Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.0216.TCREM.MinutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE AND REGULAR SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL FEBRUARY 16, 2006 Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Councilmember Archambault, Mayor Nichols, Councilmember Kavanagh, Councilmember Kehe and Councilmember McMahan. (Mayor Schlum arrived at 5:35 p.m.). Town Manager Tim Pickering, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Acting Town Clerk Jane Robinson were also present. AGENDA ITEM #2 — VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38- 431.03.A.1 FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, SALARIES, DISCIPLINING OR RESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY PUBLIC BODY, EXCEPT THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SALARY DISCUSSIONS, AN OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE MAY DEMAND THAT THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. THE PUBLIC BODY SHALL PROVIDE THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AS IS APPROPRIATE BUT NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FOR THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE, OR EMPLOYEE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION SHOULD OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. (SPECIFICALLY, APPLICANT INTERVIEWS FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT) AND Ob PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38-431-03.A.3, FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION FOR LEGAL AVICE WITH THE ATTORNEY OR ATTORNEYS OF THE PUBLIC BODY. (SPECIFICALLY, ADA COMPLIANCE.) Councilmember McMahan MOVED to convene the Executive Session and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). Mayor Nichols recessed the Executive Session at 6:25 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #3 — RETURN TO THE REGULAR SESSION Mayor Nichols reconvened the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m. INVOCATION — Councilmember Kehe led the invocation. ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were Councilmember Archambault, Mayor Nichols, Councilmember Kehe, Councilmember Kavanagh, Vice Mayor Schlum, and Councilmember McMahan. Town Manager Tim Pickering, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. MAYOR'S REPORT The Town of Fountain Hills received, for the fourth consecutive year, the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 2005-06 Annual Budget. Finance Director Julie Ghetti, MPA, CPA, received the Certificate of Recognition from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada as the individual primarily responsible for preparing the award -winning budget. CADocuments and SettingsURobinson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 1 of 14 Mayor Nichols recognized Julie Ghetti and her team for their achievement in being the recipients of the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the fourth consecutive year. Mayor Nichols also noted that Margaret Davis and Dr. Liz Smith presented to the Town of Fountain Hills their "Hero Award" that they received from the United Blood Services in Arizona. He noted that only seven organizations received this award for their efforts to obtain blood. He stated that as a result of their efforts, Fountain Hills is recognized as one of the top blood donators in the State of Arizona and he thanked all those involved for their excellent work. He added that the award would be proudly displayed by the Town. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. CONSENT AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #I— CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 2, 2006. AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-02 DESIGNATING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) AS THE BASIS FOR ALL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT IN FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA. AGENDA ITEM #3 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-03 UPDATING THE EMERGENCY OPERATION PLAN. AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF A LOT JOINT REPLAT OF PLAT 106, BLOCK 1, LOTES 20 AND 21 TO "LOT 20A " THE FINAL REPLAT OF LOTS 20 AND 21 BLOCK 1 FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, FINAL PLAT NO. 106. CASE #S2006-01. AGENDA ITEM #5 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION, POST 58, ON FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 24 — 26, 2006, AT 16837 E. PARKVIEW AVENUE, FOUNTAIN HILLS. AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS POST 7507 ON FRIDAY THRUGH SUNDAY FEBRUARY 24 — 26 2006 AT SAGUARO AND PALISADES BOULEVARDS FOUNTAIN HILLS Councilmember Archambault Kavanagh MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilmember Kehe Aye Vice Mayor Schlum Aye Councilmember Kavanagh Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilmember McMahan Aye Councilmember Archambault Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). REGULAR AGENDA CADocuments and SettingsVRobinson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 2 of 14 AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING CITIZENS TO FILL CURRENT VACANCIES ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Mayor Nichols MOVED to approve the following appointments to the Board of Adjustment: E.K. Oshman (Bud) and Clark Summerfield. Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING A CITIZEN TO FILL THE CURRENT VACANCY ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. Mayor Nichols MOVED to approve the appointment of Paul McDonald to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #9 - CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE C-C ZONING DISTRICT FOR APPIAN LOFTS, 11022 N. SAGUARO BOULEVARD, PLAT 202A, BLOCK 1, LOTS 24 AND 25. CASE #SU2005-07. Councilmember Kehe MOVED to continue the public hearing on Case #SU2005-07 and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #10 — CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A NURSING HOME IN THE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 16655 E. EL LAGO BOULEVARD, AKA FOUNTAIN VIEW FINAL PLAT LOT 1. CASE #SU2004-04. Planning & Zoning Administrator Richard Turner addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and advised that the issue was discussed by the Council at their November 3, 2005, meeting. He said that the Council voted to send the case back to the Planning & Zoning Commission because of the significant changes that had been made to the application. He referred to photographs depicting the layout of the property and stated that the case had been on the agenda of the Commission twice since that time and the applicant had reduced the building height so that the second Special Use Permit for the taller building was no longer requested and the request for that Permit had been withdrawn. He reported that at the most recent Commission meeting where this issue was discussed, the members voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application to the Town Council. The recommendation was subject to the conditions as recommended by staff and the additional condition that the applicant present a colored rendering of the building to the Town Council at this meeting. Mr. Turner noted that the colored renderings were provided to the Council earlier in the day and were also a part of the power -point presentation this evening. Mr. Turner informed the Council that in addition to the reduction in building height, the most recent revisions to the plan included an additional loading space on the west side of the building. In addition, the building elevations had been modified to include features that made the building more residential in appearance (railings around the windows, etc.). He stated that staff believed that the design of the proposed facility was acceptable and that building location, access, circulation and parking was appropriate for the intended use. The amount of traffic generated by this use would be less than the trips that would be generated by the development of the site as a condominium complex. He added that the building height should no longer be an issue since the applicant had reduced the height of the building to comply with the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. He reiterated that staff recommended approval of the application subject to the requirements and conditions listed in the staff report, as follows: 1. Development in accordance with the plan of development entitled, "Fountain View Senior Care Center," consisting of 4 sheets prepared by Pierce Architects and dated 8/30/04 and stamped received January 13, 2006. CADocuments and SettingsURobinson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 3 of 14 2. Approval of a landscaping plan, building colors, and roof materials prior to the issuance of a building permit that shall conform to the standards of the Town Center Commercial Zoning District. 3. The maximum height of the wall within the front yard setback shall be 3 t/2 feet. 4. The Council shall permit the encroachment of up to 9 parking spaces in the abandoned service road property for this development. 5. The minimum width of the main drive aisle shall be 26 feet, as recommended by the Engineering Section. 6. The inside radius of the corner in the northeast portion of the site shall be 15 feet, as recommended by the Engineering Section. Mr. Turner highlighted the contents of the power -point presentation for the benefit of the Council and audience. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Turner for his overview of this case. In response to a question from the Mayor, Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that she had been provided 36 cards from citizens opposed to the project, 10 of whom wished to speak on the issue. The following citizens spoke in opposition to the approval of the Special Use Permit and provided input that included the following: Opposed to allowing one commercial property to "overwhelm" virtually hundreds of nearby residential homes; the importance of reviewing requests subjectively on a case -by -case basis to determine whether the project would benefit the neighborhood and residents' opinion that this project would not; the residents' belief that many questions had not been asked and answered to the satisfaction of neighboring property owners (i.e. was the applicant experienced in the operation of a nursing home?; did he currently operate any nursing homes and, if so, how many?; the location of the other facilities; whether or not the facilities were profitable and problems they had experienced; the fact that nursing homes play a very important role in every community but should not be placed in the "heart" of Fountain Hills; the fact that despite modifications on the part of the applicant, the facility would still be a nursing home and could not be sufficiently camouflaged; this issue would "set the tone" for future development; concerns as to whether the applicant had provided to the appropriate Town staff a study that indicated where Fountain Hills was relative to the "need curve" for such a facility?; potential impacts on neighborhoods (noise, traffic, safety hazards, etc.); staff -to -patient ratio required to run such a facility and the opinion that the proposed facility would not meet the necessary criteria and would therefore not provide the required level of care; concerns regarding insufficient parking (visitor, resident and handicapped) for a facility of that size, particularly during shift changes; the fact that parking on El Lago Boulevard would create a safety hazard; the area lifestyle and serene quality -of -life would be negatively impacted and petitions containing the signatures of approximately 200 citizens were collected in opposition to the issuance of the proposed Special Use Permit; the opinion that the renderings were purposely drawn at a low angle to minimize the roof -line impact; the fact that since the applicant initially planned the development of a nursing facility at that location, the significant residential development that had taken place now rendered the site an inappropriate location for such a facility; lack of neighborhood input on this issue; should the business fail, an unsightly inappropriate empty building would exist on the site that would negatively impact property values and the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood; concerns about what would replace that facility should it not succeed; the proposed facility was too small for the site in question; concerns regarding "spot zoning"; the importance of protecting the integrity of the neighborhood and the residents' homes; Claude Merritt 16715 E. El Lago Blvd., #204 C. Joan Skaryi 16616 E. Gunsight Drive, #209B Bruce Tominello 16208 N. Sunridge Drive Elizabeth Alonzo 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. John Connelly 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. #316 Dennis Burke 16715 E. El Lago Boulevard (President of HOA for Plaza del Lago) Roger Fick 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. #118 CADocuments and Settings\Mobinson\Local Settings\Temporary lntemet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 4 of 14 Joy Fick 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. Harold Hutchinson 16631 E. El Lago Blvd. #314 R. Wintermentel 9638 N. Indigo Hill Drive The following citizens spoke in support of the approval of the Special Use Permit and provided input that included the following: Mr. Ursu, the owner of the property, conducted a feasibility study in 1999 on the property and the project and at that time, there was a need to accommodate 164 residents and the need had increased; the fact that the owner intended to maintain control over the operation of the facility; the opinion that this type of a facility belonged in an area with people rather than as part of a commercial area; based on the personal experience of a family member, a citizen spoke in strong regard relative to the quality of service provided by Mr. Ursu at one of his facilities; the fact that building the home now would mean that a local, high - quality facility would exist in the area when residents someday required that type of specialized care. Art Ursu 10660 N. Devlin Circle Francis Kelly 12835 N. Ryan Way The following citizens submitted written speaker cards indicating their opposition to the approval of the case but did not wish to speak to the Council: Jean Kiraly 17240 La Posada Opposed Robert Jeffrey 16616 E. Gunsight Dr. Opposed Karen Janosha 16616 E. Gunsight Dr.,#105 Opposed Lois Jeffrey 16616 E. Gunsight Dr., #109 Opposed Kevin Corbin 16631 E. Fox Hills Dr. Opposed Bob Alonzo 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Nancy McNamara 15242 Mustang Dr. Opposed James & Joan Docherty 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Dorinda Merritt 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Erwin Wimmer 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Sandra Wimmer 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed James Villiers 16400 E. Arrow Drive Opposed Norma Maginn 16715 E. El Lago Blvd., #315 Opposed Paul Appeldorn 12836 N. Mtn. Side Dr., #3 Opposed Terry Ward 16715 E. El Lago Opposed Phyllis Ward 16715 E. El Lago Opposed Charles Johnston 16715 E. El Lago Opposed Edward Castro 16616 E. Gunsight Opposed Martha Castro 16616 E. Gunsight, #117 Opposed Ashton Byrd 16631 E. El Lago Blvd., #304 Opposed Ryan Langner 16715 E. El Lago Blvd., #205 Opposed Desiree Langner 16715 E. El Lago Blvd., #205 Opposed Helen Felts 16631 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Angie Koscielak 16631 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Eldiene Runyan 16631 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Lane Romanick 16715 E. El Lago Blvd., #117 Opposed Joan Colomo 14822 E. Gunsight Opposed Anna Cresham 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Scott Davidson 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Gwen Dierickx 16631 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed Laura Olson 17515 E. Grande Blvd. Opposed CADocuments and SettingsVRobinson\Local Settingffemporary Internet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 5 of 14 Betty Matthews Desert Sage Condos Opposed (Representing 10 citizens) Sybil Johnston 16715 E. El Lago Blvd. Opposed (Representing 44 unit owners) Joan Docherty 16715 E. El Lago Blvd., #207 Opposed (Representing 5 citizens) Ron Olson 17515 E. Grande Blvd. Opposed Olga & Joseph Niemiec 16715 E. El Lago Blvd., #110 Opposed Mayor Nichols thanked all of the citizens for their attendance at the meeting and for their input regarding this issue. Councilmember McMahan also expressed appreciation to the citizens and stated that he respected their opinions and objections. He added that he had lived in Fountain Hills for a very long time and had seen extensive development take place. He said that it somehow always turned out to be better than people originally thought it would. He advised that he was impressed with the renderings, which he reviewed today, and said that he had no idea that the building would be as attractive as it was. He pointed out that if they put 100 condominiums on that site, that would generate 200 cars. He added that residents of nursing homes did not drive. Councilmember McMahan commented that Mr. Ursu had run a very small excellent nursing home and he would support the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve the Special Use Permit subject to staff's stipulations. Councilmember McMahan MOVED to approve the Special Use Permit for Case #SU2004-04. The motion FAILED for lack of a second. (Mayor Nichols declared a brief recess at 7:17 p.m. to allow citizens wishing to leave the Chambers to do so and the meeting reconvened at 7:20 p.m.) AGENDA ITEM #11 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING RESOLUTION 2006-08 REGARDING ESTABLISHING A NAMING POLICY. Town Manager Tim Pickering provided the Council with an overview of this agenda item. He explained that the Town of Fountain Hills had never had an official policy on place names and name changes. He said that the proposed policy established the procedures and criteria for conferring names on buildings, streets, public places, facilities or natural features that were within the Town limits or were owned by the Town. He added that the policy included provisions outlining how the Town should proceed to solicit bids for naming opportunities, referred to as sponsorship naming, and also included provisions that would apply when naming a building, street, public place, facility or natural feature after a deceased person. He stressed the importance of selecting names for the right reasons in a fair and equitable manner. He discussed difficulties associated with naming streets and the importance of avoiding duplications. He referred to Section 2F and said that it related to permanent names and the Council might decide to make some revisions to that particular section. He said that there was no time limit on this issue and noted that he, the Fire Chief, Public Works Director, Maricopa County Sheriff's Captain, Town Engineer and the Town Attorney all reviewed the draft policy. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. Councilmember Kavanagh MOVED to approve Resolution 2006-08 and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Kehe commented that this item was originally part of the Consent Agenda and he asked that it be removed because it was his position that any policy that was made by Council, before adoption, should be open for public discussion before a vote was taken. He said that he believed that the item was appropriate and CADocuments and SettingsVRobinson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 6 of 14 welcomed any input and/or suggestions at this time. He stated that he believed having a policy in place was a good move and added that there were a few items he would like to discuss. He stated the opinion that the term "facility" might be too broad to cover all of the situations. He commented on permanent naming and said that in other situations, the size of the facility might influence sponsorship monies. He said, for example, if they were talking about building a performing arts center and an estate wanted to donate money and have the center named after the scion of that estate, he believed that $100,000 would be inadequate because he was not aware of any municipal building in the Town that could be built for less than $3 to $5 million. He added that that would be a case where the naming requirement should be considerably higher. He said that there could be situations where they would want to make the funding equal to the cost of the item, a lesser facility that might cost under than $1 million, they might want to require that the cost be covered. He expressed the opinion that they should look at possible sub -sets. Councilmember Kehe also discussed naming something after a deceased person and said that a lot of emotion occurs when someone died. He believed that the longer they waited, the better off they were because they would remove some of the emotion factor and look more at the other contributions the person might have made to the community. He stated the opinion that one year might be too short an interval after death and a longer period might be more appropriate because time provided a better assessment. He said that, for another example, if a citizen wanted to have the Community Center named after them and was willing to put up a considerable amount of money for that right, the proposed policy stated that if the facility was already built, the donation went into the General Fund. He commented that when he thinks of the General Fund, he thinks of general operations and if he was fortunate enough to be in the position of donating a significant amount of money for the naming of the Community Center, he would be reluctant to do so if he knew that the money was going to go into the General Fund. He said that he would prefer that the money went towards anticipated improvements, such as additions or maintenance. He added that he also had a concern about the process in sponsorships and wanted to make sure that there was no "point of veto" in the sponsorship process. He said that the proposal stated that staff would review proposals for sponsorship and shall make a recommendation and pass those opportunities to the Town Manager who would make a final recommendation. He stated that he would like to amend that language to state that the Town Manager would "react to the recommendations from staff and forward his recommendations along with all of the proposals to the Town Council." He added that he would welcome further discussion on the points he made and recommended that since there was no specific timeline, the issues be sent back to staff for further research and future recommendations/discussion. Councilmember Kehe MOVED to table the issue and send it back to staff for additional consideration regarding the points he raised and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Vice Mayor Schlum commented that Councilmember Kehe's points were clearly stated and he would be open to making some of the suggested changes and voting on a motion to approve. Mayor Nichols noted that Councilmember Kehe was recommending significant changes and said he was reluctant to vote at this time on those changes without first giving staff the opportunity to react to the revisions and provide input. Councilmember Kavanagh stated that the Council already knew the pro and con arguments associated with the proposed revisions and expressed the opinion that they did not need to have staff come back with more information. He indicated support for trying to resolve some of the issues at this time. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the motion to table. The motion FAILED for lack of a majority vote (3-3). Councilmember Kehe stated that his first point was that the term "facility" might be too broad" and they should look at sub -sets. He said that he talked with Mr. Pickering about this issue and invited him to enter the discussion since they came to some sort of an agreement on this matter. Mr. Pickering commented that facility meant building, structure, natural facilities, and recreational facilities. He referred to Section 2F and suggested CADocuments and SettingsURobinson\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doe Page 7 of 14 that they define that as permanent naming versus sponsorship naming. He said that if the naming was to be permanent, such as naming the Town Hall or an upcoming Senior Center after someone, the price would be much higher, the cost of the facility. He agreed that if someone wanted to name a building after someone, they should pay a much more substantial cost than $100,000. He recommended that they change that section to read, "facilities may be permanently named" and that the language state (on the third line after services to the Town) "for the full cost of the project." He added that they would eliminate the word "sponsorship" and add the word "permanent" on 1 and make the value $1 million or not put in a value at all. He added that they would also eliminate #2, and put in the word "permanent" in place of "sponsorship." He commented that this would change the nature of what they were talking about and clarifies that they were addressing permanent name changes. He noted that they had the ability to do sponsorships under #4, for a much shorter period of time. Councilmember Kavanagh suggested that under Section 2F they provide some "wiggle room" and rather than stating that the permanent naming for a larger facility would be "the total cost of the facility," they require that a "substantial portion of the expense" be charged. He discussed the Splash Park and pointed out that the Rotary Club donated it for the most part but the Town did incur some expenses. He added that the wording amount could be "reasonably close to the cost of the project" or something along that line. Vice Mayor Schlum said that perhaps they could state that the amount would be a "minimum value of $300,000 or one-half of the estimated initial cost, whichever was greater. Councilmember Archambault noted that the Rotary Splash Park would not have happened if that organization had not stepped forward and come up with the funds. He added that the same was true of Kiwanis Park. He stated that although the Town might have funded some of it, the groups were primarily responsible and should have had the facilities named after them. Councilmember Kavanagh commented that if the required 100% of the costs, those facilities would not have been named after the organizations because the Town did incur some costs. Councilmember Archambault added that they were talking about facilities that already exist or that were proposed by the Town, not by a specific entity. Mr. Pickering concurred and said that those projects were the only ones the Town could control. He added that what Councilmember Kavanagh and Vice Mayor Schlum were saying was that the amount should be less than the full cost of the project and asked for clarification as to the amount they were proposing. Mayor Nichols commented that they were probably talking about much more private/public partnerships as they go forward and he had no problem saying that the cost should be at least up half of the cost of a capital project. Mr. Pickering suggested that the language be "at least half of the cost" because they might donate labor and other items, which could be counted towards the cost. Councilmember Kehe further stated that one year after the death of a person could be too short an interval because of the emotional involvement and said that he suggested that five years would be a better timeframe, but he was willing to compromise on that point. Councilmember Kavanagh recommended that the Council consider a two-year period of time and the Council agreed with this suggestion. Councilmember Kehe said that his next point had to do with turning away possible donors if, when donating to an existing facilities, the monies went into the General Fund. He expressed the opinion that the monies should go directly towards the facility. Mayor Nichols asked whether the monies could go into the Capital Fund so that the monies could be allocated towards capital projects in the future. The Council concurred with this recommendation. CADocuments and Settings\Mobinson\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 8 of 14 Mr. Pickering pointed out that in the past, a majority of the Town's facilities were built out of the General Fund. He added that the Capital Fund would be fine. Councilmember Archambault questioned whether the funds could be placed in a Maintenance Fund, thereby freeing up capital for capital projects. Councilmember Kehe said his only concern was to ensure that the funds were designated. Mr. Pickering stated that language could be added to stipulate the monies go into the Capital Fund and said that the designation could easily be set up. He clarified that under Items 2 and 4 F, staff would change the word "General" to "Capital." Councilmember Kehe recommended that Item 4C be changed to state that, "the Town Manager will react to the staff's proposal by forwarding his recommendation as well as all proposals to the Town Council." Vice Mayor Schlum stated that he understood Councilmember Kehe's desire to review staff's recommendations and said that he would like to review the recommendations from all of the reports they receive from the involved staff entities as well as guidance from the Town Manager. Mr. Pickering commented that he believed a concern was that he would not forward all of the proposals onto the Council and cautioned that sometimes staff obtained a bid or does a sponsorship and they do their due -diligence, but the proposals fall along the wayside for one reason or another. He expressed concern regarding bringing issues such as those before the Council. Councilmember Kehe said that he believed staff would not forward anything on to the Council that was of a tenuous nature and added that he was willing to compromise on this issue as well. Councilmember Kavanagh questioned whether they could address this matter by amending Item 4B to read, "Town staff will forward all proposals, recommended and not recommended, along with their recommendation to the Town Manager and Town Council." Mr. Pickering clarified that staff did not make recommendations to the Council, their recommendations go to the Town Manager who in turn forwards them on to the Council. Councilmember Kavanagh revised the proposed language to state, "Town staff shall forward the proposals along with their recommendations to the Town Manager, who will forward all proposals, along with his recommendation, to the Town Council." He explained that in the end everything, good or bad, would flow to the Council with both staff's recommendation and the Town Manager's recommendation. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire commented that if the proposed language was going to be in the form of a motion, he would propose that it read, "Town staff will forward all qualified proposals to the Town Manager" and on the second line (C) it would state, "The Town Manager will forward all qualified proposals to the Town Council and make final recommendations." The Council concurred with Mr. McGuire's suggested language. Councilmember Kehe referred to a document submitted on February 2°d, Section 2B (Sub. 3), "buildings or facilities may named only for a deceased individual if that individual has enhanced the quality of life provided (change — two years) has lapsed." He said that the current proposal stated, "buildings or facilities may be named only for a deceased individual or individuals if they have enhanced the quality of life within the Town for naming, at the time of death, the individual or in case of related individuals, one year (change — two years) after the death of one of the individuals." He requested clarification on this matter. Councilmember Kavanagh expressed the opinion that the language referred to situations where two people who were related, most likely husband and wife, brother and sister, etc. as a pair made great contributions and one died but the Town wanted to name a facility after the pair. He said that they would not have to wait for the death of the second person. The death of one, after the now revised two-year time period, would allow the dual naming of the facility. Mr. Pickering referred to Item 4E (going out for sponsorship) and said he would like to add the word "and shall have a minimum value of at least $100,000." He explained that he did not want them to go out and name things for minimal amounts of money. He added that permanent naming and funding requirements (50%) would remain under Item 2F. CADocuments and SettingsURobinson\Local SettingsUemporary Intemet Files\OLK 1 0\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 9 of 14 Mr. McGuire clarified the following changes as recommended by Council: • Typographical error in Item IA — the word facilities after "and recreational" should not be capitalized. • Under 2d(iii) in the third line, change "one year" to "two years." And in the sixth line, change "one year" to "two years." • Under 2f, the language will be condensed, eliminating the need for the subsections. The Section shall read, "Facilities may be permanently named for an individual (alive or deceased)," and at the end of that line the word "significant" will be struck and it will state "a donation of money, land, or other goods or services to the Town for at least half of the full cost of the facility, either for the purpose of developing the facility or for the Town's Capital Fund." The language that is in the last section (iii) will move up and join that paragraph to complete it. It will state "permanent" rather than "sponsorship" naming proposals from any company or organization whose business is the sale of illegal substances or activities or any product or activity deemed objectionable by the Town Council, will not be considered." • Under Section 4b, the language will be revised to state, "Town staff will forward all qualified proposals, along with its recommendation, to the Town Manager." • Section 4c will read, "The Town Manager will forward all qualified proposals to the Town Council and make a final recommendation to the Town Council." • Section 4e will state "Sponsorship naming opportunities will be for terms less than 20 years as determined by the Town Council and shall have a minimum value of at least $100,000. • Under Section 4f, the words "General Fund" will be changed to "Capital Fund." Councilmember McMahan MOVED to approve the revisions as outlined above. Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the amended main motion to approve the Policy on Place Names and Name Changes as amended. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #12 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE UPDATED MASTER PLAN FOR DESERT VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD PARK. Parks & Recreation Director Mark Mayer provided an overview of this agenda item and stated that the item was being brought forward as a result of changing needs in the community, along with the decision to locate the proposed skate park at Desert Vista Neighborhood Park. It became necessary for staff to review and update the Master Plan for the park prior to any future development. He said that the Plan originally contained a Splash Park that has been relocated to Fountain Park. He noted that the original Master Plan was approved in February 1999 and added that funds were budgeted this fiscal year to hire a consultant to review the existing plan, conduct public meetings to review the current and future needs of the park users, and finally to update the Master Plan to reflect the future needs of the community and the addition of the skate park facility. He advised that as a result of citizen input at three public meetings, staff and the consultants found that the needs of the park users had changed and the updated Master Plan reflects those needs. He added that the Parks & Recreation Commission at their recent meeting reviewed the issue and it passed unanimously. Mr. Mayer informed the Council that the land was acquired from the Fountain Hills Unified School District via MCO Properties and said that early development included the installation of turf and an irrigation system by the Fountain Hills Sanitary District for effluent water disposal. He added that the Town installed chain link fencing and established the Off -Leash Recreational Facility "Dog Park," which opened later that year. He advised that over the years since, a Dog Owners' Group (ADOG) and other individuals had donated trees and other features within the dog park area to the Town. He further stated that once adopted, the Town could move forward with preparing construction documents and ultimately continue development as funding allowed. CADocuments and SettingsURobinson\Local Settings\Temporary lntemet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 10 of 14 He noted that there was some discussion about the hours of operation at the facility and said that he cautioned the members that that issue was not a topic of discussion at that meeting. He said that at some point the ADOG group would approach the Town through this Department and the Commission with a request to extend the hours at the facility, which was implicit with the lighting going in, and stated that at that time a public process would take place. He clarified that this evening the only issue for consideration was the Plan itself. Parks & Recreation Supervisor Bryan Hughes reviewed the contents of staff's report and said that it became clear that development of Desert Vista Neighborhood Park would be necessary to keep up with its growing use, particularly the dog park area and the existing turf areas by the local Soccer Club. He reported that the Soccer Club was granted use of the turf areas on a temporary basis until the park was developed. Requests for lighting of the park for increased use were constant and in FY05-06, Parks & Recreation included approximately $500,000 in the budget from Development fees and the General Fund to begin initial development. He noted that the funds were to focus on improvements to the dog park, including lighting along with construction of sidewalks and parking areas. Mr. Hughes added that it was also clear that the Master Plan needed to be updated to include the Skate Park facility, which the Town Council approved to be located at Desert Vista Neighborhood Park. Additionally, in the almost seven years since the approval of the existing Master Plan, staff felt that the needs of the community and user groups may have changed. (For example, the existing Master Plan includes sand volleyball courts, yet the sand volleyball courts at Golden Eagle Park easily accommodate the needs of the residents.) To this end, staff, after interviewing three firms, contracted with Olsson Associates to update the Master Plan and develop construction documents for the proposed improvements. He stated the opinion that the Plan addressed most of the concerns expressed to date. He introduced Mr. Ernest Rodriguez and Jeff Kratzy from Olsson Associates, the consultants who were hired for the update and stated that staff recommended approval of the updated Desert Vista Neighborhood Park Master Plan as presented. Mr. Kratzy addressed the Council and stated that a series of three public hearings were held, coordinated by his firm and staff, from early December 2005 to early February 2006, to get input from the parks users, particularly the dog park users and the Soccer Club, along with residents from the neighboring areas. He noted that the public hearings served as the basis for the proposed Plan. He discussed the strong attendance at the meetings, discussed the format that was followed, and said that extensive input was received. He explained that the result of the public meetings focused on three main areas of development within the park: the dog park, the multi- purpose athletic fields and the skate park. Many of those in attendance requested that the facilities be lit for evening use. He discussed the key components of the Plan and said that additional features included a restroom/maintenance/storage building, picnic armadas, a playground, sidewalks for accessibility and new parking areas. He stated that a number of trees had been planted in the area and the intention was to build from those. He emphasized that they did not plan to move any of the trees. He noted than an 8 t/z" x 11" Site Plan had been provided for the Council's review. He emphasized that the updated Master Plan would not affect the current General Plan and would require only an administrative update. Mayor Nichols thanked staff and Mr. Kratzy for the presentation. Ms. Bender advised that she had received three speaker cards regarding this issue. Mr. Dick Schmidt, 17319 E. Teal Drive, stated that he was very impressed with the Plan as presented and commented on his extensive background in the parks and recreation area. He said that the proposed Master Plan was by far the most detailed he had ever seen and urged the Council to approve the proposal and move forward as quickly as possible. Donna Mercer, 14205 N. Fountain Hills Boulevard, President of the ADOG organization, concurred with the previous speaker's remarks and also requested that the Council approve the Updated Master Plan as presented. She further noted that her organization has raised $27,000 to help pay for the lighting. CADocuments and SettingsURobinsonTocal SettingMemporary Intemet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page I of 14 Mr. Thomas Roche, Jr., 16450 S. Avenue of the Fountains, also a member of ADOG, did not come forward to speak on this issue. Mayor Nichols thanked the speakers for their input. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to approve the Updated Master Plan as presented and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Kavanagh requested that staff explain the rationale behind the absence of ball fields. Mr. Hughes responded that three public hearings were held and attended by representatives from Pop Warner, Little League and Soccer, and a need for another ball field at this facility was not identified. He added that they wanted to focus on open -turf areas to accommodate Pop Warner and soccer activities. He said that the parking alley would be further looked at as they get into the construction document phase but explained that the alley was currently wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic. Councilmember Archambault commented that he counted 110 parking spaces and questioned the criteria used to arrive at that number. Mr. Kratzy stated that his firm has ratios they use depending on the type of facility and offered to provide the Council with those ratios. He noted that the skate park users would be predominantly youths and although that would not be a significant generator, there would be parents bringing their children to the facility. He said that the large majority of the spaces would be for the multi -purpose fields on the upper terrace. He emphasized that they were talking about a neighborhood -scale park and parks typically encouraged people to walk as much as possible from their homes in the area. He added, however, that the skate park and dog park would attract people from all over Town and said that this was taken into account when the parking allocation was determined. Councilmember Archambault noted that Four Peaks Park does not have sufficient parking and stressed the importance of ensuring that adequate parking existed as this facility. He asked whether the Plan contained any "flexibility" as far as expanding parking in the future if the need arose. Mr. Kratzy responded that if they assumed there would not be any additional roadway widening occurring in the future around the perimeter of the site, they were looking at pretty much the maximum number of spaces that could be accommodated around this site without other special considerations. He stressed that based on his experience he believed that sufficient parking exists. Mayor Nichols discussed the proposed cost of the project and commended staff on bringing this project in $375,000 less than the original Master Plan cost to the Town. He added that the actual cost would be $700,000 less than the original estimate if the Town received the Heritage Grant for which they were applying. He said that instead of costing the Town $2 million, it might wind up costing $1 million. Councilmember McMahan commended the members of ADOG for their cooperation in this public/private project and agreed that the proposed Plan was outstanding. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #13 — 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) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council. A. At Councilmember Kehe's request, consideration of developing criteria for Town financial support of various community organizations. Councilmember Kehe stated the opinion that this was an appropriate issue because budget time was at hand. He defined his definition of "criteria" and said it meant "eligibility and quantification (dollars)." He explained that the community was involved in two types of aid for various community organizations and the first was direct CADocuments and SettingsVRobinson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK 1 0\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 12 of 14 aid. He said that at this time there was a limited, if any, criteria for that aid. He added that the second type of aid was via Proposition 202, Indian Gaming, where the Town served as an endorser and transferor of the aid from Indian communities to entities within the Town (basically non -governmental). He noted that Proposition 202 did (W contain some criteria although broadly interpreted. Councilmember Kehe stated that in Fountain Hills there were two schools of thought regarding direct aid and he would like to address them. The first was that government should help entities that in some fashion contribute to the well being of the citizens of the Town. The opposing position was that government should not help entities that it did not control. He stated that the former position had prevailed over recent years and reported that funding was included in the current budget to aid the Chamber of Commerce ($125,000); the Boys & Girls Club ($160,000), and the Community Theater ($50,000) for a total of $335,000. He emphasized that he was not speaking against providing this aid but expressed concern regarding the fact that there was no established criteria upon which to base the aid allocations. Councilmember Kehe commented that he brought this issue up when he took office to years ago. He spoke in favor of establishing eligibility criteria as well as criteria to quantify the amount of the aid. He expressed the opinion that other agencies might exist in Town that fit the requirements, which at this point in time was limited to a "sense of the Council" and that was why the Town had been able to assist the three organizations previously mentioned. He said that he did not want to see any other eligible organizations eliminated on an arbitrary basis. He requested that the Council consider placing an item on a future agenda dealing with the establishment, with the assistance of staff, of criteria for aid granted to community organizations. Vice Mayor Schlum questioned how this would end up resulting in a conclusion different than what the Council would reach today through the budgetary process and discussion that occurred on a regular basis. Councilmember Kehe replied that it would eliminate the arbitrary decline of one community entity with the exact same qualifications of another that already received aid prior to reaching Council. He added that the Council could not quantify, they were basically dealing with requests for "X" number of dollars for FY05-06 (W and then they go up to "XY" for FY06-07 without any justification from the standpoint of need or quantification (i.e. the Chamber receives money for tourism but the Council does not know the benefits of that money in a dollar and cents manner). Mayor Nichols asked whether there were three members of the Council who wanted to expend staff time to conduct an analysis on this issue and develop specific criteria as requested by Councilmember Kehe. Councilmember Archambault stated that he would like to see some type of criteria established. Mayor Nichols commented that only two members of the Council wished to proceed with this issue. Councilmember Kehe thanked the Council for the opportunity to address them regarding this matter. AGENDA ITEM #14 — SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REOUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER. None. AGENDA ITEM #10 - ADJOURNMENT. Councilmember McMahan MOVED that the Council adjourn and VICE MAYOR SCHLUM SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. CADocuments and SettingsURobinson\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 13 of 14 TOWN OFaFOUNTAIILLS By Wally Nic s, ayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: Bevelyn J. B`Inder/Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Executive/Regular Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 16`h day of February 2006. 1 further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 2ND day of March 2006. Bevelyn J. i d , , Town Clerk CADocuments and SettingsVRobinson\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK10\02-16-06 minutes.doc Page 14 of 14