh asked whether the building would block any views and Mr. Turner said he could not attest
to that fact. Councilman Kavanagh emphasized that he was concerned about the neighbors to the side and that was
why he is requesting a comparative elevation study,to ensure that no one's views would be blocked.
In response to a question from Councilman Kehe, Mr. Turner advised that the roofline was approximately the same
for most of the building. He said that he would research this further.
Councilman Kehe requested that Mr. Ursu expand upon previous comments relative to reducing the building's
height and Mr. Ursu referred to the sketch of the roof plan (wing on the right hand side at the farthest point north
before the hip starts) and said that at that point the ridgeline was approximately 40-feet above the grade below. He
stated that they could change the front portion of the wing of that building to a flat roof to comply with the 40-foot
limitations (would remove about 8 feet of building height). He referred to diagrams to clarify his intent in this
regard and responded to questions from the Council in an effort to better explain the issue.
Councilman Kavanagh expressed concerns regarding possible loss of views and reiterated his request for additional
information depicting how all of the views would be impacted for all three sides. He also requested information
that would show how the views would be affected if the project was built in compliance with the 30-foot
requirement(both Option A and Option B).
Mayor Nichols commented that 80% of the residents in the Town had indicated that they wanted the Council to
enforce the Planning and Zoning ordinances and said that if this case came back from Planning and Zoning in
excess of the height limitation,he would oppose it.
Mr. Turner responded to Councilman Kehe's prior question and reported that the roofline varied from 30 feet 4
inches to 30 foot 8 inches and 34 foot 5 inches(above the finished floor).
Vice Mayor Schlum agreed that the illustrations that Councilman Kavanagh had requested would be helpful but
stated the opinion because of the grade changes, the height changed but the roofline was fairly flat or horizontal.
He added that the land behind it sloped up and down and stated that the buildings to the east and west were both at
40 feet. He said he believed it would be helpful to illustrate the buildings located on each side of the condos.
Councilman Kavanagh stated that a community in which he used to live used to have a nursing home but it was
closed and reopened as an in-patient facility for people with emotional disorders. He questioned whether this
scenario could happen in the future if the nursing home failed to succeed without a vote of the Council or whether
State law would permit such a use.
Mr. McGuire responded that the language in the Special Use Permit could be as specific as possible and limit the
use to nursing care only. He added that if the use changed, either a new Special Use Permit would have to be
issued by the Council or something available in the underlying zoning category could be used. Councilman
Kavanagh asked whether laws were in place that would prevent a municipality from prohibiting a usage such as the
above referenced in-patient facility. Mr. McGuire replied that he did not believe that Arizona laws would prohibit
them from not granting another Special Use Permit.
Mayor Nichols thanked everyone for their input and stated that they would now move on to the next item on the
agenda.
AGENDA ITEM #22—PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON ORDINANCE 05-14 WHICH
IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO LIMIT THE TIME THAT VEHICLES
SUCH AS RECREATIONAL VEHICLES RE ALLOWED TO PARK IN FRONT OF A RESIDENCE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF LOADING AND UNLOADING TO TWO (2)DAYS. CASE#Z2005-03.
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 12 of 16
•
Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 8:45 p.m.
Mr. Turner addressed the Council and provided a brief overview to the Council regarding this case and staff's
cio, report. He explained that this was an application to amend the Town's Zoning Ordinance (storage and parking of
unoccupied vehicles) to clarify that vehicles would only be allowed to be parked in the front of a residence for a
maximum of two days. He presented background information to the Council and noted that in July 2004 the
Council approved an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that revised the section dealing with the storage and
parking of unoccupied, non-commercial, mobile homes, boats, aircraft, truck campers, camping trailers, travel
trailers and other trailers. In the process of making the change, the clause that limited the length of time that a
recreational or other vehicle could remain in the front of a residence for the purpose of loading or unloading was
inadvertently omitted.
Mr. Turner advised that on September 22, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to
recommend approval of this amendment to the Town Council.
Mr. Turner explained that without a time limit on the loading and unloading of recreational and other vehicles on
residential property, staff was unable to restrict this type of activity. A maximum time limit of two days had been
included in the Zoning Ordinance prior to an amendment last summer. He said that this provision was omitted by
mistake and staff believed that two days was the appropriate amount of time to allow for loading and unloading of
recreational and other vehicles. He added that on August 15, 2005, the proposed change was sent to the
Neighborhood Committee of Architecture, the North Heights Property Owners' Association, Capital Consultants,
Red Mountain Management, LLC, and Golden Valley Property Management for review and comment. He reported
that to date staff has not received any objections to the proposed amendment from these organizations or any other
source and recommended approval of the amendment.
Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Turner for his presentation.
There being no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 8:46
p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #23 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 05-14, WHICH IS A TEXT AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO LIMIT THE TIME THAT VEHICLES SUCH AS
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ARE ALLOWED TO PARK IN FRONT OF A RESIDENCE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF LOADING AND UNLOADING TO TWO (2)DAYS. CASE#Z2005-03.
Councilman Archambault MOVED to approve Ordinance No. 05-14 and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the
motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0).
AGENDA ITEM#24—PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON ORDINANCE 05-13, A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS "CHAPTER 7
—PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTION 7.02, GENERAL REGULATIONS, AND
SECTION 7.04, SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET SPACES, RELATING TO PARKING LOT
VISIBILITY AND LANDSCAPING. CASE#Z2005-05.
Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 8:47 p.m.
Senior Planner Robert Rodgers addressed the Council regarding this agenda item and advised that in March of this
year, Planning and Zoning (P&Z) requested that staff research methods regarding providing improved internal
traffic safety within commercial and multi-family parking lots. He advised that staff prepared an outline of a
potential zoning ordinance amendments and P&Z held a public hearing on October 13th and voted unanimously to
forward favorable recommendation to Town Council. He noted that Chapter 7 of the Fountain Hills' Zoning
Ordinance contained the Town's requirements for parking lot design and safety but noted that no guidelines were
provided to assist designers in meeting those requirements. He pointed out that the staff report contained the
recommended language and illustrations to provide the necessary guidelines. He noted that there were two sections
in the Zoning Ordinance that needed to be amended — Section 7.02.F and Section 7.04.L.2 and, referring to
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 13 of 16
illustrations, explained the proposed changes. He advised that staff recommended that the Council approve the
proposed amendments in order to revise both referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Rogers for his presentation and declared the public hearing closed at 8:51 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #25 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 05-13, A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS "CHAPTER 7 — PARKING AND
LOADING REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTION 7.02, GENERAL REGULATIONS, AND SECTION 7.04,
SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET SPACES, RELATING TO PARKING LOT VISIBILITY
AND LANDSCAPING. CASE#Z2005-05.
Councilman Kehe MOVED to approve Ordinance 05-13 as presented and Councilman McMahan SECONDED the
motion.
Councilman Kavanagh commented on the trimming requirement (trees in parking lot had to be trimmed so that
there was no foliage below 7 feet) and stated that most of the new parking lots that he sees, most of the trees were
hardly 7-feet tall and questioned this issue.
Mr. Rogers agreed that the trees should be a little taller than that and said that staff would work with the developers
to ensure that the canopies were at least that high and that there were islands located within the parking lots.
Councilman Kavanagh commented on the cost involved in securing 12-foot trees in parking lots where everyone
wanted shade and questioned whether they were creating a situation that was going to stop developers from putting
trees in parking lots.
Mr. Rogers responded that this represented a standard MCDOT design and Councilman Kavanagh questioned the
enforcement process. Mr.Rogers commented that the Town's Ordinance does not address this issue.
Discussion ensued relative to site lines and tree canopy heights; islands in the parking lot and the fact that this
would apply to and the fact that most of the centers were in violation of this standard; the fact that the 10-foot
setback was not currently in the Town Code; potential impacts on some of the smaller building pads in place; the
fact that some of them would be affected(in their building envelope); and the fact that the proposed nursing home's
parking lot had not yet been reviewed.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to table this agenda item until an impact report was available with respect to this
item and the tree item. Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #26 — PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON ORDINANCE 05-12,
AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12, TRAFFIC, ARTICLE 12-3,
PARKING, BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 12-3-13 RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER'S
LIABILITY FOR PARKING OFFENSES.
Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 8:57 p.m.
Maricopa County Sheriffs Department Lieutenant John D'Amico provided the Council with a brief synopsis of this
agenda item and explained that in October of last year a Deputy issued a citation for a parking violation in a fire
lane. He noted that the operator of the vehicle was not present at the time of citation issuance and the typical
process was followed(run the license plate, get the name of the registered owner, make out the citation in the name
of the person and indicate the infraction and place same on the windshield). He explained that if the owner of the
vehicle chose to fight the ticket, they went to court. He said that this was what happened in this particular case and
the hearing was held in the Fountain Hills' Court in December. He stated that the Honorable Presiding Judge
Armbruster issued a written decision on this particular case which stated that the Town of Fountain Hills had no IA
Code in place at this time that held registered owners of vehicles liable for their vehicles. He noted that the on
exception is 12-3-65, Parking on Sidewalks, which did hold registered owners responsible for their vehicles but no
other parking ordinance did. He said that if the Sheriffs Department received calls regarding illegally parked cars,
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 14 of 16
• they could not put a citation on the vehicle, they had to wait for the owner to show up or track him/her down. He
commented that many times this was simply not feasible or practical due to time delays and calls for service. He
advised that people liked to park on Saguaro and at the Farmer's Market.
Lor
Lieutenant D'Amico said that they were requesting that the owners' liability be extended like it was for parking on
the sidewalk(12-3-5)to all owners of vehicles and that it apply to all of the parking regulations equally.
There were no citizens wishing to speak on this item and the Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 9:01 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #27 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 05-12, AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN
HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12, TRAFFIC, ARTICLE 12-3, PARKING, BY ADDING A NEW
SECTION 12-3-13, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER'S LIABILITY FOR PARKING
OFFENSES.
Councilman McMahan MOVED and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED a motion to approve Ordinance 05-12
as presented. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #28 - COUNCIL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW OF THE MEETING TO IDENTIFY
PROCEDURAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
FUTURE MEETINGS.
There was no discussion relative to this agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM #29 — 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:
cry A. NONE.
AGENDA ITEM#30—SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER
Mr. Pickering advised that staff would pursue the development of additional information regarding any blocked
views that will result from the proposed senior facility. In addition, staff will conduct an impact analysis on the
parking/loading requirement ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM#31—ADJOURNMENT
Councilman McMahan MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilman Kehe SECONDED the motion, which
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
L
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 15 of 16
TOWN OF FOUNT IN HILLS
By
Wally Ni s,Mayor
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:
Bevelyn J. B der,Town 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 3rd day of November 2005. I further certify that the meeting was duly
called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 17th day of November 2005.
Bevelyn J.B de , own Clerk
J
Z:\Council Packets\2005\R11-17-05\Minutes 11-3-05 Regular Session.doc Page 16 of 16