Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.1102.TCRM.MinutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL November 2, 2006 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. INVOCATION — Pastor Jeffrey Iverson, Fountain Hills Christian Church 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 Schlum, Councilmember Archambault and Councilmember Dickey. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering, and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS The Mayor will present "Certificates of Appreciation" to recognize two special event sponsors, Natalie Varela, MCO Realty, and Fountain Hills Wood Whims. Mayor Nichols advised that Natalie Varela, with MCO Realty, was the organizer of the "Movies in the Park" and expressed appreciation to her for her to efforts to ensure the success of this event. He noted that over 1500 people were in attendance at the Park that evening. He added that Ms. Varela and MCO staff helped coordinated the entire event and presented her with a Certification of Appreciation for their efforts. The Mayor read the names of other organizations/businesses/individuals who assisted in the event and also thanked them for their sponsorship and community support. He also presented Ms. Varela with an official Fountain Hills' pin. Mayor Nichols also presented a Certificate of Appreciation and an official Fountain Hills' pin to Mel Behr, representing the Fountain Hills Wood Whims, which sponsored the spring concerts in park. He expressed appreciation to Mel, all of the owners/employees of Wood Whims for their efforts to ensure the success of those events. He commented that the citizens of the Town thoroughly enjoyed the concerts and they represented one of the things that made the Town of Fountain Hills special. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Bob Deppe, 16247 N. Boulder, addressed the Council and said that he was frustrated with comments he read in an article yesterday in The Fountain Hills Times, relative to "Finances to be discussed at Neighborhood Coffee." He stated the opinion that "thinking ahead" 10 to 20 years was a little too far ahead. He agreed with a comment made by Town Manager Tim Pickering relative to the fact that things in Town would change over the next ten to fifteen years but questioned how they could determine that the Target Shopping Center could become a major shopping experience and generate significant sales tax. He stated that right now the Town was on the high end of sales tax, but that might change. He emphasized the importance of saving money now, investing wisely and building a bigger surplus. He spoke against being asked to pay taxes for a deficit that was to occur ten to twenty years from now and asked why he should be asked to pay for the future. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Deppe for his comments. CONSENT AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 10 AND 19 , 2006. ZACouncil Packets\2006\Rl 1-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 1 of 18 AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE PAINTING OF A MURAL ON THE WALLS OF THE NEW SPLASH PARK PUMP HOUSE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CULTURAL COUNCIL. AGENDA ITEM #3 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-51 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN THE CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 505 A BLOCK 3, LOT 11 (15703 E. GOLDEN EAGLE BOULEVARD) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 158 OF MAPS, PAGE 40, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. EA06-11(BROWNING). AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE "SHERWOOD SAGUARO CONDOMINIUMS." A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROTECT LOCATED AT 14612 N. SHERWOOD DRIVE AKA PLAT 104 BLOCK 13 LOT 1 CASE #52006-18 AGENDA ITEM #5 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING, REGION ONE, INCORPORATED, TO PROVIDE HOME DELIVERED MEALS. AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION AUXILIARY FOUNTAIN HILLS UNIT 58, INC. (SAMUEL COFFEE) FOR THE PROMOTION OF PONY EXPRESS WEEK AND RIDERS ARRIVAL IN FOUNTAIN HILLS TO BE HELD AT 12901 N. LA MONTANA DRIVE, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ, ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1.2007, FROM 11:00 AM. TO 6:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, POST 7507 (BRUCE THULIEN) FOR THE PROMOTION OF A FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD AT SAGUARO BOULEVARD AND PALISADES BOULEVARD, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ, FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2007 AND SATURDAY FEBRUARY 24, 2007, AND ON SUNDAY FEBRAURY 25, 2007 FROM 10:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, POST 7507 (BRUCE THULIEN) FOR THE PROMOTION OF A FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD AT AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS AND LA MONTANA, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006 AND SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2007, AND ON SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2007, FROM 10:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR A YOUTH COMMISSIONER ON THE STRATEIGIC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION (SPAC). Councilmember Leger MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as listed and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilmember Dickey Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilmember Leger Aye Vice Mayor Schlum Aye Vice Mayor Kehe Aye Councilmember McMahan Aye Councilmember Archambault Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). ZACouncil Packets\2006\Rl 1-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 2 of 18 9 ACTION AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #10 — DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING PERMITTING THE USE OF OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOLS FOR HOME OCCUPATION USE. Town Manager Tim Pickering introduced Richard Turner, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and said that he had put together a report that outlined some of the history behind this situation and some of the possible solutions. Mr. Turner advised that this issue was brought to the Town's attention as the result of a complaint received regarding Aquatics Unlimited, a licensed business that offered swimming instruction, water aerobics classes and pool parties from April through September. It operates from a single-family home in an R1-8 Single -Family Zoning District. Excessive noise and parking were the issues mentioned in the complaint. Upon investigation, it was determined that the business was operating in violation of the home occupation regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and the owner of the business and residence was cited that same day. Subsequently, staff has been in a dialogue with the owner to resolve the violation and perhaps find an alternative commercial location for the business that meets Zoning Ordinance requirements. The item was added to the agenda by the Mayor following a request from Councilmember Schlum. It was suggested that the Ordinance be changed to allow this use as a home occupation. A search of Town business license records showed that only Aquatics Unlimited was primarily engaged in providing swimming lessons, so if the Ordinance was not changed to allow this use as a home occupation, no other businesses in Town would be affected. Mr. Turner advised that the Ordinance stated that a home occupation was incidental and subordinate to the use of the unit for dwelling purposes. The business was not to change the character of the dwelling, have no employees other than members of the immediate family residing in the dwelling unit and it may not generate traffic as a result of patronage and/or shipping and receiving materials beyond five trips per day. Shipping and receiving shall only be by a vehicle customarily used for residential purposes. Carports, accessory buildings and yards may not be used for home occupations and there shall be no evidence of outdoor storage of materials relating to the business or outdoor displays, noise, dust, odors, fumes, etc. discernible beyond the property lines. He noted that home occupation regulations were designed to make a home based business invisible to the surrounding neighborhood and were therefore intentionally very restrictive. Mr. Turner stated that the Town could amend its Home Occupation regulations to allow the use of an outdoor pool for swimming instruction. This type of amendment would allow swimming instruction just like other home occupations except the use of an outdoor pool would be acceptable subject to all of the other criteria in the Zoning Ordinance for Home Occupations. At the time of the zoning violation citation, Aquatics Unlimited did not meet the Home Occupation regulations because the business involved the use of an outdoor pool, trip generation exceeded five trips per day and the noise level was high enough to generate a complaint. Amending the regulations to allow the outdoor use of a pool would require that Aquatics Unlimited scale back their business operation to eliminate pool parties and aerobics instruction. The number of customer trips per day would also have to be limited to five, the same limitation for any home occupation. Mr. Turner commented that the Town recognized that swimming lessons saved many lives a year and Aquatics Unlimited provided a valuable community service. He said they would like to see the business remain in the community in a commercial location that meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. If scaled back to fit the home occupation regulations, this business and any other swimming school could be compatible in a single- family neighborhood. He pointed out that the business had existed at this initial location since 1994 with only one complaint. The other side of this issue was the perception that an ordinance change was being made to solve one businesses' zoning problem. Other small businesses that operate outdoors might approach the Town with their requests. While Aquatics Unlimited may be a compatible use in their neighborhood, another swimming school might not. Impacts such as noise could be a problem if another school operated differently. Staff checked with six cities and towns regarding this issue and determined that only the City of Mesa allowed swimming schools to operate as a home occupation. Mr. Turner summarized his remarks by stating that Aquatics Unlimited had existed for many years with only one complaint. Making the business conform to a home occupation would require a significant cutback in their business activity and they would have to comply with the regulations, which did not allow negative impacts on ZACouncil Packets\2006\Rl1-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 3 of 18 neighbors. A swim school provided a valuable neighborhood service. Other swim school operators might not be as responsible as Aquatics Unlimited and if this was approved, other businesses might come forward to request outdoor home occupation uses. Mr. Turner advised that staff could not recommend a change to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. He added that if the Town Council believed this type of business was acceptable as a home occupation, staff could draft an amendment so that the use would be as compatible as possible. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Turner for his presentation. Councilmember McMahan asked whether staff had considered issuing the owner of the business a Special Use Permit and working out some regulations. Mr. Turner replied that staff looked at a couple of options but not the issuance of a Special Use Permit. He said that should Council direct staff to move in that direction they would do so. Councilmember McMahan stated that he believed the business met a lot of the criteria for a Special Use Permit and noted the service to the community that the business provided. He added that he would like staff to pursue this option. In response to a question from Councilmember Dickey, Mr. Turner explained that a Temporary Use Permit was only good for two years and was considered a temporary use that eventually went away. He added that a Special Use Permit could be perpetual. He said that there were home occupation uses that were specifically exempted from the criteria and they were provided as uses subject to Temporary Use Permits in residential zoning districts, such as day care businesses. There were very specific criteria that applying to only those uses and they were renewed every two years. Councilmember Schlum commented on the fact that the business provided a needed service but was located in a residential area. He said that if the uses beyond providing a swim school for children (pool parties, water aerobics) were eliminated, the problem comes down to the number of trips per day. He stated that although the business had operated without complaint for 12 years, anyone who bought a property located near that business had the right to enjoy the quiet appreciation of their property. He said that more discussion was needed and noted that Fountain Hills was a small Town without the facilities that other larger towns have. He stated the opinion that it was going to come down to what they were comfortable with as far as the number of trips they were going to allow in and out of a swim school. Mr. Turner advised that staff focused on the home occupation option being that it was an existing business and was being conducted out of a single-family home. Staff felt that using the restrictions previously discussed would make it compatible in a single-family neighborhood although they were significantly restrictive. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that staff was not sure when the business expanded to include pool parties and water aerobics instruction and did not know what triggered the actual complaint; the fact that the Town recognizes that there are certain businesses that can be operated in a home and not require the homeowner to rent outside office space; Councilmember Archambault's opinion that business demographics change and flexibility was needed and his support of staff s recommendation relative to changing the ordinance to include instruction at the pool because it was a valuable service; the fact that the Town currently had 603 home businesses in operation and the fact that the Home Business regulations were designed to make the businesses essentially invisible in the neighborhood to ensure that property values remain high and neighborhoods peaceful and staff's efforts to assist the owner of the business (researched alternative commercial locations that have pools and provided contact information). Vice Mayor Kehe stated that one of the options appeared to be the fact that Peaks Fitness was building a new pool that would be ready within a matter of months. He added that this appeared to be an almost ideal situation. He noted that he had talked with the owner of Peaks Fitness and asked whether there would be a "fair return" to both him and the owner of Aquatics Unlimited if they could work out an agreement between both parties. He expressed that the owner of Peaks Fitness was amenable to pursuing that option. He noted that this had been an option for consideration and asked why the owner of Peaks Fitness had not been contacted in this regard. He added that the owner of Peaks Fitness was looking for the interested party to come to him to discuss this matter. Mr. Turner responded that staff had provided Ms. Mackie, the owner of Aquatics Unlimited, with that information and said that staff could pursue getting the two parties together. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 4 of 18 The Vice Mayor stated the opinion that if Ms. Mackie could work out an agreement that could be mutually beneficial to both parties, he would listen attentively to a possible moratorium of the enforcement until that pool was ready for use. He emphasized that prior to that, an agreement would have to be reached. He noted that the swimming instruction season would not begin for six months so the timing would be good. He acknowledged that this was a valuable service yet he understood the neighbor's concerns. Councilmember Dickey questioned what the ramifications would be to day care centers whose regulations were listed in Chapter 10 (if they amended the A Section rather than the H Section). She added that 30 businesses would have had to make alterations in order to comply with the Town's ordinances and four had to give up what they were trying to do. She stated that she wanted to be sensitive to whatever those changes were. She said she would like more information on how the Temporary Use Permit process worked for day cares as well. Additional discussion ensued relative to the fact that Ms. Mackie's regular school schedule starts in April and sufficient time existed to craft a Special Use Permit that would be satisfactory to everyone involved; staff s commendable efforts to date; the fact that one of the hotels contacted would consider allowing the lessons to occur at their site; the fact that Aquatics Unlimited had worked successfully for many years; the importance of being sensitive to the rights of the property owners; the fact that the number of trips to and from the business was a key issue and whether or not the business would survive if the number of trips/services provided was reduced and difficulties associated with amending Section H. Councilmember Leger encouraged staff to pursue their recommendations in terms of allowing swim instruction and the use of an outdoor swimming pool in backyards that have the proper license to do so (work on amending Section A). He commended staff on their efforts and stated the opinion that their recommendation could work. He added that the result might scale back Ms. Mackie's business but noted that there were alternatives that she could pursue. Mayor Nichols agreed that Ms. Mackie's business provided a valuable to service to the Town and said that to him the key was to teach children how to swim, not to hold parties and conduct water aerobics. He stated that he would like to preserve her right to train children to swim and save lives. He encouraged staff to continue to work on the ordinance to modify Section A to allow this type of business to operate in a backyard pool. He also discussed the importance of preserving the rights of homeowners in the area. He spoke in support of allowing the number of trips to remain unchanged and added that carpooling was another option that could be pursued. He said that as Ms. Mackie's business continued to grow, it was important for Ms. Mackie to find another business willing to work with her to provide a secondary outlet, such as Peaks Fitness pool. He stated the opinion that some flexibility should be exercised over the next year or two to allow Ms. Mackie an opportunity to pursue other arrangements. In response to a question from Councilmember Leger, Mr. Turner advised that staff allowed Ms. Mackie's business to continue to operate through the end of her season, the end of September, the regular closure date. Mayor Nichols MOVED that staff be instructed to look at modifying Section A in an effort to allow this kind of business to be included in the Town's ordinance. Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion. Mayor Nichols said that he would now like to hear from any members of the public who would like to provide input and Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that 13 speaker cards had been submitted. The following citizens spoke in support of allowing Ms. Mackie's business to continue to operate and provided input that included the following: Traffic already exists in the neighborhood (Boys & Girls Club, etc.); the fact that the second leading cause of death for children was drowning and the importance of pool safety and teaching children to swim; the excellent service and dedication provided by Ms. Mackie; the lack of similar service providers; 300 deaths per year occur in swimming pools; the importance of having ordinances in place that protect the safety of the Town's youths; the opinion that taking youths to another facility, such as a Holiday Inn, might not provide the safe environment (chemical levels, etc.) that Ms. Mackie's business provides; the importance of maintaining equity and fairness and exercising a level of flexibility; Ms. Mackie's lack of complaints over the last 12 years and the fact that the Town has consistently sanctioned it's operation over that period of time; the importance of pursuing exemptions and various options to allow this essential business to operate; the fact that the business generates additional tax revenue and allows residents to remain in Town rather ZACouncil Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 5 of 18 than take their business to Scottsdale or other communities; a growing family community such as Fountain Hills must retain life-saving businesses such as Aquatics Unlimited; the importance of issuing a Special Use Permit for this unique situation, and the importance of weighing the public good against the quietness of a neighborhood. Dr. Steven Feyrer-Melk Dr. Matt Hummel Ms. Jill Reed Kathleen Andrews Ms. Sue Mackie Ms. Marilynn Buettner Ms. Mollie Miller Mr. Rod Murray Mr. Tedd Ramsay Ms. Loras Rauch Mr. Michael Zarallo Mr. Jim Sekey Ms. Luanna Goltry PTO President/Fountain Hills Charter School 14806 E. Bobcat Drive 16531 E. Ashbrook Drive 16804 E. Monterey Drive 17362 E. Calaveras Avenue 17437 E. Teton Drive 16215 Montrose Drive 17418 E. San Marcos Drive 14612 Fairlynn Drive 17203 E. Calaveras Avenue 16920 Trojan Court 15829 E. Chicory 16248 E. Glenbrook Boulevard Mayor Nichols thanked everyone for their comments. Councilmember McMahan MOVED to amend the motion to include directing staff to pursue a Special Use Permit approach. Councilmember McMahan stated that the permit could be crafted to meet Ms. Mackie's needs and be renewable as developed. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated that Councilmember McMahan's motion was actually a different motion than the one on the floor. He said that if Council would like staff to pursue a variety of options that could be done but the motion then should not be directed at Subsection A of the Home Occupation section, which was currently on the floor as Councilmember McMahan's motion related to a different area of the Code. The motion DIED for lack of a second. Mayor Nichols commented that the whole purpose of this discussion has to do with the safety of the Town's children not the activities for adults (pool parties, water aerobics). Mr. McGuire stated that if the intention was to modify the Home Occupancy regulations to allow this type of use, then the motion should be amended to state just that. Mayor Nichols MOVED to amend his motion to direct staff to work on modifying the language just on swimming schools (not pool parties, water aerobics) in the Home Occupancy section. Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the amendment to the motion and the motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Mayor Nichols commented that Fountain Hills prided itself on having a special character and what they had done this evening was to try to show the residents that the Council was willing to look at the possibility of modifying regulations when required or necessary. AGENDA ITEM #11 — UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH SUN PORTS CONSTRUCTION FOR THE FABRICATION OF 89 SHADE COVERINGS A SHADE STRUCTURE FOR THE PATIO ADJOINING THE TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND THE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SHADE FABRIC THROUGHOUT THE CIVIC CENTER. Public Works Director Tom Ward addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and thanked Councilmember Dickey for raising awareness on this issue. He noted that in the planning of a new Town Hall facility, shade covers for Law Enforcement, Town vehicles and staff were originally budgeted, ($400,000), however in a value analysis to streamline costs due to elevated steel pricing, items such as the shade structures ZACouncil Packets\2006\Rl 1-16-06\1 1-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 6 of 18 were postponed for future consideration. He noted that the shade structures were designed in accordance with the original design of the building and reported that the expenditure covered 89 shade covers (40 for Law Enforcement, 24 for Town vehicles and 25 for staff members). He added that the dollar amount of $355,976.30 also contained the patio (outside of the Chambers) and the replacement of any existing shade covers at the Community Center and Library. Mr. Ward advised that staff conducted as much research as possible including the feasibility of including solar collectors in the shade cover project before final consideration takes place. It was determined that minimum infrastructure existed to feed the Salt River Project (SRP) grid. The parking lot would have to be trenched, the conduits would have to be installed and staff obtained an estimate of approximately $300,000 for the infrastructure. In addition, the solar devices would cost approximately $710,000 and the support structures for the solar devices would cost approximately $178,000 for a total of $1,188,000. After checking with SRP on the rebate, staff estimated a rebate of approximately $133,400, which would leave a total estimated cost of $1,054,500. The return on the investment was approximately ten years based on the cost of $710,000, however, what they did not know was whether these costs would remain true through the construction or increase. Staff estimated that the return on investment could go as long as 12 to 15 years depending upon the construction costs/bids. The solar collectors were warranted for 25 years and the warranty involves 90% of the original cost for the first 12 years and 80% for the remaining amount (13 years). Mr. Ward noted that the Strategic Plan discussed consistency of design for commercial structures for look and feel and questioned whether the Town was following along these lines. He added that the Plan also called for implementing new quality initiatives and said that in the Town Hall II this issue ranked 32 out of 38 items and therefore was not an immediate priority for the residents. He noted that as part of the Strategic Plan new priorities would be created for the staff and this meant that the amount of work that could be performed was lessened as far as the other strategic priorities that were given. He stated the opinion that the Town had been very cautious about conserving energy and discussed the savings realized in the new Town Hall facility versus the old facility. Discussion ensued relative to the purchase of Town vehicles and the fact that the Town was also energy/fuel/environmentally conscious in this area; the use of solar power at all of the Town's flasher crossings; staff s concern that out of the 89 shade covers 40 would be utilized for the law enforcement's vehicles (45% of the parking stalls) and the fact that the vehicles contain computers and electrical devices that were very sensitive to the heat and without the covers, the heat would deteriorate the equipment much faster than normal and the fact that staff vehicles also contained sensitive equipment. Mr. Ward stated that he was not in any way opposed to solar and commented on the fact that the fossil fuels would run out eventually. He expressed the opinion that the Town would have plenty of opportunities to look for solar devices for Town Hall facilities and many of the structures were built in such a way that solar would not be offensive. When appropriate, staff could look into these areas and come back to the Council with additional ideas and research. Mr. Ward advised that staff suggested that the Council move forward with the original contract in the amount of $355,976 and added that the covers were compatible and aesthetically pleasing with the existing buildings. He further stated that they should consider directing staff to conduct a study to see how they could best serve Town facilities with solar devices. Councilmember Schlum MOVED to approve the contract with Mohave in the amount of $355,976 for the 89 shade structures as outlined by staff. Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Dickey thanked the Council for continuing this agenda item at the last meeting and said that as she committed to at that time, she had conducted a variety of additional research into the matter and was ready to present her findings. She reported that the City of Scottsdale received an honorable mention in the National Sierra Club Magazine for being the first city in the nation to require all new public buildings and renovation projects meet the U.S. Green Buildings Highest Standards. They serve as a model of best practices across the country for municipalities. Solar panels require virtually no upkeep and come with a 25-year warranty but would likely last 35 to 40 years. There are opportunities to partner with utility companies beyond the rebates, which were readily available. The Arizona Corporation Commission passed rules last week following a ZACouncil Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 7 of 18 recommendation from The Arizona Republic to raise the bar on renewables. One of the items the paper said the Commission should approve and they did was the gradual increase in the renewable energy standard reaching 15% by 2025. The environmental benefits included cleaner air and reduced water consumption, which was required in conventional generation plans. There was also a compelling need to diversify the electric supply and global demand was putting pressure on the supply and cost of natural gas, which fuels many of the power plants. The canopies were available in a variety of aesthetically pleasing appearances. Purchase power agreements were another option whereby another entity owns the structures and the Town purchases the power at a fixed rate for up to 20 years (obviously shades the vehicles). This would relieve the Town of up front capital costs and the utility/company would obtain "green energy credits." Net metering could also occur, which means that if all of the energy was not used, it could be sold back at the same price paid. Councilmember Dickey referred to articles she distributed to the Council both in the past and today and noted that this year ASU's Capital Programs Management Group installed a solar covered parking system for 44 shaded parking spaces on their roof and the cost was $350,000. APS gave ASU a rebate in the amount of $140,000, which brought the cost down to approximately $160,000. They paid approximately $17,000 a year in their electricity and so the cost would be paid for within 10 years. Discussion ensued relative to additional articles/solar panel breakthroughs and estimated savings including a parking structure in Tucson (over 150,000 pounds of carbon dioxide has not been put into the atmosphere and 250 pounds of nitrous oxide — or the equivalent of over 4.5 million cups of coffee). Councilmember Dickey announced that a ten-minute video would now be aired (created pro-bono by Candy Productions) outlining the extensive benefits of solar and economic paybacks. The video was aired at this time. Councilmember Dickey stated she could not support the project as proposed and suggested that they thoroughly explore public/private utility partnerships to mitigate the costs and realize energy benefits, both financial and environmental. She added that they could also proceed with a pilot program or partial implementation (putting panels on the shade structure adjacent to the buildings, etc.) She emphasized that she did not want to move forward on the premise that there was urgency as far as cost because she had heard from two builders that construction costs were stable and might even be declining. She also requested explicit information regarding the need to replace vehicles that are parking in the sun and questioned what the Sheriff's office processes were in other jurisdictions. She added that she would also like to know how many of the 21 Town vehicles would need to be replaced, why, and the actual cost of digging a trench for a one or two inch conduit as part of a bid on the project. She noted that although she did park underground, many State workers did not, including workers in the Governor's office and teachers and many downtown office workers had to pay for this amenity. She explained that she brings this up in order to present the issue in a balanced manner and not to begrudge the Town's employees if it was a possible project. She thanked staff for the time and effort put into developing the proposal and said that she too would like to see the Town's employees and visitors have an undercover parking option and she hoped they could come up with a way to make it happen. In response to a request for clarification from Councilmember Leger, Mr. Ward stated that there are some shade structures with a different design in place. He said that that type would not be installed in the future; they were merely proposing to improve what they already had. He added that the plan was to revamp them so they would look like the ones that would be installed and they would install an upgraded canvass. Discussion ensued relative to whether staff has looked into installation of shade covers that would benefit the citizens and the fact that some of the covers that would be for staff could also be used for citizens (not all staff would be using them at the same time); Councilmember Schlum's opinion that they did not have sufficient information to consider the use of solar panels this evening, and the fact that it would cost $3,000 per shade cover and everything else was incidental (cover on the patio and the other covers for the Community Center). Mr. Pickering noted that staff had gotten bids when they originally had the company prepare alternates for the Town and the fact that the cost of the original structures were approximately $5100 per structure. He said that the cost was higher at that time because they were trying to get an identical match. He added that they were proposing to basically replace the canvass that had worn out with a better canvass and received a better price. 14) Mr. Ward reported that the original shade cover cost was $5,071 each and the cost of the Smith Group's proposal (67 spaces to be covered) was $215,000 for a cost of $3,221 each. He noted that they were not the ZACouncil Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 8 of 18 same type of design they were looking at now. He added that the new design would result in a much more aesthetically pleasing cover. Mr. Pickering commented that staff had originally anticipated spending between $4,500 and $5,000 and the figure was now coming in at approximately $3,000 each. Mr. Ward said that protecting the electrical/computer equipment in the Sheriff's Department's vehicles was a very significant issue according to Captain Kleinheinz. He added that he could not present data on replacements but emphasized that the proposal would significantly help the situation that currently existed for all vehicles. Mayor Nichols stated the opinion that there are two separate issues to consider — one issue dealt with how to harness solar power to help reduce energy consumption in the Town and the other was the one before them, completion of the Town Hall. He noted that part of the original design of the Town Hall had included covered parking structures but due to a lack of funds, that was not done. They did, however, place money in this year's budget to do the structures ($400,000) and they had received a price that was less than that amount to complete the project. He stated that for several reasons he believed they should proceed with completing the Town Hall by installing the parking structures — to protect the Town's assets, decrease costs associated with the replacement of the Sheriff's Department's vehicles, and to boost employee morale. He pointed out that employees in the old Town Hall had parking structures and the Council had made a commitment to try to do the same thing at the new offices. In response to a question from the Mayor relative to the total square feet of flat roof on the Town Hall building, the Community Center, the Library — all of the Town -owned properties. Mr. Ward responded that he could not provide information on that at this time but said that he had spoken with Don Thumith today about the usable space on top of the Town Hall building and they estimated that there was approximately 16,000 square feet. He added that they definitely have about 8,000 square feet of usable space up there where there was no equipment and solar devices could be placed there as shown in the video. He noted that they also had a flat roof at the Community Center, the Fire Station, the Library and the Museum. Mayor Nichols advised that he has no objection to trying to be energy efficient and he supported energy conservation. He stated the opinion that this as a massive, separate project. He said he would split this into two separate items, one being the parking structures today and then possibly, at the Retreat, discuss whether they wanted to pursue the energy issue as they go forward into 2007-2008. Councilmember Archambault commented that he served as a member of the design committee for the new Town Hall and asked staff to comment on funding issues related to that project. Mr. Pickering reported that approximately $600,000 was removed from that original budget (for the Town Hall building) and added that the figure did not include the alternates such as a wall that buffered the Avenue of the Fountains ($200,000) monies for the shade structures (at the time between $400,000 and $600,000) and another $600,000 was taken out beyond the alternates for what was called "a valued engineered out" — monies that were not put in but they prepare for it later. Mr. Pickering noted that the initial cost of the building came in at approximately $2 million more than the Town wanted to spend. Councilmember Archambault added that they then began the valued engineering for the sole purpose of finishing the project. He said that they also did not want to bond the shade structures and pay interest on them. He commended Councilmember Dickey on her research and efforts to pursue solar energy and stated the opinion that the Town should discuss this important matter further at the Council's Retreat. He stated that he has learned through experience that government moved slow by design and added that it had been a two- year process to get to this point. He said he would like to look at solar energy in the future but stated that they needed to move forward and finish this project because there were a lot of other things they needed to do. He commented that they should look at putting solar power up on the roof and reported that the Town was now saving $124,000 per year on electricity. He further stated that he would like to finish this project and then discuss during Retreat other solar power options. Vice Mayor Kehe agreed with the manner in which the Mayor separated the issues and said that he supported energy conservation and believed that solar energy was our future. He advised that his perception of the public's attitude regarding this particular project was that shade structures were considered to be a luxury rather than a necessity. He said that his concern relates to the fact that for the last year and a half they have worked on the Strategic Plan and part of that process, and a priority, was to recognize that somewhere down the road (ten ZACouncil Packets\2006\Rl 1-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 9 of 18 years or less) 30% of the Town's construction related revenue was going to end. He added that once the Town's land mass was developed, that was the end of construction revenue aside from any redevelopment projects. He noted that they were working hard throughout the community on a program called "Financial Choices," whereby the Town was showing what the impact would be as the result of various options and trying to obtain input from the citizens relative to their preferences. He stated the opinion that if they proceeded with this project, they ran the risk of a "backlash." He added that he would hate to see this project "torpedo" the larger project that they had put so much work into. Councilmember Leger concurred that the Mayor had done an excellent job in terms of separating the issues. He added that he was trying to look at the big picture and from his perspective when he looked at the Strategic Plan and the Town's priorities, he did not believe that the shade structures represented a priority that should be on the top of the list. He said that there were other capital improvement projects that should come before this type of project. He added that he supported the Avenue project and the Skate Park but he was not pleased with the final costs for both of those projects. He stated that if they did not pursue the shade covers at this point in time, they would have an opportunity to recover and realize a tremendous savings. He noted that the item was originally placed in the budget and it made sense at the time but since then, an analysis had been conducted, a 20-year projection, and at that time they were looking at a $19 million operational deficit and one year after that, they are looking at a $27 million operational deficit. He said that as a Councilmember, he needed to be taking a very critical look at dollars spent and this proposal represented a significant amount of money. He was constantly reminded when he wrestled with these issues that the citizens were at the top of the organizational chart and as far as this particular project, although he saw some indirect benefits, he did not see any direct benefit to the citizens. He said that he could not support the project at this time. Mayor Nichols stated that he would like to hear from any citizens wishing to speak at this time and Ms. Bender advised that nine speaker cards were submitted. Mr. Charles Provine, representing Solarscape Energy, 2375 E. Camelback Road, said that from his company's perspective, they would have put 55 kilowatts on 89 spaces that would have resulted in a savings of 160,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, 400 pounds of nitrogen oxide and 800 pounds of sulfa dioxide a year. He noted that solar energy eventually paid for itself and added that municipalities could take advantage of numerous tax breaks. He added that the Town had a lot of things on its docket and should go forward with shade structures. He said they should get multiple bids, an RFP, and contemplate having a third party (a corporation) within the community buy the shade structures, take advantage of the incentives and then sell them back to the Town after five years. In that way the Town could obtain a much cheaper price overall than if they purchased the shade structures on their own. He also recommended that if the Town had an Energy Commissioner or Certified Energy Manager, that he or she consult with the Council regarding best practices. Ms. Jackie Gambill, representing Covered Parking, 16921 E. Palisades, said that some of her company's largest clients were APS, Mayo Clinic and General Electric. She advised that a little over a year ago she had approached staff and discussed the shade structures, provided some suggestions, and requested that she be given an opportunity to bid on the project. She stated that she never heard back. She added that once the issue appeared in the newspaper, she received numerous calls from citizens and had obtained a lot of feedback. She said that she looked at the costs and believes them to be ridiculously high. She stated that she would like the opportunity to meet with involved staff, find out exactly what was needed and put together a bid within a few days. She expressed the opinion that she could save the Town $100,000 on the canopies. Mr. Ronald Tovella, Allwest Energy, 16847 E. Parkview Avenue, said that he hoped to build the first commercial solar building in Fountain Hills and said that his building was already solar ready. He extended an invitation to Councilmember Dickey and Mr. Ward to attend the ceremony when they switched from grid power to solar power. He also commended Councilmember Dickey for her desire to create a more sustainable community by incorporating green building measures and solar energy use in Town. He stated that solar energy was a viable technology and the pay back was approximately ten years. It would produce power for 25 to 30 years resulting in significant energy savings over the lifetime of the building. He added that the solar energy economics become more favorable when the solar was part of the initial planning process rather than an afterthought. He presented a variety of solar energy facts and urged the Town to pursue this important matter. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 10 of 18 Mr. Eric Keosky-Smith, 15333 Verbena Drive, stated that he was not against solar energy. He strongly encouraged the Council, particularly on the flat roofs, to continue in that direction. He added that he was opposed to parking structures that taxpayers would have to pay for particularly when they were being asked to seriously consider a property tax. He said that from a timing point of view, this was very bad public relations. He commented on the fact that shade coverings for parking was not a priority and said he had not heard any information relative to the return on investment for covered parking structures. He suggested that the $365,000 be used as a significant down payment for a Town aquatics facility. He encouraged the Council to pursue solar and eliminate the shade structures. Mr. Bob Deppe, 16247 N. Boulder, asked when would the Town start thinking about its financial future. He added that shade structures were not a current priority and the Council should think about saving some of the money for future financial crises. Ms. Leah Bushman, representing the Arizona Solar Energy Association, advised that she recently formed and was directing the subchapter of the Association in Fountain Hills. Beginning November 29 , a series of monthly lectures were to be presented to educate the citizens of the Town on the future of solar energy and sustainable living. She said that she was excited about the Mayor's comment relative to pursuing solar energy and added that she believed they would soon begin to see some major changes take place in this critical area. She also spoke in opposition to moving forward with the shade structures but added that if they decided to proceed with that project, additional bids should be received. She agreed that there were more important issues that need to be addressed in Town and added that the Solar Energy Association would help support the Town in looking at forming utility partnerships, etc. so that the Town could become energy sufficient. She applauded the members of the Council for their forward thinking. Ms. Joanna DeNinis, thanked Councilmember Dickey for her presentation. She noted, "Haste makes waste" and cautioned the Council against jumping into something. She added that if they do put in parking shade structures, she hoped they would incorporate solar renewable energy but stated that she did not believe that they were really necessary at this point in time. She urged the Council to use the model developed by Tucson to the Town's benefit and emphasized the importance of enhancing the environment and protecting the health of all residents. Mayor Nichols thanked all of the speakers for their input. Councilmember Dickey said that it did not really have to be a separate issue if they could get it done using solar energy in a way that was affordable. She added that she would just like the opportunity to see if that was possible. Mayor Nichols advised that there was a motion on the floor to accept this item and the bid with Sun Ports Construction and called for a vote on that motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Vice Mayor Kehe Nay Councilmember Dickey Nay Councilmember Schlum Nay Councilmember McMahan Nay Mayor Nichols No Vote Councilmember Leger Nay Councilmember Archambault Nay The motion FAILED (0-7). Councilmember Archambault MOVED that the Town go out for an RFP to obtain quotes on the shade structures. Councilmember Archambault commented on the fact that Town went through the State on this particular bid and noted that the Council was not provided information on multiple bids and therefore do not know what the bids came in at. Mr. Pickering concurred and explained that the State did that for the Town. The State did the RFP's, collected the information, obtained the lowest price for that bid and that was why the Town did not have to go out for a bid, the Town could purchase from the State, a cooperative purchase. Mr. Pickering explained that Sun Ports Construction was the only company that was on the State's bid list for the shade structures as far as they know. He added that staff then compared that bid to the costs they got from the ZACouncil Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 11 of 18 contractor and everyone else. He said that staff could certainly issue an RFP if that was the desire of the Council. Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Schlum stated that he looked forward to discussing the issue in greater detail at the Council Retreat. He added that if they were going to consider the shade structures, they might want to do that first in order to understand more about solar and determine whether that was something they wanted to incorporate into part of it or all of it at some point. He said that from all he had heard from the citizenry to date relative to the cost of the shade structures, he would move in favor of having a bid at some point. He just did not know whether they should wait to potentially incorporate some solar. He stated that he was in favor of the motion but he believed they should look at it wholly and wait until they have their discussion regarding solar options throughout the community. Mayor Nichols clarified that the motion was to issue an RFP for the shade structures. Mr. Pickering stated that the Town does not have $1 million so they cannot go out and request solar bids when the funding was not in place. Councilmember Dickey commented that if they were going to go out to bid, solar should be included as part of that bid. Mayor Nichols said that the issue now was shade structures and did the Council want to go with an RFP on those or not. Councilmember Schlum stated that he did not see a need at this time and would not support the issuance of an RFP at this time. Vice Mayor Kehe concurred and said he had strong concerns regarding the public's opinion of this matter and added that the residents did not view this item as a priority. Councilmember Archambault commented that he had counted the votes and in the interest of not wasting staff's time he would withdraw his motion. Mayor Nichols thanked everyone for their input and said that following a brief recess, they would now move on to the next item on the agenda. The meeting recessed at 9:16 p.m. and reconvened at 9:22 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #12 — CONSIDERATION OF CUT AND FILL WAIVERS FOR "THE RETREAT AT FIREROCK-PARCEL B," A MULTI -FAMILY PROTECT LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF FIREROCK COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. CASE #CFW2006-01. Mr. Pickering introduced Senior Planner Bob Rodgers who highlighted a PowerPoint presentation and provided a brief overview of this agenda item. Mr. Rodgers stated that the project was for an 80-unit multi -family condominium development on 14.63 acres located on the northeast side of Firerock Country Club Drive. The property was located in the Firerock Country Club directly across from the clubhouse and between the driving range and the 10th tee. The property was currently zoned M-1 PUD, which allowed for 50% lot coverage with some modified setback requirements. Additionally, the Firerock Development Agreement vested the zoning of this property as of 1998 for a period of ten years. The Firerock area's specific plan provided a maximum dwelling unit density of 88 units for this parcel. The parcel consists of a long ridge with two high points. There was a utility easement and an emergency access easement along the south property line. The irregular shape of the hillside along the south property line precluded the development of a full road without significantly more cuts and fills. The property was currently vacant. Mr. Rodgers advised that the primary vehicular access would be off of Firerock Country Club Drive. A number of the buildings were designed with common driveways and a pedestrian connection was planned behind units 63 through 68. There were three building types being proposed — two unit buildings, three unit buildings and some four unit buildings in the back. There was one area with fill greater than 10 feet near the entrance to the site and the maximum depth of visible fill will be 16 feet. The total area of the fill above 10 feet in depth was ZACouncil Packets\2006\R I 1- 1 6-06\1 1-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 12 of 18 2,175 square feet, slightly over one-half of one percent of the total site. Due to the predetermined location of the site entrance, staff's opinion was that the fill was necessary and reasonable. Mr. Rodgers reported that there are three areas of cuts greater than 10 feet and the combined area of the three cuts represents 2.9% of the total site. The cuts were necessitated by the roadway construction and its need to connect smoothly and safely to the driveways along with the maximum allowable percentage of slope for roadways and driveways. Mr. Rodgers advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend that the Council deny the cuts but noted that when they reviewed the proposal, the cuts were 19 feet and the members felt that that was too deep. Staff worked with the developer to reduce the cuts to a maximum depth of 16 feet. He stated that staff recommended approval of the cut and fill waivers subject to the stipulations contained in the concept plan approval. He noted that the applicants were present and would make a presentation to the Council on this matter. Ms. Adrian Elliott, representing King James Residential, the builder of this project, addressed the Council and said that their vision for this project had been a rural, hillside Tuscany village priced from $800,000 to $1.5 million. She said that the design focused on the proper mix of stone and stucco to complement the ambiance within the gates of Firerock. She said that her company had worked diligently with Town staff to develop hillside sensitive housing concepts to fit the natural terrain and this resulted in the necessity to customize each building's foundation. To further preserve the hillside, they incorporated the ability to float the individual units down the hillside (the homes have been designed to fit around the hillside). Paul Gilbert, 4800 North Scottsdale Road, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Council and said that it was important to focus on the facts that staff emphasized in the staff report and made in their report to the Council this evening. The project could not be built and conform to the Town's road standards without the cut and fill waivers. Every effort was made to minimize the request but the project would not work without them. 70% of the cuts are in the roadway in order to conform to standards and the one fill they had that connects to Country Club was also necessitated because they had to conform to an existing circulation system. He said that all they were doing was taking an existing circulation system and making it work. It was not an attempt to increase density; they were allowed 88 units and were now down to 80. He emphasized that they needed the Council's approval of their request to meet the Town's road standards. He said that if they were going to have a project that worked and a system that conformed to the Town's road system without seeking additional waivers, they needed this relief. He added that they had no exposed cut and fill so no one would ever know when the project had been completed that cut and fill waivers were granted. They would be covered either in the roadway or by screening walls and landscaping. He noted that staff recommended approval of the request and emphasized that the proposal was consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan. In response to a request from Councilmember Schlum, Ms. Elliott referred to a rendering that showed the cuts and fills at the entrance of the project. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that work on this project began last December and after a dozen meetings with staff, numerous revisions addressing sensitive issues resulted in five site plan submittals; the fact that the main focus of the revisions was staff s drive to reduce the cuts while still complying with the Town's ordinances; the fact that a second engineer was hired to further analyze minimizing the cuts; the fact that a third product type was developed for the hilltop, which was very unusual for a project containing only 80 units; all of the builder's efforts resulted in a 50% reduction in the cuts from the initial design; substantial reductions were also made to the depth of many of the cuts (started at 25 and got them down to 16); 70% of the remaining cuts are under the roadway and the applicant's opinion that every possible effort had been expended to minimize the request for cuts and adhere to the Town's ordinances. Mr. Rodgers commented on the fact that the original proposal contained a 25-foot cut and following a series of meetings the applicant agreed to reduce the cut areas. He added that the buildings were redesigned and discussed the improvements that the applicant had made to the proposal. He discussed the problems associated ZACouncil Packets\2006\itl 1-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 13 of 18 with the topography of the site. He stated that he had not been directly contacted by the Homeowners' Association or spoken with any of the neighbors regarding this project. Vice Mayor Kehe questioned whether the applicant had looked into utilizing other entrances for the project and Mr. Rodgers explained that the same type of problems would exist at other locations because they still had to get up the hill. He added that staff looked into other options and they would require a lot more cuts and fills than the proposal. Mr. Matt Olson, representing JMI Associates, an engineer on the project, discussed the grade of possible entrances to the project and said that the proposal represents the most ideal entrance and would result in the least amount of disturbance. In response to a question from the Vice Mayor, Mr. Gilbert discussed the existing circulation system and noted that they have to connect to Country Club (part of the Development Agreement) and everything for them was key off of that. The Vice Mayor commented that the proposed retaining walls would be able to be seen and Mr. Gilbert agreed but noted that they would probably have some type of wall there anyway. He emphasized that 69% of it was in the roadway. He added that the proposed landscaping would cover the cuts and clarified that they were discussing plantings. He noted that the CC&Rs would require that the plantings be permanent and maintained. Ms. Elliott assured the members of the Council that the landscaping would be a very important part of the package that they present to their customers. She emphasized that due to the pricing of the units that they would not "skimp" on the landscaping or the type of retaining walls. Councilmember Leger pointed out that the staff report noted that the Sanitary District had issues with the respective placement of the sewer lines and requested an update on this issue. Mr. Rodgers advised that the applicants had met with the Sanitary District and an understanding has been reached. Mr. Rodgers also clarified that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not deny the proposal; they did a cursory review and made a recommendation based on the plan that they were looking at the time of the concept review. He added that their recommendation was that the 19-foot cut was too deep. He confirmed that Planning and Zoning had not reviewed the plan currently before the Council and Councilmember Leger said that he would be interested in knowing what the Commission thought about the current proposal. Councilmember Archambault discussed the disturbance allowance (8.1 acres) and said that they have a disturbance of 7.9, which left 6.71 acres left undisturbed. He questioned whether they would they be taking away the utility disturbance and the roadway. Mr. Rodgers confirmed that they would be and explained that they would be left with a little area that would be HPE. Councilmember Archambault noted that there would be three little HPE areas and Mr. Rodgers stated that he was not sure exactly where they were but the largest part was already disturbed when the golf course was developed, even though it was offsite. Councilmember Archambault asked whether anyone had calculated how much area was going to be left around the space between the houses that would be undisturbed and how many acres would actually be left between the houses. Mr. Rodgers replied that there would be approximately 20 to 25 feet between buildings (depending on the height of the building). He added that he would expect that the entire hillside would be disturbed and re -vegetation would have to occur. Mayor Nichols expressed the opinion that the developer had done an admirable job of trying to modify their buildings to the land. He referred to a letter submitted by Ms. Elliott talking about the work that has gone into the project and commended them for their efforts. He added that one of the problems they had in Fountain Hills was that it was not the easiest place to build and Town ordinances were not always easy to comply with. He said that in this case, he did not have a problem with the fill on the road because that was the only place they could bring the road in and without that, the property could not be developed. He said he did have a problem, and a fiduciary responsibility to the residents, regarding the fact that although the cuts had been reduced from 25 feet to 19 feet, they were still at 16 feet, which was 6 feet higher than the Town's 10-foot limit. He asked ZACouncil Packets\2006\RI 1-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 14 of 18 whether it would be possible to go back and try to bring the 16 feet down to 10 or 11 feet. He questioned whether they could present another version and if that would entail cutting out or redesigning the units. Ms. Elliott stated that as an example, in cut #2 (the largest cut), the size of the area that was 16 feet was 48 square feet, slightly larger than a plywood board. She said that they have designed it so many different ways and noted that they went through stringent revisions with staff prior to this case being brought before the Council. She advised that there was no way they could design this project without some cuts and added that they had minimized them as best they could. She added that she did not think that they could bring the cuts down to 10 or 11 feet. Vice Mayor Kehe commented on the fact that the Town just spent a year and a half developing a Strategic Plan and noted that part of the Plan involved a scientific survey that went out to the Town's residents. He pointed out that the top priority was the strict enforcement of the General Plan, codes and ordinances. He said that although the applicant was stating that their "backs are against the wall" as far as making further cuts, the Council was also faced with carrying out the desire of the citizens to "strictly enforce," which meant 10 feet. He added that he believed that Mayor Nichols was saying that more negotiation needed to occur. He suggested that they each "retreat to their camps" and see what could be done. Ms. Elliott responded that if that was what the Council wanted them to do, they would but emphasized that they had "retreated" many times already with the staff and had really worked to reduce the footage. She said that she understood that the Council would prefer not to have any cuts but added that it was really impossible for them to get the roads in with no cuts. Vice Mayor Kehe advised that the other aspect of this was the fact that they have in front of them a lot of development mountainous land (the State Trust Land, Eagles Nest and Adero Canyon) and stressed the importance of having some type of benchmark in place for the benefit of the developer as well as the Town. He said that it was important for developers to know what to expect when projects were designed. He added that this was the first project that had come up since the completion and adoption of the Strategic Plan. He noted that the Council was under the same type of pressure but in a different way. He said that he agreed with the Mayor's suggestion that the developer go back and take another look at the project, based on this evening's discussion, and added that it might prove to be very helpful. Ms. Elliott commented that part of the staff report was a grid that showed other projects in Firerock and the Town. She said that they were below anything that had happened in Firerock to date. The Vice Mayor stated that the Development Agreement specifically retained the discretionary right of the Council with regard to cut and fill. He stated the opinion that they were not bound by previous Council's decisions and they could base decisions on a case -by -case basis. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire said that there were two issues to consider. One was the whether precedent had been set based on previous cut and fill waivers granted for other developments and explained that most of the cut and fill waivers were part of development agreements, such as Firerock. He also discussed the Council's discretionary authority over the cut and fill waivers and noted that when the agreement was originally written, it would appear not. He added that the supplemental agreement that followed about three months later centered around the fight over the hillside roads and what was going to happen with those cuts. The cut and fill discretion of the Council was reaffirmed in that supplemental development agreement (2H). He added that they must keep in mind that the discretion was tempered by the development agreement and trying to achieve the goals of the agreement. He said he could not say overall that the Council had absolute discretion because there were other considerations in place but he believed what they were talking about now was within their power. In response to a question from Councilmember Archambault relative to whether raising lots 74 and 75 (on cuts 2 and 3) a foot or two would result in the elimination of some cuts, Mr. Rodgers stated that some of the problems related to the fact that the buildings could only go to a height of 30 feet above ground. Z:\Council Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 15 of 18 Mr. Olson stated that if they tried to raise them to reduce the cut, several things came into play including the designed speed of the road (importance of visibility). He added that on the downhill side they had driveway slopes that connected to the downhill units and they maximized the downhill driveway slopes as much as possible. Councilmember Archambault asked why they could not go another foot or two more especially since they were able to achieve going from a 25-foot cut to a 16-foot cut. Mr. Olson replied that they had put every effort into trying to reduce further (12 to 13 feet) but it could not be done with the criteria they had to work with. He said that one of the big changes that they made was to make units 72 through 76 more conducive to that slope and roadway. Councilmember Leger referred to the Strategic Plan and the citizens' demand for strict enforcement. He said that staff's report indicates that this particular project had met the intent of the strict enforcement and therefore the intent of the Plan and asked for additional input from staff. Mr. Rodgers responded that the ordinance did not state that these types of waivers were not allowed, it said they were allowed to be requested as part of an overall project. He added that the intent of the Strategic Plan as staff understood it, was that the citizens wanted the ordinances to be enforced and by having the applicant redesign the cuts and reduce them as much as possible, they were moving towards that while being allowed to ask for the waiver. He added that staff believed that the applicant had met the three criteria outlined in the staff report: (1) To review the measures applied by the designer to minimize the amount of cuts and/or fill on the site; (2) To consider possible alternatives to the proposed plan that would conform to the 10-foot maximum cut or fill and (3) To reduce the visual impacts of the proposed development as viewed from the adjacent properties and right-of-ways. Councilmember Archambault noted that the Council had approved cut and fill waivers when the residents recover a majority of that and perhaps a small percentage of it has been out of the house. He stated the opinion that they had to give the same consideration to the roadway here because they were really putting it under the road. He said he liked the fact that they did not put it all in one spot; it was broken out throughout the roadway and added that he was leaning towards approval. Councilmember Schlum commented that the Council was sensitive to the Strategic Plan and the residents' desire , to strictly enforce zoning ordinances. He stated the opinion that it would be very beneficial to discuss what the actual cuts were. He said that cuts also provided many benefits because they lower everything. He added that they needed to know what the impact would be when this was all said and done. He noted that he was fairly comfortable with the proposal but did not like seeing a retaining wall. Discussion ensued relative to the proposed cuts requested by the applicant. Councilmember Leger stated that when he looked at the total fill it was.05 acres relative to the scope of the project and when he looked at the size of the cut, it was.43 acres, for a net of .48 acres of cut and fill on a project that was 14.63 acres. This represents less than 3% of that piece of property. He added that he was not saying he was for or against the project, he was just trying to clarify the size of the cut and fill and the impact on that property. Mr. Rodgers said that Councilmember Leger was correct and the total was 2.9%. Councilmember McMahan stated his support for the project and recommended that they approve staff's recommendation. He said that they had what appeared to be a very prestigious company, building a very fine project and added that they had gone to a lot of trouble and expense to work with the Town to adjust their project. Councilmember McMahan MOVED to approve the request for cut and fill waivers for "The Retreat at Firerock — Parcel B," and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Dickey commented that she thought she heard some willingness to go back and look at this again and asked if that was correct. Ms. Elliott responded that they had met with the HOA and they approved the architecture and indicated support for the project. She added that they still had to go back to them but they had already made changes to the architecture for them. She requested that Randy Kunzelman from BSB Design, ZACouncil Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 16 of 18 the architect for the project, discuss the changes that had been made to the garages that also affected the cut and fill. Mr. Kunzelman informed the Council that extensive work had gone into the architectural detail in order to minimize the impact on the topography of the site. He noted that they moved the garages up and down in order to locate some of the garages as much as 5 feet below the main floor of the building. Other garages were 8 feet above the main floor. He said that his company had 15 offices nationwide and stated this project had been by far the most complicated and comprehensive study they had ever worked on in their 40 years of doing business. He added that the project came down to a multitude of custom homes being built, each very site specific. Each footprint basically created a separate set of construction documents from a construction standpoint. He stated that as far as going back to the table and re -studying it, he was at a loss to know how they could possibly pull more footage out of the cut and fill (they were literally down to inches, not feet). Councilmember Archambault said that it was his understanding that each one of the groups of buildings (such as 1, 2 and 3) would have a separate set of plans as opposed to 4, 5 and 6. He added that they were not talking about a "cookie cutter design." Mr. Kunzelman responded that each of the homes had a common basic footprint per se but because of the topography of the site, each individual unit's look would differ. He confirmed that each home has been planned for the specific site it sits on. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. Councilmember Dickey commented that should they decide to approve the request, she was sensitive to the argument regarding taking past decisions to imply that they needed to do this now and emphasized that she looked at the requests on a case -by -case basis. She added that should she vote to approve this request that did not mean that a precedent was set. Mr. Gilbert stated that if the Mayor asked them to do something, they would try to accommodate the request to the best of their ability but said that if they went back and took another look, he believed they could come back with exactly what was being presented this evening because they had exhausted every available option. Mayor Nichols said that he wished they had some leeway to reduce the 16 feet. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Vice Mayor Kehe Nay Mayor Nichols Nay Councilmember McMahan Aye Councilmember Dickey Aye Councilmember Schlum Aye Councilmember Archambault Aye Councilmember Leger Aye The motion CARRIED by majority vote (5-2). AGENDA ITEM #13 - COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF W PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR 00 DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL: Mr. Pickering advised that staff would redraft the Home Occupancy permit. AGENDA ITEM #14 — SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 17 of 18 None. AGENDA ITEM #15 — ADJOURNMENT. Councilmember McMahan MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). ,The meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m. TO UZ PREPARED ATTEST AND 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 2nd day of November 2006. 1 further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 16`h day of November, 2006. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R11-16-06\11-02-06 regular minutes.doc Page 18 of 18