Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.0912.TCWSEM.MiutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE AND WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL September 12, 2006 Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #1 — VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38- 431.03.A1 FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT ASSIGNMENT APPOINTMENT PROMOTION DEMOTION DISMISSAL SALARIES DISCIPLINING OR RESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY 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 TO CONDUCT INTERVIEWS OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHO APPLIED FOR VACANCIES ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.) Councilmember Dickey MOVED to convene the Executive Session and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion at 4:30 p.m., which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nichols recessed the Executive Session at 4:45 p.m. ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Nichols, Vice Mayor Kehe, Councilmember Leger, Councilmember McMahan, Councilmember Archambault and Councilmember Dickey. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Clerk Bev Bender and Planning and Zoning Administrator Richard Turner and Kate Zanon were also present. Councilmember Schlum was excused from the meeting. AGENDA ITEM #2 — WORK STUDY SESSION Mayor Nichols opened the Work -Study Session at 5:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #1 — DISCUSSION OF THE LOW WATER LANDSCAPING (RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL) ORDINANCE AND THE SAGUARO CACTUS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. Planning and Zoning Administrator Richard Turner addressed the Council and stated that Senior Planner Bob Rodgers would provide input relative to the Low Water Landscaping Ordinance. Following that, Mr. Turner would present information relative to the Saguaro Cactus Preservation Ordinance and recommendations. Mr. Turner advised that on August 3rd, the Town Council voted to send a draft ordinance dealing with low water landscaping back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to include single-family homes. In addition, on June 1st, the Council requested that staff research and report back on the saguaro cactus preservation ordinance. Mr. Rodgers noted that the Fountain Hills Strategic Plan identified Strategic Goal #3, low water landscaping, as a desirable goal for the community. Parks & Recreation and Planning staff both researched the project and made a presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission in May and they initiated the ordinance and held a public hearing in June at which time they unanimously voted to recommend approval. When the proposal was presented to the Council in August, the Council stated that they would prefer that single-family residences be included along with all of the multi -family and commercial projects. He said that the primary aim of the low water landscaping ordinance was water conservation. It reduced waste, lowered utility bills and, if adopted, zoning regulations would require that single-family homes comply along with the projects previously discussed if they met one of three criteria: 1) That they re -landscape over 50% of their property; 2) If they re -landscape ZACouncil Packets\2006\R10-5-06\09-12-06 Work -Study and Executive Session Minutes.doe Page 1 of 9 500 square feet or more; and 3) If they have dead plants on their property that they were replacing (plants dead over a year). Otherwise, if they existed, were healthy, non -conforming landscape, they would be considered "grandfathered in" and allowed to remain. Vice Mayor Kehe asked how they would track whether plants had been dead for a year or more and Mr. Rodgers responded that at this time he did not have an answer to that question, it would be an on -going Code Enforcement responsibility. He added that he would assume that it would be based on complaints. The Vice Mayor questioned why the specific time frame was included and Mr. Turner advised that the reason staff used a one-year time period was because a year was consistent with the other non -conforming provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 4) and said that everything concerning non -conformity was based on a one-year period of time. In response to concerns expressed by the Vice Mayor relative to the one year time frame, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated the opinion that it was key to remember that if they were going to apply the legal non- conforming use analysis to plants, that that was a defense so it would only be raised as a defense by a homeowner in response to an enforcement action on the part of the Town. It would have to come to the point where the Town's Code Enforcement staff would determine that it was pretty clear that the landscaping had not been there for more than a year. They would bring the enforcement action forward and then the homeowner would have to prove the legal non -conforming use was not out of use for that period of time. He said that the burden would actually be on the homeowner rather than the Town. From a Code Enforcement perspective, it only made it a little less difficult to enforce. Councilmember Archambault referred to criteria 1 and 2 listed above and stated that he could envision several residents who live just down his street taking out a patch of lantana and it might be 500 square feet in size but not 50% of their front yard. He said that according to the criteria, they would have to conform their whole area to low water usage. He questioned whether a permit would be required to remove the lantana. Mr. Rodgers replied that a permit would only be required if the homeowners planned to replant the lantana. If the lots were satisfactory as is (desert landscaping other than the lantana) and the owners were just pulling up the lantana they would be all right but if the owners planned to replant the area, they would be asked to use low water plants. Councilmember Archambault said it concerned him that they were using 500 square feet because that was not 50% of someone's front yard; it is a very small area. He asked how they would deal with homeowners who live in areas with Associations that regulate the landscaping. He stated that they already had to go through the Association and asked if they would then have to go through the Town (or would the Town recognize the Association's authority?). Mr. Rodgers explained that this was a fairly common occurrence during the building permit process, there were a number of things that homeowners had to have approved through the Associations as well as the Town — overlapping jurisdiction — and residents basically had to comply with both. Councilmember Leger advised that typically HOAs look at their own requirements and noted that they were typically more restrictive than the Town's. Councilmember Archambault said that residents typically had to submit a fee to their HOA in order to get them to review something they would like to do and added that now those people would also have to pay a fee to the Town. Councilmember Leger said that depended on the HOA itself as their requirements/rules vary. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that residents would not have to submit a landscaping plan to replace one tree; the fact that if 500 square feet was disturbed, that was the only amount they would have to bring into conformance and the rest of the yard could remain non -conforming; the possibility of co -existing with homeowners' associations to avoid "hitting the homeowners twice;" the possibility of exempting all existing property or recognizing certain HOAs (low water usage areas) in specific developments and not requiring residents in those Associations from coming to the Town as well; whether the intention was for the requirements to just apply to new homes; the Town Attorney's opinion that the requirements could not only be applicable to people going forward with new residences and regulations must be uniform for all affected classes; difficulties Z:\Council Packets\2006\R10-5-06\09-12-06 Work -Study and Executive Session Minutes.doc Page 2 of 9 associated with "carving out" certain HOAs; and the fact that they could only recognize that certain low water use driven HOAs were going to do a more excessive job than the Town and would result in a better enforcement of the Town's Code but they could not be treated differently or "carved out" to receive different treatment. Vice Mayor Kehe commented that he had concerns regarding the use of the word "landscaped" and stated that they were really talking about low water plants. He said that if they started talking about landscaping, they were talking about topography and a plan that changes the existing yard area in some manner, such as raising small hills and valleys, and emphasized that they were talking about plant use. He added that on almost every page of the report he saw the words "landscape architect" and he questioned whether this was going too far. He asked whether they really wanted to tell landowners what they could do with their yards in terms of topography or rather should they be telling them that the concern was the owners' use of low water requirement plants. Mr. Rodgers responded that they would include all landscaping; any disturbance of the land on the property would fall under the proposal. Vice Mayor Kehe stated that landscape was different and represented a global picture rather than what was put in - in terms of low water usage plants. Mr. Turner advised that the emphasis would be on plants that conform to those on the list and, as stated in the original ordinance, irrigation systems that conserve water. He noted that the primary objective of the ordinance was water conservation. He said that while a landscape plan would show some mounding and other features, that was nothing that staff was going to revise; that was not their business or intent. They were going to be looking at the plants. The Vice Mayor stated that this was a relief because the term "landscaping" implied more than the plants and an efficient irrigation system. Mr. Turner agreed. He noted that staff had to come up with a term that captured what they were talking about in terms of a plan that displayed what was being proposed in terms of plantings. He stated that typically that was a landscape. Mayor Nichols said it was his understanding from the discussion that staff was proposing criteria that were going to be used when the Town got involved but when they got involved, they were not going to make any comments on the mounds, etc. They were going to make sure that the plants and irrigation were proper. Staff concurred with the Mayor's summation. In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. Turner confirmed that there was no citrus included on the plant list and confirmed that if someone currently had a planted citrus tree that died, that person would have up to one year to replace it with another citrus. If that was not done within the one-year time frame, the tree must be replaced by one on the proposed list. Mr. McGuire emphasized that the burden would be on the homeowners to prove that the replanting was done within the one year period of time and Code Enforcement staff would have the burden of actually bringing the case forward. The violation would state that the citrus was replaced with a non -listed tree and the defense would be that it was done within a one-year period and was therefore grandfathered in. Additional discussion ensued relative to the fact that the proposal covered landscaping on the entire property, not just the front yards; the application/building permit process that would be implemented; the fact that a $2500 refundable landscaping deposit was being proposed as part of the ordinance revision and would come into play if someone's project was done and they wanted to move in before the landscaping had gone in; staff s opinion that the deposit would help ensure that the landscaping was completed; Councilmember Leger's opinion that as written, it appeared that owners would be issued a "temporary occupancy permit" until the landscaping had been completed and this was another leverage point; variations in landscaping costs depending upon the scope of the project; the fact that staff looked at landscaping plans now but not for residential homes per se other than to make sure they were not blocking a line of sight from a driveway; and the fact that staff reviews multi -family and commercial landscape plans. Z:\Council Packets\2006\i210-5-06\09-12-06 Work -Study and Executive Session Minutes.doc Page 3 of 9 Vice Mayor Kehe reiterated that since they were really interested in the planting of low water usage plants and asked why it was necessary to have a residential landscape plan. Mr. Rodgers asked if the Vice Mayor would prefer that they only request a list of the plants that were going to be put in and added that typically they would want to know where the plants were going to be located. He clarified that staff would only restrict locations in cases where the plantings would block the line of sight or create some other hazard. Vice Mayor Kehe expressed concern regarding the costs to the homeowners and said that the homeowner should determine where the plants were going to be placed as long as they were low water usage plants. Kate Zanon commented that right now the Zoning Ordinance required a landscaped architect stamped plan for single-family residential if it was a re -vegetation for a land disturbance. She stated the opinion that in creating the ordinance they were continuing that standard. Councilmember Archambault agreed with Vice Mayor Kehe's comments that the residents should not be forced to spend money for a landscape architect. He added that he could understand requiring the stamped plan for new construction because they were trying to create the flow, the drainage, etc. but he questioned requiring the hiring of landscape architects for existing homes when remodels/additions were taking place and front yard re - plantings were required. Mr. Rodgers advised that that was the current proposal. In response to a question from Councilmember Dickey, Ms. Zanon explained that right now if staff found a property that was "over disturbed" that had to be returned, the owner was required to engage the services of a landscape architect to do a pallet of the natural desert around the home and then submit a plan indicating the species they were going to plant to re -vegetate the desert as well as the irrigation that would be used to water the first year so that the plants actually take. She added that right now the only reference in the ordinance to single family with landscape architects was when there was an over disturbance and they needed to re -vegetate. Vice Mayor Kehe commented that that was a special situation and stated the opinion that it did not have a close relationship to a decision by homeowners on what plants to plant. Ms. Zanon stated that all multi -family or commercial properties must submit landscape plans and those plans are required to be stamped by a registered landscape architect. She reiterated that this requirement was contained in the current Zoning Ordinance. The Vice Mayor stated the opinion that they were talking "apples to oranges" and they are making the process too complex. Mayor Nichols clarified that the purpose of the Work Study Session was to give direction so staff could come up with a proposal for the Council to review at a later time. He added that what he was hearing was councilmembers did not want to get involved in landscape/architect plans — all they wanted to do was make sure that if someone met the criteria of having 50% of the property re -landscaped or 500 square feet re -landscaped, that they utilized low water plants. He added that all the homeowner needed was a list of the plants they were proposing to put in and they did not need to have a plan. Mr. Turner commented that the average homeowners would have to take the prescribed list and go to the nursery to make sure that they had the right plants and that they were put in the right locations being careful of size, lighting and safety (line of sight as they grow). He said that from staff's perspective, all they needed was a list of plants that they could compare against the ordinance and hopefully they would have enough expertise among staff when inspections were made to verify that the right plants had gone in. Councilmember Leger stated that the opinion that it would be good to have a plan in place when things were done because and this would enable a review process from a Town perspective. He questioned, however, whether the plan had to be done by a certified architect because that was where the expense comes in. He added that identifying the location of the plants was important because it allowed someone to inspect and move towards compliance. He said that he did not have an issue with the plan, just the costs associated with requiring an architectural plan. He clarified that they would not want someone submitting a plan "on a paper bag" and that requirements would have to be put in place. Z:\Council Packets\2006\R10-5-06\09-12-06 Work -Study and Executive Session Minutes.doc Page 4 of 9 Mr. Turner commented that if it was the desire of the Council they could require a landscape plan that was not certified by a landscape architect. He added that guidelines could be developed to govern the plan process (i.e. what staff would need to see in the plan). Mayor Nichols said that he believed that was the direction in which the Council appeared be heading. Vice Mayor Kehe stated that the local nurseries could also assist the homeowners in the process. In response to a question from Councilmember Dickey relative to a portion of the staff report, Mr. McGuire clarified that Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) could cover residential property for the most part and in some cases they have included commercial. He said that the PUD was the master planned community and would only apply when there were large applications. He added that typically they were not going to get PUD applications for a single lot but there could be a single lot within a PUD turned in for a modification. He noted that landscape requirements were significantly more when PUD applications come into play. Ms. Zanon pointed out that part of the regulations was to include low water irrigation systems so if they do not require registered landscape architects, they will need to ensure that someone capable provided the irrigation plans. Councilmember Leger said that perhaps that could be specified in the criteria governing what must be submitted. He added that they also did not want the property owners to have to cover the cost of hiring an irrigation engineer or whoever would put together that type of certified irrigation plan. He agreed that some criteria could be developed to simplify the process and describe the type of irrigation system that would be used or the type that is required. Mr. Rodgers commented that staff had previously put together an ordinance for larger projects and then were asked to add single-family houses. He stated the opinion that they were really looking at two different types of ordinances, a commercial/industrial/multi-family ordinance and a single-family ordinance. He commented on the difficulties associated with combining them. He said that in accordance with the originally proposed ordinance, all of the commercial/industrial/multi-family proposals would be submitted with landscape architectural plans and staff would go through the normal concept plan approval process. They would just substitute the new list of plants into the existing process. He added that it sounded as if the Council was now asking staff to take the single-family homeowners and ask them simply to provide a list of the plants they were proposing to use in order to make sure they were using authorized plants and that they would not be asked to go to anymore major expense. Mayor Nichols advised that they are also talking about having the single-family homeowners to submit a plan but said that the plan did not have to be from a certified by a landscape architect. The plan would show which plants were to be used, their location and the proposed irrigation system. Mr. Rodgers expressed concerns relative to obtaining proper irrigation systems without the assistance and expertise of someone qualified to design them being involved. Additional discussion ensued relative to the importance of having the owners provide some type of irrigation system to ensure that the plants survive; the fact that once the plants had taken, the system could be reduced or turned off; the fact that as far as new residential construction, the owners could simply take their plot plan and "plug in" where the want the plants were to be located; the fact that this could also be done for existing residential since most people still had their original house plans; problems from a staff perspective that might arise regarding the design of certain irrigation systems; Mayor Nichols comment that staff should look further into the irrigation issue and how it could best be handled; the possibility of having two separate ordinances and the Town Attorney's opinion that as long as there was consistency throughout all zoning categories that were similarly situated they should be fine; the fact that if the Council wanted to have a different standard of care when it came to commercial or larger projects, they could certainly do that as long as the residential and commercial projects were treated significantly the same in those classes; difficulties associated with utilizing low-water usage requirements for larger developments, common spaces and residential developments, etc. and applying those on a lot -by -lot basis as individual homeowners come in to do minor ZACouncil Packets\2006\R 1 0-5-06\09-12-06 Work -Study and Executive Session Minutes.doc Page 5 of 9 remodeling/renovation/landscape improvements; if the desire was to have a list of plants in the residential only and more extensive requirements for other larger projects, they could probably do that; and the fact that on commercial/industrial sites, staff did not deal with topography issues unless a drainage issue arose, staff simply specified the number, size and location of the plantings (for visibility purposes or to make sure the plan was balanced aesthetically and otherwise). Mr. Rodgers reviewed associated costs under the current proposal stating there would be an additional cost to homeowners estimated between $200 and $1500 for residential landscaping. He said that staff had recommended a $420 plan review fee to cover those costs and there was also the refundable $2500 deposit previously discussed. The average estimated cost would be around $1200 per homeowner if the ordinance were put into place as proposed. The Town's additional estimated costs would run about $82,500 a year (staff review, code enforcement, etc.) and the $420 fee for plan review would offset this amount. Councilmember Leger commented that part of his philosophy in moving forward on this was not to have a process as complex as the one required for commercial development and also to develop a system that was not a burden on the citizens. He invited his peers, as they considered moving forward, to look at the costs and some of the criteria. For example, they had a cost to review plans by a landscape architect and asked whether a planning technician could review plans/submitted lists and compare them to a criteria and also perform field inspections. He said that this might be one way to possibly lower costs. He also discussed enforcement and asked where staff believed the bulk of the projects would be. Mr. Rodgers responded that the bulk would be in Adero Canyon, Eagles Nest and the annexed property (new projects) as well as infill projects. Councilmember Leger advised that he was a little overwhelmed by the need for 1.4 additional FTEs in term of code inspection and added the bulk of what they would be looking at would be in HOAs and in most cases they would hold the builder to a high standard. He stated the opinion that they would have compliance at the end of the project and it would not be as severe and/or require as much time as what was being proposed. He recommended that they review some real time data before they consider hiring additional staff. He further stated that it was his understanding that they had included additional staff dollars as they looked at the annexed property for code inspectors, planners, etc. Mayor Nichols noted that those funds were not included in this year's budget and Councilmember Leger replied that he understood that and just wanted to make sure they were not "double dipping" in their projections and analysis. Mr. Rodgers stated that staff could not assume the homeowner had or would do everything according to code and said that staff would have to conduct their own review. He reported that a large number of the homes in Town were not governed by HOAs. Councilmember Leger agreed that there was a need for staff to review plans and approve the installation. He said that once that was completed, however, with Code Enforcement down the road he did not anticipate the volume of incidents occurring that were being projected, regardless of the HOAs. He added that he did not believe major concerns exist in Town relative to landscape compliance. Mr. Turner pointed out that he conducted an analysis and talked with representatives of HOAs and they told him that landscaping complaints represented the largest volume of complaints received. He obtained some average numbers per month and applied that to the rest of the lots in Town (subtracting out all of the lots that were in those HOAs because he felt they were pretty much going to police themselves). Even at that rate he still came up with the 1.4 FTEs. He agreed it appeared as though the number was too high but stated that he was really conservative in his calculations. Councilmember Dickey noted that the report stated that if a landscape architect or someone was hired to look at landscape plans that would free up staff that was already responsible for conducting subdivision plats and most commercial developments. She questioned whether that was taken into account when the projections were calculated. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R10-5-06\09-12-06 Work -Study and Executive Session Minutes.doc Page 6 of 9 r Mr. Rodgers responded that the bottom line was that they could probably take what they currently have, a part time planning technician, and convert that to a full time position. The person could be trained and they could see how that worked out. He also recommended that once they get into the program they see what kind of complaints they receive and if they are loading up on zoning violations with regard to landscaping, as they had planned for that. If it did not happen, they were fine as is. Additional discussion ensued relative to costs and the fact that the $850 represents the average cost to the homeowner to have a landscape architect prepare a plan and without the services of an architect, that figure would be reduced; Councilmember Leger's support for Mr. Rodger's staffing recommendation and recognition of the need for plan reviews; the fact that the training for the planning technician would be significant due to the long list of plants being proposed; the fact that some of the HOAs have both approved and prohibited plant lists and staff was not proposing any prohibited plants; staff's opinion that despite the absence of a requirement for homeowners to utilize landscape architects, a majority of the plans they receive would be prepared by them, particularly on expensive lots; the Strategic Plan and costs associated with education as far as landscape related water conservancy should the Town deem it necessary; the fact that State law offered virtually no protection of saguaro cactus on private property, the property owner must only provide notice of intent to destroy the cactus to the Arizona Department of Agriculture (to give notice to salvage operators so they can follow up with property owners to arrange for removal of the cactus); the fact that property owners would be required to obtain a State permit if they wanted to sell or relocate a saguaro cactus from his/her land; a regulation protection saguaro cactus would be implemented at the time a building or property owner files for a building permit and at that time a saguaro cactus inventory would also be submitted (location and general description, which would be preserved in place, which would be relocated on site and which are being requested to be destroyed); and if there were no saguaro cactus over three feet tall on the property, the builder/owner would sign a statement to that effect and an inventory plan would not be required; requests for destruction of saguaro cactus would have to be accompanied by a statement from an arborist or other qualified professional, etc. Mr. Turner provided additional information relative to regulations governing cactus, staff time and associated costs and fines for violations as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Turner added that it was staff's recommendation that staff be directed to draft low water landscape regulations; incorporating the concepts outlined in the report and as modified tonight. He said that as far as saguaro cactus, there was a provision in the Zoning Ordinance that prohibited the clearing of a vacant lot for purposes other than defensible space and this as well as other sections in the regulations afforded some measure of protection for saguaro cactus and other native plants. While the last provision was very supportive of the objective of protecting native plants, including the saguaro cactus, the Town Attorney advised that if the objective was to prohibit removal of native saguaro cactus on private property, the Zoning Ordinance should be modified to clearly address this issue. The resource requirements to implement such an ordinance could be offset by a fee and would benefit the Town by preserving these stately native plants. He recommended that the Council direct staff to proceed with the development of an amendment to the ordinance that would protect and preserve saguaro cactus. Councilmember Archambault commented on some of the storms the Town has experience and the fact that some cactus has been knocked over as a result of the strong winds. He questioned whether he would have to obtain a permit if a cactus fell over in his yard and was destroyed as a result of such a storm. Mr. Turner responded that no permit would be required for that type of situation. Councilmember Leger discussed the issue of relocating cactus on property and whether a permit would be required for each one. Mr. Turner replied that the relocation costs (fee) would all be covered by one permit. Councilmember Dickey commented on the propositions that will be on the November ballot and asked when they would go in effect if approved by the voters. Mr. McGuire stated that there is no "blanket answer" for all of them and indicated his intention to look into this matter and report his findings. Councilmember Dickey stressed the importance of being aware of those items affecting cities and towns and their effective dates. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that there was a provision in the current Subdivision Ordinance for landscape plans and credits were given for utilizing saguaro cactus located on properties (if they have to be moved, credit is given for keeping them on site at another location); the concern that nothing was in place that ZACouncil Packets\2006\i210-5-06\09-12-06 Work -Study and Executive Session Minutes.doc Page 7 of 9 dealt with private lots; the fact that homeowners could prepare their own inventory plan or obtain the services of someone with expertise in that area; and the fact that ASU has a program in place whereby advice is given free of change in an effort to save saguaro cactus. Mayor Nichols emphasized the importance to preserving the cactus currently in Town Councilmember Dickey commented that as 'far as low water landscaping on Town -owned properties and said that the Council might want to consider approving some exceptions. She also discussed the "heat island effect" and stated that there were a lot of options available on the list of trees that provide enough lushness or shade. Mr. McGuire said that regarding the low water use plant list and regulations, staff has not carved out anything for gardens and asked whether the Council would like to provide some feedback on the extent of gardening that would be permissible. In response to a question from the Vice Mayor, Mr. Turner stated that in terms of low water landscaping very few municipalities regulate gardening. The only one he could find was the City of Scottsdale and they only apply their low water landscape regulations in their Environmentally Sensitive Lands ordinance areas, located north of the canal. He did not see any exemptions in there for gardening. He agreed that the issue was a good one to be follow up on and added that perhaps staff could carve out an exemption of say 700 square feet or so on a person's land (in the rear yard). Councilmember Archambault agreed with Councilmember Leger's suggestion that they carve out an area and just call it the resident's "own private space" and they could do whatever they want with it. He noted that many people enjoy planting gardens on their property. Mr. Turner commented that if the Council desired, the regulations could only govern front yards. Mayor Nichols pointed out that in many locations, backyards utilize more water than front yards and so he did not believe that just regulating front yards would suffice for their purpose. Mr. Turner advised that staff would carve out several hundred square feet that could be used for turf or a garden as long as it was located in the rear yard. Mayor Nichols requested that staff pursue this issue. Mr. Turner commented that the Town was "treading new ground" and the Mayor agreed. Mayor Nichols added that these were the types of things the Town must consider as they move forward in order to maintain the desirability of Fountain Hills as the place to live. He said that he believes they were doing the right thing although it was not always easy. Mayor Nichols and members of Council thanked staff for their hard work and input. AGENDA ITEM #2— ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nichols advised that the Work Study Session was concluded at 6:25 p.m, and reconvened the Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. Councilmember McMahan MOVED to adjourn the Executive Session at 6:57 p.m. and Council Member Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R10-5-06\09-12-06 Work -Study and Executive Session Minutes.doc Page 8 of 9 TO ATTEST AND PREPARED M : l� �i• CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Executive and Work Study Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 12th day of August 2006. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 5TH day of October 2006. �MAE M �.�/�,. : - : `,+ ZACouncil Packets\2006\R10-5-06\09-12-06 Work -Study and Executive Session Minutes.doc Page 9 of 9