HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015.1110.TCWSM.Minutesz:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 1 of 19
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
* CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Kavanagh called the Work Study Session to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL AND VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Present for roll call were the following members of the Town Council: Mayor Linda Kavanagh, Vice Mayor Dennis
Brown, Councilmember Nick DePorter, Councilmember Cecil Yates, and Councilmember Henry Leger. Town
Manager Grady Miller, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Clerk Bevelyn Bender, Finance Director Craig
Rudolphy, Development Services Director Paul Mood, Community Services Director Mark Mayer, Senior Planner
Bob Rodgers, Fire Chief Randy Roberts, Town Engineer Randy Harrel and Chief Building Official Jason Field were
also present.
Councilmember Hansen arrived at the meeting at 5:31 p.m. Councilmember Alan Magazine was absent from the
meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - DISCUSSION RELATING TO POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO THE TOWN CODE,
ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
Town Manager Grady Miller addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and stated that since becoming the
Town Manager, he has been hearing from the Mayor and a number of Councilmembers that there are some
ordinances/Town Codes out there that appear to be out of date or not in sync with their philosophy of being pro -
business and trying to make the Town a better and friendlier business environment for people to conduct business in.
He advised that he had asked the Councilmembers and staff to identify those parts of the Town Code/Ordinances that
are really needing some housekeeping updates and the items received are included in the packets. He stated that the
Mayor had some ordinances she wanted to bring up and Development Services Director Paul Mood had also identified
some items he felt should be addressed that affect Development Services. He further stated that they also received
Code suggestions from Community Services Director Mark Mayer. Senior Planner/Zoning Director Bob Rodgers also
turned in a memo that identifies some key issues that he would like to see possibly amended.
Councilmember Yates commented that he knows Mr. Miller had asked that the items be submitted on time and asked
whether the discussion would be limited to just the items that were submitted.
Mr. Miller responded no and said that a couple of the Councilmembers have told him that they had some ideas in
several areas that they wanted to bring up. He stressed that he wants this to be a Council consensus-driven process and
stated that perhaps they could go around to all of the members of the Council and give them an opportunity to advise
which ones they have identified as critical or priorities for them.
Vice Mayor Brown referred to the first sheet where it talks about Staff's Recommendations for Ordinance
Amendments and Commercial/Industrial/Multi-Family Concept Plans and advised that he likes what he is seeing but
what is missing is the definition of a Concept Plan because currently with the Town's Concept Plan Regulations they
might as well have a full set of drawings engineered, sealed and ready to build before they can even submit them and
have them looked at. He noted that that needs to be totally redone to the point where a Concept is a Concept and not a
full set of drawings. He said that that has been a point of contention in the Town as long as he has been a resident of
Fountain Hills. He added that he is also good with the Minor Re-Plats. He further stated that he has been saying since
his first trip to the Town in the 80s that the only reason Fountain Hills is not a quaint little town like Cave Creek or
other small towns in the area is because the roads are meant for a larger citizen population and if they had smaller,
quainter roads throughout the entire Town, the Town would feel better. He also referred to Article 3, Section 3.06 and
Article 5, Section 5.01, Paragraphs 5-11-- (1) Utility lines and driveways should be excluded from the total allowable
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 2 of 19
disturbances on a lot, and asked whether that has ever been addressed and included in the Ordi nance and was told that
it was addressed and is included in the Ordinance. He asked if that included the building envelope areas such as
Firerock and was advised that in accordance with the new Hillside Ordinances, if there is a platted disturbance
envelope then they are stuck with it and there is nothing that can be done.
Vice Mayor Brown also discussed (2) which states that construction fences should be able to be six feet beyond the
envelope to allow for all disturbance to be used by the owner and advised that he couldn't agree more. He pointed out
that the Town is very archaic in that they still require fences to protect the Hillside Protection Area s and all of the
adjoining communities allow a steel stake and a yellow rope. He discussed difficulties associated with keeping the
fences up and said he also wanted to point that out in the hope that something can be done about. He commented on
the Zoning Ordinance Recommendations on Chapter 6.08, Paragraph 1, Future development signs to be permitted to
remain in the subdivision or plat until the last lot has closed escrow to a retail buyer, and advised that currently they
put a development sign up on a subdivision of seven houses and the ordinance reads that after they sell the first house
and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy on it, they have to take the development sign down and expressed the opinion
that that is about as ridiculous as anything he has ever seen. He stressed that the signs should remain up until the last
house has sold or when the developer decides to take the sign down.
Vice Mayor Brown discussed Chapter 10.02, Paragraph 13.F, Guest House which reads that guest homes should be
permitted to have a stove and oven as well as an attached garage. He stated that he is in total agreement that they
might as well go ahead and allow the stove and the oven, the sink and the dishwasher and allow a full kitchen but said
that he is not at all in favor of using it as an attached garage. He explained that the reason they haven't been allowing a
full kitchen is because someone might rent it and he made the comment "So What?" -- it's theirs, let them do as they
please with it. He noted that Fountain Hills is a fairly upscale Town and he doesn't believe that it will ever be a
problem. He commented that every Casita that they have built in the last ten years (and the same is true of every
builder that he knows) everything has been pre-plumbed for a stove, etc., and they get a Certificate of Occupancy and
go back and put a kitchen in it, so he asked why not approve it? He said that the above is what he had to talk about in a
nutshell and when they redid the ordinance, he doesn't know how it happened but forever they have used the
Disturbable Areas three times the footprint on everything from larger than R-10 lots he believes -- he asked Mr.
Rodgers to clarify that for him.
Mr. Rodgers advised that after 1978 it was four times the roof and the Vice Mayor stated that he would like to see that
put back in because it was somehow removed when they did the HPE removal on the R-10s and smaller.
Mr. Rodgers noted that they replaced that whole section with a new section and Vice Mayor Brown reiterated that he
personally would like to see the four times the footprint worked back in (the Land Disturbance Requirements for the
older lots).
Vice Mayor Brown expressed the opinion that the Town has an incredibly good set of ordinances that have protected
the Town a lot and added that they all have to use a little more common sense when it comes to interpreting the Town's
ordinances.
Mr. Miller said before they move on he would like to know if there is a consensus as to the items that the Vice Mayor
brought up and it appeared that there was.
Councilmember Leger stated that he feels comfortable with what the Vice Mayor brought up but he would like to have
staff's input on the items.
Mr. Rodgers informed the Council that the rope and flag is actually allowed in the Town's ordinance when someone is
working with a tough, rocky lot that might be too steep to put in a fence. He added that it is by request only but they
do allow it but the ordinance does prefer the fence.
Vice Mayor Brown said that it he thinks North Heights requires them -- there are some subdivisions that still require
them and he hasn't asked them but he thinks they were copying the Town's ordinance when they put those up (the
CC&Rs were trying to match the Town's ordinance).
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 3 of 19
Councilmember Hansen commented on the fact that trying to install the fences can be a dangerous endeavor especially
on a steep hill and she doesn't think it is realistic to require them.
Mayor Kavanagh pointed out that the fences are also an added expense and the Vice Mayor reported that an average
fence of 700 feet, which is a pretty average size for a smaller hillside property, costs about $2,500 a year and then for
every panel that is broken they are fined $150.00.
Councilmember Leger questioned what the benefits of using fences are and stated that he has heard some developers
say that when they move along in construction the fences help protect the property and le ssen the incidents of theft that
occur and also help deter children from playing inside a home that is in the framing stage.
Vice Mayor Brown agreed that those are all good points but stated that he doesn't think they should force it on
everybody, people should have the option.
Mr. Rodgers pointed out that the biggest violators of the fences are the landscapers -- they always push the fences out
when they want to put in their landscaping. He added that the developers are pretty good about it but the land scapers
are the biggest problem.
In response to a question from Councilmember Leger, the Vice Mayor stated that if there are builders who are really
concerned about theft in an area they will put a fence up and will put a gate on it but if anyone drives a round they will
see that 95% of the fences are standing right by the street and do not have gates so the properties can be accessed 24/7.
Building Official Jason Field confirmed for Councilmember Leger that he did the disturbance inspection on the proje ct
on Powderhorn Drive and Councilmember Leger commented that that would be a good example of what Vice Mayor
Brown is talking about.
Mr. Field expressed the opinion that allowing the option is a good idea but added that a lot of the Hillside Protection
Easements are in HOAs and they will probably still require the panels so they would need some cooperation from the
HOAs as far as reducing their requirements as well.
Councilmember Hansen said that if they do change their ordinance to allow the option then t he HOAs should be
notified because if they want to mirror what the Town is doing then they too would have to allow an option.
Development Services Director Paul Mood noted that cities, towns and the Counties are still working through the
ADEQ Permit Update process and the Town is going to have to update all of its storm water ordinances and they might
be required to put silt fencing around construction when the projects start.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated that these are the regulations that started out being simply outrageous and now
they are just plain bad.
Mr. Mood said that as far as future development signs, he doesn't think it really matters to staff but like the sign that is
out there now that says "Coming Fall 2015" -- hopefully they will sell real quick but you can see that go into next
spring or next summer and the sign will still say Fall of 2015. He added that he doesn't know whether the signs needs
to be updated or everyone is fine leaving it the way it is.
Mayor Kavanagh advised that she is fine leaving it the way it is and so was Councilmember Hansen.
Councilmember Leger pointed out that in the section there was something a bout encouraging the use of decomposed
granite and asked whether that could be an ADA (Americans With Disabili ties Act) issue. He said it is his
understanding that just decomposed granite is not ADA compiant.
Mr. Mood provided input on this and stated that it would have to be stabilized and they would need to be ADA
compliant and for Adero Canyon he did some research with Scottsdale and they use it on their Environmentally
Sensitive Land. He advised that he is not opposed to it but if they had that in Town on a public street and there was a
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 4 of 19
washout or something like that, they would have to contract out to get it repaired because there is a lot involved in
fixing it. He further stated that in Adero Canyon they are concerned because of the potential for a washout on hills and
having to fix it all the time.
Councilmember Leger asked whether they should "tweak" that section to reflect something other than what is stated in
the Code.
Vice Mayor Brown commented that if they have a subdivision that is large enough to have a meandering sidewalk,
other than the ADA required sidewalk at the curbside or however it meanders up the hill, he doesn't think they should
be dictating whether that subdivision should or should not be allowed to use it as long as they have an ADA required
sidewalk to get people where they need to go. He added that if they want to put a meandering sidewalk in and assume
liability for it, just like they do with their own streets, then he doesn't think they should dictate that; but he truly
believes that they have to meet the ADA requirements.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire asked whether that type of sidewalk would then stay under private control and not be
dedicated to the Town and the Vice Mayor replied absolutely.
Mayor Kavanagh referred to Article 5, Section 5.06, regarding retaining walls at wall location greater than 15% slope
maximum height to be 12 feet and the average height to be 10 feet (currently maximum of 20 feet average 7 feet).
Vice Mayor Brown advised that the he has heartburn about this; if they drive through the subdivision that sits on the
corner of Palisades and Shea, Crestview, it is full of 12 and 24-foot retaining walls. He added when you drive through
there it doesn't have anywhere close to the feel that Firerock or Eagles Nest does or any other subdivision in Town. He
noted that they were allowed to do that because they are under County regulations and if anyone has any questions
about whether or not to allow that then they should drive through that subdivision and their questions will be answered.
He further stated that he would love to allow them because it would make life easier for everybody but as far as the
appearance he would not do it.
Councilmember Hansen asked whether they could be masked so there wasn't just one big wall -- they could be
required to have a smaller wall in front of it to break it up.
Vice Mayor Brown responded that he would be in favor of anything that would make it look better and not like a
fortress and he would agree with that but it would take a little more planning on the development portion. He stated
that they need a little bit of slack on some of the hillside lots but he also thinks they need to be very careful and not just
throw it out because once again if you drive through Crestview, it is not a pretty subdivision because of those walls.
Mayor Kavanagh advised that she would like to finish up with the other items in this section and referred to Chapter
2.02, Paragraph E, Temporary Use Permits, for development shall be granted until all developer inventory is sold and
Mr. McGuire pointed out that that is the one the Vice Mayor talked about. She asked if they can allow a garage that is
the height of house but not the detached ones.
Mr. Rodgers explained that the way it works now is if someone's garage is attached to their house then they can have a
second story on top of the garage, add another room or something. He added that if it is a detached structure, then they
are stuck with having a single-story and clarified that it is actually 15 feet and not 12 feet.
Vice Mayor Brown asked whether he is correct in saying that that would not house an RV and Mr. Rodgers stated that
he thought that most RVs require at least 14 feet. The Vice Mayor asked if that is the reason that they are talking
about this and Mr. Rodgers responded that if that is what this means then it shouldn't be the hei ght of the house
because the house can be up to 30-feet tall and that's a pretty tall garage and they don't need that. He said that if they
want to do RV garages then they should define RV garages and put it in there instead of monkeying with the garages.
Mr. McGuire pointed out that it is actually 12 feet and Mr. Rodgers clarified that it is 12 feet if the accessory structure
is 120 square feet or less and otherwise it is 15 feet and there are no garages that are 10 x 12.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 5 of 19
Vice Mayor Brown advised that in the past the Council has approved several RV garages and they can drive by the
homes and not know that they are RV garages and Mr. Rodgers said that most of them are attached and very well done.
Councilmember Yates asked whether that was the intent here -- to not have a separate RV garage and Mr. Rodgers
stated this pre-dates him but he is assuming that that if someone is going to have a separate accessory structure they
want it to be single story so it doesn't block views if not for any other reason.
Councilmember Yates said that he doesn't feel strongly one way or the other aside from the fact that he thinks there are
some homes in Fountain Hills that pre-date their incorporation and have separate structures with offices above and he
thinks that would almost look better, having it match the same height. He questioned whether the intent was because
they didn't want RVs parked in their own garage or in-law suites.
Mr. Rodgers expressed the opinion that the intent was not against RV garages, he thinks they just wanted to make sure
that everyone could have a view back in the day.
Councilmember Yates stated that even if residents don't have RVs, many of them do have multiple cars and the ability
to have a couple of cars in there and put in an office above is nice but he has no agenda one way or the other besides
the fact that he thinks that is another neat tool to give the homebuilders or the homeowners. He asked whether anyone
felt strongly one way or the other on this or if there is a fire reason (there was no fire reason).
Vice Mayor Brown pointed out that when a structure is detached it gives a totally different feel than if it is attached to
the home and he thinks they should leave that alone, he doesn't think they should allow a detached garage that is over
15 feet. He added that they could attach it to the house and make the home bigger.
Mr. Miller asked whether there is Council consensus on that and from the comments from the Councilmembers there
was a consensus.
Town Engineer Randy Harrel noted that the Vice Mayor previously mentioned road widths being too wide and advised
that pre-incorporation the road widths were very wide but they have been narrowed down and are totally in accordance
with MCDOT's (Maricopa County Department of Transportation's) standards for example. He asked whether the Vice
Mayor is looking to go smaller.
The Vice Mayor responded no and asked if their public hillside local road is 22 feet wide and standard local roads are
22 feet and Mr. Harrel replied that MCDOT does not have a public hillside local road (that is a Fountain Hills'
creation).
Councilmember Yates commented that he thinks the Vice Mayor brought up that issue just to make a point about how
the Town feels and Vice Mayor Brown agreed and stressed the importance of not losing the quaintness of the Town.
Mr. Harrel asked whether the Vice Mayor thought that the roads in Firerock and Eagles Nest are too wide and he
responded he was just talking about pre-incorporation streets. He added that as far as what they call the Ellman
property, he thinks they have to be very careful not to let them make the same mistake in their neighborhood that the
Town did pre-incorporation.
Mayor Kavanagh referred to Chapter 10.03, Paragraph D.2 - Master Planned Village Sales and Information Center --
Expand permitted uses with the Sales Office to include all of the following within the development you are
representing (a) Represent Builders for Custom Homes; b) Represent Spec Homes for Sale , and c) Represent Resale
Lots and Resale Homes. She asked what it is now and what the difference would be.
Mr. Rodgers explained that his understanding is that they can sell all of those things in there -- they just didn't want
them to sell off-site real estate. He stated that it is not like they actually monitor it.
Councilmember Yates referred to 2.04, Section A (back to Commercial, Industrial & Multi -Family Concept Plans) and
asked whether the intent as far as the way it was re-written was basically so that they don't need a full Concept Plan
unless it is an appeal. He noted that conceptually the way it was written is they need a full Concept Plan regardless.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 6 of 19
Mr. Rodgers stated that the intent of that is to more or less redesign it so it's like a house -- when people come in with a
house plan and they meet the ordinances then they get a permit so he asked why not do that with a commercial
building if it is small enough.
Councilmember Yates accepted Mr. Rodgers explanation and moved on to Section 2.05.B, Plan Review (Concept
Plan), and pointed out that the Vice Mayor touched base on this. He advised that they have over 20 items that are
necessary there (the Definitions) and he would like to see that curtailed. He said then there is a line at or around #20
that says "And any other information may be requested by the reviewers." He stated that their intent was, and this goes
into Section 1.08, to give everyone plenty of options and help them be proactive but he thinks what has happened is
that if some fall into a grey area or are unclear, they are asking folks for more things and perhaps leading them down
the rabbit hole. He questioned whether there is some other way to curtail that section into either the top five or top ten
or fifteen things.
Vice Mayor Brown noted that a concept is a concept and other than the developer saying the he/she has a building that
they want to build on a certain piece of property, he doesn't think at the concept point they need to be looking at floor
plans or anything other than elevations and whether the project fits the Town's needs and they don't need a grading and
drainage plan because if the concept is approved then they can go back and spend tens of thousands of dollars to make
all of that happen. He added that right now they have to spend all that money before they can even submit them to be
told then are going to spend another $10,000 because the Town wants this, this and this. He pointed out that this is not
something new.
Mr. Rodgers expressed the opinion that perhaps it should not have been defined as a Concept Plan and should be called
Site Plan Review because the things they are talking about are all part of a typical site plan review process.
Councilmember Yates advised that a lot of other municipalities use that same terminology. He said that if the Council
agrees with what he has stated, that is great, because he thinks it would be helpful.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that she agrees with the Vice Mayor's comment about putting up all that money just to start out
-- she concurred that it just doesn't make any sense.
Councilmember Leger pointed out that the other side of that too is that if they are lacking details in a Concept Plan
then that could adversely hurt the developer as well and he thinks that sometimes the more information they have o n
the front end rather than on the back end is less cumbersome. The point was clarified that the plan would need to show
elevations but right now they are requiring grading, drainage, engineering, furniture plans, etc., and he said that he is
suggesting that they get the concept approved and then they begin working through those items. He added that they
are talking about a great level of detail right now -- material choices, color scheme, bump outs, etc., and until the
concept plan is actually approved, that level of detail should not be called for and this action would reduce the cost for
developers at the onset of the project.
Councilmember DePorter agreed that Concept Plan criteria with Steps 1 through 10 would be great, the softer side, the
elevations and things like that.
Councilmember Yates pointed out that there are a number of municipalities that have different things that they can
look at and determine what they want to do. He said he is not really saying just do Items 1 -5 but right now there are 20
plus items that they are looking for and in addition, they have the caveat that if the Town does not like what they are
sent then they can ask for 20 more things.
Councilmember DePorter questioned whether there could just be the items that staff t ells the Council they absolutely
must have for a Concept Plan and anything else they put in there great but these xx number of things must be included
in order for the Town to accept it.
Councilmember Yates advised that a site layout based on the existing codes -- the setbacks, the building envelopes,
elevations -- just some basics (is it a restaurant, is it a mixed use?), those are some of the things that are pertinent to
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 7 of 19
making a decision and once that passes that litmus test then they can go spend the money on the engineers, the
plumbers and everyone else to make sure the grade is right and other things as well.
Councilmember Leger stated that he doesn't disagree with Councilmember Yates' comments, he thinks it is just make it
or break it and for some folks that could make it or break it in terms of whether or not to go further with the project so
they need to have enough information so that the builder/developer has a good confidence le vel. He added that he has
seen some houses where there was so little but then as they started going down the road with more requirements it was
cost prohibitive for them and if they knew on the front end that these costs were going to come along then they could
have made adjustments. He reiterated that he agrees with Councilmember Yates.
Councilmember Yates stressed the importance of open communication because they might meet the Concept Plan
requirements but based on Ordinances A, B & C, this is going to cost them xx amount of money.
Vice Mayor Brown pointed out that right now the Concept Plan is almost a full set of construction documents and a
good builder or just about any builder could take a small commercial building with the requirements of a Conc ept Plan
and actually construct the building and that is why he is saying they are going too far and they have gone too far for
years.
Mayor Kavanagh advised that she hears that same complaint from a lot of people -- they are spending a lot of upfront
money and they don't even know if their project is going to be approved as presented.
The Vice Mayor noted that in the same breath, the architects, engineers and developers also need to understand the
Town's ordinances and in a lot of cases they are just as much to blame as the Town as far as going too far on their
Concept Plans.
Councilmember Yates announced that his only other footnote on that is that he would like to see that one section
omitted, the one that says "And any other information that may be required by the reviewer." He commented that he
understands they might need some additional information but the way it is stated that is just an open book for it to go
on and on.
Mr. Rodgers explained that the original proposal that he put down there was to make it Administrative Approval rather
than having it go through hearings (2.04). He saw the Concept Plan as being presented to the staff just for verification
of zoning compliance and if that criteria was met and the plan is administratively approved, then the applicant goes
ahead and applies for the building permit and that is where all of the other things that they are talking about would
come into play rather than at the initial Plan Review.
Councilmember Yates stated that if a slight zoning change was needed , then it would have to go through the full
process; Mr. Rodgers concurred. Councilmember Yates said that he is okay with going through Planning & Zoning
but still all they are approving is a Concept Plan.
Mr. Rogers pointed out that the Council would be approving the variance or whatever they were requesting;
Councilmember Yates stated that in order to get in that line to get a change in zoning, a variance or whatever else that
is, the level of detail needed for both sets of plans needs to be lowered as well so it gives the developer an idea of
whether the project is a go or a no go. He added that he is willing to spend $5,000 or $10,000 to see if the Town has
an appetite for this but to spend $100,000 on an almost full set of documents is out of line.
Mr. Rodgers advised that staff will collect as much or as little information as the ordinance that they design calls for
and Councilmember Yates stated that that is what the Council is asking -- are they off base asking for these things?
Mr. McGuire expressed the opinion that Mr. Rodgers is raising a good point -- the current process for homes is that if
they meet it, check the box, go on to building permits and they are done. He added that if they get a Concept Plan in
and it meets everything, check the box and move on but if they can't check the box and move on, then they need to
separate those two processes, because as soon as you start to blend the land use entitlement with the building concepts,
then all heck breaks loose.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 8 of 19
In response to a question from Councilmember Yates, Mr. McGuire noted that there is a difference in most
communities between a Concept Plan and a Site Plan and that is where he thinks it has gotten muddled a little bit. He
said if they get back to Concept Plan, where it is more 30,000 feet and more conceptual (pretty pictures kind of stuff),
that is one thing; it doesn't have a binding effect after that. He stated that is when staff needs to be available to provide
the input -- this would work and this is what you need to get done but if there is a zoning change or something
required, they have to do that prior to going on to the next step.
Councilmember Yates asked how they encourage more folks to look at that property or any property that may be mis-
zoned or know it is time for redevelopment, some properties that are just now doing well without them having to invest
that type of money.
Mr. McGuire expressed the opinion that they have a true Concept Plan approach when it is something that is proposing
a change in zoning and stressed that Mr. Rodgers is proposing that it only goes to Planning & Zoning if there are
moving parts and if it is check the box, then administratively they have to get all of those out of the way and P&Z will
only hear the ones that are something different.
Councilmember Hansen stated that it is an "Idea Plan" -- they would be asking if the Town likes their idea and if they
like the idea then they can get into the nuts and bolts of how they can make it happen and maybe if there was some
language somewhere in the ordinance that allowed for more creative flexibility and doesn't put everything that the
Town requires in this little strip of boxes that would work better. She said that she thinks that sends the message out
there that this is a community that will work with them and if they have this creative idea they should bring i t forward
(she used Fry's as an example -- they know what was there before didn't work but what if they tried this.... it's not
allowed anywhere, they would have to do some different things, but the Town is willing to work with them and there is
flexibility in their ordinance that might let this idea possibly go forward).
Mr. McGuire said that that is a great example because that is a piece of property that would require a lot and they
wouldn't want to spend a dime on it until they went and showed the pretty pictures to the neighbors and said "this is
what we want to do on your hillside" because everyone is wasting their money until they know what the neighbors will
be okay with but they have to have something to show them for them to be okay with it.
Councilmember Hansen advised that they also have to realize that back in the 90s there was a desire to be more
restrictive -- preservation and protect everything at all cost but that was a long time ago and it is a different time.
Councilmember Leger noted that they still want to protect but it is also about balance.
Mayor Kavanagh commented that it is just saying that they don't have to put up $100,000 to ask the Town whether
their idea is a good one or not and it is letting the staff work with people who come before them. She advised that she
and Mr. Miller talked with someone today who said they know someone who is interested in the hotel property
(Palisades and Shea) but they are probably not even going to come to the Town with the proposal because of all the
money that would have to be put out in the beginning without even knowing whether it is going to go. She said that
Mr. Miller told him to have the person submit the plan and assured him that the Council will talk about it but people do
not want to spend $100,000 on a plan that perhaps the Town won't like it. She added that maybe if they had something
to show the Town like Councilmember Hansen said, and staff gives them some direction, then eventually when they do
spend money on their plan it is going to be something that they know the Town likes and they like. She agreed that
they really need to make some changes to this.
Mr. McGuire informed the Council that there are other cities and towns that have a "sneak/peak approach" and they
can figure out something that works. He said in its current form the Concept Plan has some permanency and because
of that it needs some details and because it needs some details it is more stuff than they want up front and it just goes
round and round and turns into more than it probably should be at this point.
Councilmember Yates advised that he did something in Avondale that worked very well and it was a rezone and there
is some flexibility as far as the City Center. He added that the cities of Phoenix and Tempe have some flexibility too
and he will send the Council some information and asked if there is a consensus on this concept.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 9 of 19
Mr. Miller commented that he is hearing two things and suggested that perhaps they should re -title this to a Site Plan
Review or something like that and Mr. McGuire pointed out that they currently have as a Concept Plan and a Site Plan
Review, so perhaps the Idea Plan better explains what it is all about.
Mr. McGuire stated that that puts out a true expectation -- it is just an idea and it sounds like that needs some more
tweaks.
Councilmember Yates advised that as far as their Subdivision Ordinance they need their own Commercial Landscape
Section because right now they kind of use their Residential Subdivision Ordinance -- Section 5. He pointed out that
right now Section 5 supersedes all of their landscape requirements and asked whether there is some ot her town's
language or some other way that they can interpret the Subdivision Ordinance. He reiterated that basically they need a
Commercial Landscape Section and said he knows that when they passed the car dealership they just kind of threw it
out because it was zero lot line development and they didn't even have to look at the landscaping.
Mr. Roberts informed the Council that the Landscape Ordinance was suppose to be for commercial and multi -families
originally and then they tacked on the residential and it really doesn't work very well the way it is. He added that it
was originally in the Zoning Ordinance and then they moved all of that over into the Subdivision Ordinance so they
would have it all together and could find the information easier.
Councilmember Yates noted that he was serving on Planning & Zoning at that time and the logic made sense but based
on some feedback it seems that it is confusing. He pointed out that if they read it it sounds like commercial properties
are exempt but now with the loop that they have every commercial property is subject to the Subdivision Ordinance
even though it is a 10,000 square foot lot.
Mr. McGuire advised that if they put it back in the Zoning Ordinance so that they have two parallel provisions, one in
each one, they are always going to have a landscape provision in their Zoning Ordinance so every piece of property
regardless of size is going to be subject to it. He added that the only nuance here is that in order to avoid having two
ordinances that were different like they had before, they were put together and put in one place so that the changes are
universal between the two codes every time they have them.
Councilmember Yates commented that the question then is whether there is a better way to write that so they can better
differentiate because he thinks that some of the interpretations that are being applied are probably not accurate or
shouldn't be being applied.
Mr. McGuire requested an example because he wants to make sure that they know what the Council wants.
Councilmember Yates questioned how the car dealership in Plat 208 got approved with the zero lot line and stated that
there is no landscaping because they are building right up to the line.
Mr. Rodgers explained that the calculation is that for every 3,000 square feet of area to be landscaped they have to put
in X number of plants based on that formula. He added that if there is no landscaping area then there is no
landscaping.
Councilmember Yates pointed out that he is not saying they should re-write the whole thing but because there have
been some recent hiccups and with Ellman coming down the pike he would like to know whether there is some other
way that would work better. He asked whether Avondale's rules are similar or different.
Mr. McGuire replied that their landscaping requirements are included in their Zoning Ordinance.
Councilmember Yates said that he can pull some information from some of the municipalities that he works in.
Mr. Rodgers commented that it might really not be a good idea to compare the Downtown landscaping provisions to
something like Target where they had to have a lot because they have a lot of area. He pointed out that by its nature
Downtown is going to have less landscaping.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 10 of 19
Councilmember Yates advised that since he doesn't have specifics and just has the areas he thinks they should look at
he will do some research and forward that on.
Mr. McGuire stated that he just wants to make sure that he understands what he is looking for and Councilmember
Yates noted that his concern is that they are using residential landscape ordinances and applying them to commercial
and they might not really apply but because that is all they have they apply it anyway and it puts them on a different
path that might not be good for what was intended.
Mr. Rodgers expressed the opinion that they are actually doing the opposite -- using commercial and applying it to
residential and Councilmember Yates reiterated that he will provide more information on this.
Councilmember Yates referred to Section 1.08 #4 - Powers & Duties of the Zoning Ordinance. He announced that he
and Vice Mayor Brown have discussed this because they were both on Planning & Zoning when they originally put in
an interpretation clause. He explained that the goal was to create an atmosphere where if they are a little bit confused,
they could get a meeting of the minds and use some common sense and say, "yeah, I see what you are talking about,
let's go in this direction." He said that he thinks the way they have it now it would almost be better to get rid of that
Section and just hold true to what the letter of the Code is. That way, to the point about architects and developers,
there won't be any grey interpretation areas.
Mr. McGuire asked whether the Zoning Administrator would no longer interpret the Zoning Ordinance and
Councilmember Yates responded that the intent was that if there was open dialogue and they were saying "hey, I think
this is what you mean" -- that is giving more power to the staff, to the Zoning Administrator, to kind of make a call
based on common sense and the nature of things. He added that right now they don't have any options, if there is an
interpretation by one person then that is it and maybe they should make it more of a group or it defaults to the Town
Manager between the Town Manager and the Zoning Administrator. He noted that by practice, the way it is right now
there seems to be more roadblocks as opposed to more dialogue.
Councilmember Leger asked whether there is an appeal process and Mr. McGuire replied yes, the Board of
Adjustment. He added that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation is statutory and his or her interpretations are
subject to review by the Board of Adjustment.
Councilmember Yates pointed out that that the whole process can take weeks or months and he is just throwing it out
there for discussion and if everybody else feels otherwise that is fine, he is just sharing with them some of the input he
has gotten from other developers that he works with and the reoccurring remarks he hears that it is difficult to develop
in Fountain Hills.
Mr. McGuire commented that if he is hearing Councilmember Yates right, what he essentially wants is for the Town
Manager to act as the Zoning Administrator for statutory purposes and it would be his determination then that would
be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.
Councilmember Yates responded not necessarily because it would depend on who they hire -- right now it is Mr.
Miller but he didn't come up the planning route either good, bad or indifferent. He added that what he is trying to say
is "Here's an issue I'm hearing and based on what I am sharing with you, and I don't know what everyone else has
heard, if they don't think anything is wrong then he is all ears so let's have the discussion." He pointed out that some
folks have indicated that when they come and they read it, it says "You will do X" and they are saying they are being
told "You will do Y" -- or their X is being interpreted differently so what can they do? He stated that he knows there is
the appeal process but questioned whether there is something else that they can look at to break the tie.
Mayor Kavanagh questioned whether Councilmember Yates is saying that they would have the option of the Town
Manager's opinion on the issue and he said that it shouldn't be one person's opinion. He added that he threw out the
name of the Town Manager but it doesn't necessarily have to be him (or her) if that meets the statutory requirements.
Mr. McGuire commented that he is struggling with how they would come to a Zoning Administrator interpretation
collectively and Councilmember Yates replied that he doesn't have an answer to that -- the issue is if a certain code or
ordinance is being interpreted in a certain way and there is a collective group using common sense that says, "Well
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 11 of 19
here is what we really want but the interpretation is not being interpreted that way," what are the options that don't put
them in a whole appeals process with a group that only meets once a month or quarterly.
Mr. McGuire asked how many zoning interpretations are done in a year and M r. Rogers responded probably one a
year, not very often.
Mr. McGuire explained that they have to have an end point person from whom the due process can spring -- they have
to have a decision maker. He asked if Councilmember Yates is suggesting P&Z.
Councilmember Yates said that if he and Mr. McGuire read the same ordinance and they are interpreting it differently
but it is the same words, what are their options? Do they have to go through the full appeals process?
Mr. McGuire replied that the statute is built so that a town, in exercising its police power to regulate land does it by
code; they all give direction and the administrative direction is carried out by their Zoning Administrator . If the
direction is disagreed with, then they have due process rights to challenge the Zoning Administrator's interpretation.
Councilmember Yates advised that for the big items there is definitely that remedy to get a ruling but he guesses more
so on just blocking and tackling of their process, how can they overcome the Questions & Answers, the open
discussion, and use common sense to get to the point of getting a set of plans without going through a very
cumbersome process -- how do they make it easier? He clarified that he is not saying necessarily easier for the
developer, but easier in that they don't have to spend time, money and energy defending an appeals process as well.
Mr. McGuire pointed out that Council provides policy direction through the words that are put into the Town Code and
effort is expended to try and make the words as clear as possible when they are added and if for some reason they are
not clear and they are having a universal problem with it, then they come back and they clear it up through the Council
acting collectively. He added that he is struggling with what this intermediary body would do because Councilmember
Yates stated earlier that it shouldn't just be one person so who would it be? Councilmember Yates advised that he is
not asking that they create another intermediary body -- he is okay with getting the Town Manager involved but
emphasized that he is just one person giving some input. He added that they don't have lists of developers out the door
and a huge volume of business that would warrant a market study to see how well this is working.
Mr. McGuire advised that it is absolutely within the Council's discretion to make the Town Manager the Zoning
Administrator for the purpose of the statute -- there is no magic formula, it can always go that way, but in the end they
have to have a body.
Councilmember Yates said but his point on that, and kudos to Mr. Miller, is that every several years things could
change and when this was originally brought up Tom Ward and Richard Turner were involved (Richard was the
Zoning Administrator) and he rendered the opinions.
Mr. McGuire explained that that is why it is typically done with the Planning & Zoning top person, because that
person's experience and background dictate that they should be the ones most likely to be able to interpret it pro perly
but if the Council is thinking something different, they provide the policy and staff implements it.
Councilmember Yates expressed the opinion that the process is not as streamlined as it could be so he is kind of open
to discussion on what the rest of the Council feels but if it has to be one person and only one person he would be
comfortable with the Town Manager because they make decisions based on what the Council says regarding policy
and a lot of that comes from the residents.
Mr. Miller asked whether Councilmember Yates' concern in the past has been the interpretation or the process and
Councilmember Yates replied that the overall process but this is one more section that should be addressed (if all of the
other sections are cleaned up this might by default fix itself).
Mr. Miller advised that some of what he is hearing today is that with some of the codes and ordinances that they have
had in the past there has been some ambiguity with the way that they have been written and the staff is obviously
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 12 of 19
responsible and the Zoning Administrator is the person who has to interpret them. He said that today they are trying to
address a lot of that ambiguity -- things that are no longer applied or that the Council's philosophy is in sync with now
and it is a little bit different than Councils' philosophies in yesteryears. He suggested that they look at this a little bit
further and see how other municipalities address this and then come back for another discussion. He expressed the
opinion that it is one of those things that should be "parked" for now but more research will be done and then it can be
addressed in greater detail with perhaps additional options and ideas. He added that he thinks Councilmember Yates
has some valid issues and concerns and it is worth exploring and bringing it back again.
Councilmember Yates concurred with Mr. Miller's recommendation.
Councilmember Yates also brought up the issue of Sunset Clausing of Zoning and said obviously they are allowed to
do that (as far as he is aware). He gave the project on Emerald as an example and stated that hypothetically should that
never come to fruition for whatever reason the Town could just gave them a zoning change. He added that he is all for
giving anyone a shot but there is the chance that it might not work out. He noted that the General Plan stated that they
can do multi-family and the Zoning Code said no, it has to be single family and he doesn't know if anyone has an
update on that but it is just one example of giving someone a shot, letting them have a year , and telling them to come
back when the year is up. But if it doesn't work out, he would like to know what their remedies are.
Mr. McGuire advised that they can time condition zoning, the statute clearly allows for that to happen. He added that
they typically don't do that because a time condition on zoning sets in motion expectations that could end up with some
vested rights. He pointed out that they don't have any case law on that yet (Proposition 207) and it is causing a lot of
problems and since Proposition 207 they haven't had a case on vested rights (actually they haven't had a case on vested
rights for about 25 years) so nobody really knows how those two will intermix. He noted that when they put a time
condition on hard zoning it kind of puts them in a grey area. He said that PADs (Planned Area Developments) are a
little bit easier because it is customized zoning but when it is just "this is your zoning for C-3 or whatever it is" and
you say it is going to go away at the end of this point if the project doesn't get built, they can do it, but again there are
some grey areas. He stated that if the project was not done, they would have to put the issue back on an agenda to
revoke the zoning and that is where you get into the Proposition 207 areas.
Councilmember Leger asked whether the issue there was the gap between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance
and pointed out that there are several properties in Town that they could have the same discussion on.
Mr. McGuire advised that making the General Plan comply with the Zoning Ordinance is really a cleanup issue but
they are not going to be doing a General Plan Amendment again for a while.
Councilmember Leger noted that this is housekeeping and so this stands out in his mind as something that would fall
into that category because there is that gap there that was just brought up.
Mr. McGuire commented that they could utilize the services of a Planning consultant in the future to assist in the
process and added that the Town does have good mapping so issues like the one brought up should be able to be
identified.
Councilmember Yates asked whether the rest of the Council is okay with looking at other properties that are in
question as far as Zoning and the General Plan in an effort to see what they have got to clean up.
There were no comments made in opposition to that suggestion.
Mayor Kavanagh asked whether they wanted to stay on track or move on to the rest of the Town Code items (listed in
red in the packets). She noted that they appear to be self explanatory and start with Abandoned Vehicles.
Mr. Mood pointed out that staff met with the Code Enforcement Officer and most of the items are cleanup between
Code Enforcement and MCSO (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office). He advised that right now if an abandoned vehicle
is found they actually have a hard time towing it.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 13 of 19
The Mayor asked whether anyone had any issues with the items listed in red under the headings Town Code or Zoning
Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Brown referred to 5.09 (C) of the Zoning Ordinance, Walls and Fences - Materials and Design and Mr.
Rodgers informed the Council that this section has to do with the way the Town has been dealing with residential areas
in Town. He noted that a prior Council more or less told him that they didn 't want to see chain fences in residential
areas so this is the way the Town has been basically dealing with the issue. He explained that the Officer is asking that
the ordinance be changed to actually cover that or go back to the way it is actually written and let anybody that wants a
chain link fence to put one up.
Vice Mayor Brown asked whether staff has received any pushback on this and Mr. Rodgers advised that occasionally
there are people who want to come in with a chain link fence and they are told no, use a wooden or other type of fence.
Councilmember DePorter asked whether that includes dog runs and was told that they are different because it they are
typically inside of another fence. Mr. Rogers reported that they are talking about perimeter fences.
Mr. Rodgers said that this is totally up to the Council; if they decide that chain link fences are totally fine now in
residential areas, then that is the direction they will move in.
Vice Mayor Brown stated that he votes no and expressed the opinion that the one up on Hawk is offensive where they
fenced in the entire property 25 years ago (across the street from the school).
Mr. Miller asked whether he is hearing a consensus that staff can change this so they can officially deny requests for
chain link fences in residential areas except for things like tennis courts and dog runs and the indication was that there
was Council consensus as far as this issue to proceed in that manner.
Mayor Kavanagh asked for further information on 7.02 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance - Commercial Vehicle Parking
and advised that she knows that some people have vans and they decorate them with their commercial logos and then
they park them at their homes because that is what they use to go to and from work every day. She questioned whether
that is included in this.
Mr. Miller asked whether they are talking about the commercial vehicles with the shrink wrap -- a van and the question
was asked whether the concern was the size of the van or the signage on it . Discussion ensued relative to the size of
various vehicles -- dump trucks, pickup trucks, etc.
Mr. Rodgers discussed the size of commercial vans and Councilmember Yates said HOAs have their own restrictions.
Mr. Rodgers explained that what it comes down to is Code Enforcement gets a complaint from a neighbor because the
guy next door has parked his vehicle in the yard, driveway or outside the home and the person calling doesn't like it.
He noted that Code Enforcement has to go by whatever the ordinance says and when the Code Officer goes out to talk
to the person with the van he needs to be able to point to the language in the ordinance that pertains to that issue. He
said the Code is referencing apparently the wrong Arizona Revised Statute and he would rather use the other statute
listed in the documentation.
Mayor Kavanagh noted that when this ordinance was written wrap was not around and now people have businesses
and are doing it even to their cars and then parking it in their driveways and Mr. Rodgers said that that is really not the
issue, they are talking about the trucks. Mayor Kavanagh asked what category vans fall into and Mr. McGuire advised
that it would really have to be a heavier one.
The Mayor asked about parking the vehicles in front of their stores like the BBQ guy who used to have a pink van a nd
parked it in front of the business.
Mr. Rodgers replied that that is more for signage in residential areas and they have been arguing with Ross about this
for a decade and a half.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 14 of 19
Mr. Rodgers clarified that they are really talking about residential areas.
The Mayor noted that the Food Bank had permission from the landlord to park his truck there because he doesn't have
any other place to park it in the back and then he got cited for having a sign.
Mr. Rodgers said yes, he was parking out front and the Code Officer determined that the truck was being used as a
sign. He added that he also had a banner on the side of the truck.
Mayor Kavanagh asked why that is such a bad thing and stated that she doesn't see why they keep placing restrictions
on people trying to advertise their businesses -- as far as this example he is in a private lot and he has the owner's
permission to be there. She added that the truck happens to have a sign on it, let's forget the banner -- they can't hang
banners or balloons or anything else -- but why is that such a bad thing?
Mr. Rodgers responded good, bad or indifferent, that is what the ordinance says -- you can't use your car or truck as a
sign and if the Council wants to change that then that is fine.
Vice Mayor Brown agreed that that needs to be looked at and Councilmember DePorter said that as far as the signs he
too thinks it needs it be looked at.
Discussion ensued relative to the fact that home -based businesses are not allowed to have signs -- they are not
supposed to change the character of the vehicles so they look out of place in the neighborhood.
Mr. Rodgers commented that he is hearing that they should tweak the Sign Ordinance to allow for commercial vehicles
to park out front and act as signs when they are parked outside in commercial areas.
Mayor Kavanagh expressed the opinion that they have to work on it a little bit, she is not saying carte blanche, but she
is saying that businesses like the Food Bank where the landlord is saying it is okay to use the parking lot to park his
truck and the truck has a sign on it then she doesn't see a problem with that situation but of course banners and/or
balloons should not be placed on the vehicle. She further stated that she is sure that when Tom's BBQ had his own
store that landlord should have told him not to park that vehicle there because he was taking up a customer's spot and
there are not many spots there. She added that they also have to leave it up to the landlords to manage their properties.
Councilmember Yates pointed out that most landlords have their own sign ordinance or parking regulations that the
tenants sign and even commercial HOAs have a set of CC&Rs that they are required to follow.
Mayor Kavanagh noted that at Plaza Fountainside they tried to get their employees to stop parking in the plaza or in
front of their businesses because the landlords are trying to open up parking spaces for their customers.
Councilmember Leger asked whether the Mayor is saying that for commercial it should be acceptable but not for
residential and the Mayor advised that she is saying it is different, it is not the same. She added that she is fine with
the smaller vehicles that have signs on them like the little Mary Kay cars and things like that and now she is talking
about commercial.
Mr. Rodgers stressed the importance of coming up with a happy medium and asked about companies that have a fleet
of vehicles -- six box trucks for instance -- should they be able to park all six out front?
The Mayor commented that when they determine how many parking spaces each store needs that is supposed to be for
customers and employees but not the working vehicles, the ones that they use. She pointed out that they are talking
about small stores, they don't have electricians in a store with five trucks, there is maybe one.
Councilmember Yates advised that he understands where the Mayor is going with this but if someone has a fleet of
cars they better not have them out in the parking lot, they want them out doing business and he thinks they already
have a provision that states if they are parked overnight that is fine.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 15 of 19
Mr. McGuire replied that he doesn't think so and Mr. Rodgers said that they want to make sure they are clear about
what they are talking about here and avoid any vague areas, what they are going to allow and what they will not.
Councilmember Yates stated that he doesn't know where the Mayor is going but where he is going, and he says this all
the time, is the market will prevail and he doesn't want to eliminate the number of trucks, either they allow the m or
they don't but he doesn't think they should.
Mr. McGuire urged the Council to keep in mind that if they do this , based upon the Reed case from three months ago,
some businesses could also put five box trucks with a nasty political message on them in the same spot. He further
stated that if they ban vehicles with signs altogether, then they are okay, but as soon as they differentiate between a
commercial and an ideological sign on a truck, they will be dead in the water. He added that any sign amendments that
they are going to do he would recommend that they hold off on until the work that is ongoing nationally right now to
try and get a Reed proof sign code, which is a challenge, because now the Supreme Court's position is essentially if
you have to look at the face of the sign to be able to tell what it is , that is then content based, which puts a bullet in
every sign ordinance in every city or town in the country. He recommended that they hold off and not do anything on
signs at this point in time.
Mr. Miller noted that it appears they have more than ten, which he wa s hoping to have but it is all good and what he
would like to do is compile this based on the meeting minutes and staff's notes and then they will be coming back to
the Town Council at a later date just to make sure that staff has heard the Council loud an d clear and they will have an
itemized list. He said so that they can move forward, he would like to know whether the Council has anything else of
their own that they would like to discuss before they move on to the Community Services memorandum that lists their
issues.
Mr. Mood stated that he would like to discuss 11-1-15, that deals with Smoking in Public Buildings and asked whether
the Council wants to include E-cigarettes in that Section and the consensus of the Council was yes, to include it.
Mayor Kavanagh asked if there is anything in that section about public events and Mr. Mood replied that he thinks it
just says public buildings or public spaces. The Mayor advised that she would like to add public outdoor events
because they have received a lot of complaints (Oktoberfest, 4th of July) and also the children's playgrounds.
Mr. McGuire commented that staff can take a look at see what Scottsdale does as far as this issue because they use
something in Scottsdale's stadium that has outdoor seating and outdoor open air spaces.
Vice Mayor Brown said that the other subject that he would like to talk about has to do with review periods. He
reported that right now he believes they allow 75 working days or something like that for a review for a set of
drawings and he believes that calculates out to about nine months, especially with the four-day work weeks, and he
would like to look at that. He added that he believes there is a State ordinance that talks about the amount of time the
reviewer has to red line -- he believes it is one time, they have one shot to red line and asked whether that is correct.
Mr. McGuire expressed the opinion that it is not that strict and noted that they are going to have the "back and forth"
and if someone makes changes and forgets to make some changes or if they do something that creates a new problem
that has to happen. He added that there is a restriction on administrative completeness, check all the boxes and
complete, and those two things are what the statute covers. He stated that he is sure it is not a one-time shot, but he
thinks when they render it to that complete stage it is then complete so it's not like there is no back and forth available ,
but when they say it is done, then it is done, and they can't go back.
Vice Mayor Brown advised that in the back of his mind, when the State passed that law and put into effect a time line,
75 days or 180 days, he doesn't remember which, part of that was they only have one shot to get to the red lines and
Mr. McGuire said to get to the point of completeness yes and the reason why that time period stretched out as long as it
did was because of that issue and because more importantly if they had a shorter one and they didn't get to the review,
the only option they would have would be to say no and they didn't want to say no on a regular basis -- they wanted to
make it long enough to make sure they wouldn't have to do that.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 16 of 19
The Vice Mayor noted that after the first review and they send in the red lines and all the corrections have been made,
they get a second set of red lines and that is what they are hearing -- that has been an issue.
Mr. McGuire commented that they want to make sure that the first set is as complete as it can be based upon what was
submitted and that only changes to it are what they look at later on.
Councilmember Leger stated that Mr. McGuire is saying that they can't go back after that process and find new stuff
and add it to the red line and Vice Mayor Brown noted that that is to simplify it.
Mr. Miller asked whether Vice Mayor Brown is okay with the amount of time and the Vice Mayor stated that right
now building permits are being turned around in a timely manner but he does have problems with how long it takes a
set of red lines to get reviewed and back. He further stated that somehow they need to get their arms around that
aspect of the process in the development world.
Mayor Kavanagh advised that they will now move on to Parks and asked Mr. Mayer to speak on the issues.
Community Services Director Mark Mayer stated that as they started to review the codes it became clear to staff that
they have rules specifically for park property but with the acquisition and expanded use anticipated for the Plaza, the re
wasn't anything that specifically covered actions in the Plaza. He pointed out that what he is recommending is a real
simple change -- just adding Plaza with a back slash (/) that reads Park/Plaza Rules and Regulations (Town Code -
Chapter 9, Article 9-4).
Mr. Miller asked whether they had to define that to a specific plaza and Mr. Mayer noted that what he has there is
Avenue of the Fountain Plaza (AOTF Plaza). Mr. Miller pointed out that the next sentence talks about making it read
Park/Plaza and Mr. Mayer stated that he thinks they would spell it out -- Avenue of the Fountains Plaza. He added that
the second one is really a question for the Council -- they obviously have requests for alcohol which they deal with
through the Special Event process but if an individual comes to them and wants to do a wedding or something like that,
what is the feeling of the Council as far as permitting alcohol in the Plaza area? He said that they have restrictions that
again could potentially be applied from the Parks to the Plaza area but it is really a question of whether the Council
thinks it would be appropriate to have alcohol in the Plaza other than through a Special Event process for personal
functions. He noted that right now if they go through the process, they have to rent a shelter, which they do not have
in the Plaza; it requires that no more than 50 people consume the alcohol, so there are restrictions in place, but it really
comes down to whether or not the Council is comfortable with serving alcohol in the Plaza.
Councilmember Yates advised that he is a little leery of it.
Mayor Kavanagh asked if they were having a wedding whether they would still have to enclose the area like everyone
else would and Mr. Mayer advised that if they are serving alcohol just to the group then they don't have to enclose the
area, the permit does not require that (no fencing required) but they are restricted to that specific area. He stated that
they are going to book the Plaza area so that's the center of each of those where you have support facilities around it
with the tables, chairs and the rest of that stuff.
Mayor Kavanagh said if someone came to them and said that they would fence the whole area would that change
anything and Mr. Mayer reiterated that they wouldn't have to fence it, but if it is what they wanted to do, the only thing
that would change would be the cost -- they would incur extra costs. He said he didn't think it would change the
overall picture as far as insurance and safety. He agreed it would make it safer but noted that people would also be
more restricted because they wouldn't be able to wander around unless they made the parameters large enough to
accommodate that.
Vice Mayor Brown expressed the opinion that if people want to have a wedding and serve alcohol then they can use
Fountain Park. He added that he does not support allowing alcohol in the Plaza and Councilmember DePorter agreed
with the Vice Mayor's comments.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 17 of 19
Mr. Mayer said that he is hearing that it is the consensus that no alcohol will be allowed in the Plaza and th e Council
concurred.
Mayor Kavanagh asked whether alcohol is allowed at Centennial Circle and was told yes it is, through the permitting
process.
Mr. Mayer informed the Council that the second item on his list is Firearms and Weapons and he knows there have
specifically been several changes and maybe more from the Legislature on how to deal with that and he doesn't think
that the Town is currently in compliance with their Park signage. He advised that whatever that language is they need
to incorporate it into their Park signage and the Town Code to reflect that. He stated that the signs used to say "No
Weapons or Firearms Allowed" and they simply put tape over that language but people would rip the tape off so they
really need to redo the signs. He advised that they have new signage going in at Fountain Park and so they want to tie
in that language and make sure that it is accurate and then redo the signs in the Parks to reflect the new language
recognizing that it obviously might change again.
Mr. Mayer pointed out that the third item on his list has to do with Drones and stated that they have become an issue
nation-wide -- the National Parks Association is dealing with it and so are a lot of different parks and recreation
departments across the country. He reported that at least two drones have gone down in the Lake and were not
retrievable and he got calls on both of them from the owners wanting to know what the Town was going to do to get
their drones back for them and he said he told them "absolut ely nothing." He added that when the Lake is drained then
they can go and get their drones and some of them are very expensive -- $8,000 to $10,000 -- and his major concern
and the National Organization's concern is public safety, because a lot of times they are associated with a special event
and what goes up must come down, and there have been at least a couple of crashes and at some point someone is
going to get hurt; and that is his concern. He proposed that under the existing Park Rules and Regulations, Section 9-
3-3, #15, the Director has the authority to establish new Park rules and he has done that and put a moratorium on the
flying of drones in the parks due to concerns with public safety. He noted that he would also like to add the Plaza to
that. He said that the Parks & Recreation Commission has discussed the issue but has tabled it because the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration) is supposed to be coming out with some additional guidelines later on this fall. He
stated that he would like to revisit this but for now he just wanted to make the Council aware this issue.
Councilmember Yates asked whether at the Federal level there are some privacy acts that are in play and Mr. McGuire
responded that there are a lot of conversations going on. He pointed out that Paradise Valley in particular has been
leading the discussions and noted that the owner of Discount Tires is not happy with the drones that have been flying
up and down the streets by him.
Mr. McGuire commented that he doesn't know whether they have the authority but until it is challenged he doesn't
have any heartburn about them just saying "No drones in the Park." He added that one of the things that he thinks they
need to be aware of with the Lake in particular is the fact that a 75-pound drone sitting on the lake's liner might not be
the best thing for it.
Councilmember Yates stated that for some of the events that the Town may host drones are a wonderful way to get
some of those aerial views. He further stated that they use th em on a lot of their properties and they used them when
the property at Shea and Saguaro was done and they took beautiful pictures.
Mr. McGuire advised that they have contractors that use them for that purpose all the time.
Councilmember Yates questioned if the Town is saying no drones, but is hosting a big event and ESPN is down there
for the National Disc Golf Tournament or whatever, and then the drones could not be used.
Discussion ensued relative to the fact that aerial shots have been do ne of the Town and they flew out low level above
the Fountain (with custom floats) when the Fountain was off so that close up photos for maintenance purposes could
be taken.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 18 of 19
Councilmember Yates question whether they could have an exclusion clause that b asically allows the Town to use
them for whatever reasons they needed to (maintenance or special events).
Mr. Mayer replied that if the Town needed to use them for a specific purpose then the moratorium would be lifted. He
added that he thinks they wait to put together some language and draft the ordinance until they see what the FAA
comes out with in the fall but in the meantime that is how they would deal with those issues.
Mr. McGuire expressed the opinion that what they do in terms of a moratorium on public events like The Fair is they
just make it part of the Special Event Permit -- no drones are allowed to be used as part of their permitting process -- so
at least the organizers aren't getting upset with the Town -- they will know up front.
Mr. Miller stated that that is a good idea because they had a lot of pressure for last year's 4th of July celebration and
they were still going to use them after they were told they couldn't a couple of times and he doesn't have a problem if
the Town contracts to have them used or does it themselves because they know there will be insurance requirements
and all of that but some third parties they have no control over. He noted that Councilmember Magazine is very
emphatic about this because his son-in-law was in Massachusetts and got hit in the head so serious injuries can occur.
Mayor Kavanagh commented that if ESPN comes along and they want to do the Disc Golf, that is a professional
organization and most likely will not be using a home-made drone that they put together.
Mr. Mayer noted that the code allows some flexibility so he is fine with that.
Mayor Kavanagh advised that the only other thing in the parks that she wanted to bring up was they have those signs
that say no skateboards, rollerblades, inline skates, and bicycles and she thinks that they talked about this. She added
that obviously people who ride tend to use bikes and race bikes and they are not going to be going down the path
inside the parks but they do have a lot of families with little kids on tricycles and small bikes and she doesn't think they
want to restrict that. She noted that she saw a little girl on a little pink bike riding around the park while her parents
were walking with her so except for the amphitheater where they have to be really careful, especially now that they are
trying to be more bike friendly, she thinks they should remove that and just leave it in effect at the amphitheater.
Mr. Mayer reported that the only place where it is restricted now is at the amphitheater, th ere is nothing that prohibits
bikes or skateboards or anything else in the parks -- it is the same as any other public sidewalk.
Mr. Miller commented that he knows what the Mayor is talking about and when they do their walkthrough at the park
they can see that it is the positioning of the sign -- it probably just needs to be moved.
Mayor Kavanagh agreed and pointed out that it is right where the bulletin board is and most people look at it and think
they can't ride their bikes or skate in the park.
Mr. Mayer advised that he is open to suggestions because the intent was just to cover the amphitheater because of
safety issues but he is certainly open to suggestions.
The Mayor expressed the opinion that it needs to be a totally new sign because nobody notic es the smaller sign
underneath -- they just see the big sign saying what can't be done. She added the opinion that the signs needs to be
moved down by the amphitheater because it is related to that.
Councilmember Leger asked whether there was something on animals in the park.
Mr. Mayer responded that there is a section in the Code (#4 - No Pets Allowed Except on a Leash) and in the Code
Officer's report, he had talked about the incident they had about a year ago with a gentleman who had a horse in the
park. He explained that under this it doesn't specifically eliminate horses and the horse had a halter and reins on him
so he was technically in compliance and he did leave only because he was asked to but he didn't have to. He stated
that other than naming a specific animal there really aren't any restrictions on horses in the park as long as they are on
a rein. He noted that they have had horses in the park at special functions.
z:\council packets\2015\r151203\151105wsm.docx Page 19 of 19
In response to a question from Councilmember Leger, Mr. Mayer commented that he is comfortable with horses in the
park and that was the first time as far as he knows that this issue has ever come up.
Mayor Kavanagh asked whether the Code actually contains the definition of a household pet and Mr. Rodgers said that
the definition rather talks about non-household pets and defines them as basically farm animals.
The Mayor noted that the Code says people are restricted to having four household pets yet she knows people who
have six cats. Finance Director Craig Rudolphy stated that typically that code is used for issuing dog licenses.
In response a question from Councilmember Yates as to whether there is a reason for the restriction on the number of
household pets, Mr. Miller stated the opinion that when the number is larger it b egins to look like the people are
boarding animals, breeding or maintaining a kennel.
Mr. Miller thanked the Council for the good input/feedback provided this evening and advised that staff will come
back at a later date with an itemized list of all of these items and they can then move forward from there.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - ADJOURNMENT.
Vice Mayor Brown MOVED to adjourn the Work Study Session at 7:36 p.m. and Councilmember Yates
SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0).
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By _______________________________
Linda M. Kavanagh, Mayor
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:
_________________________
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work Study Session held
by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 10th day of November, 2015. I
further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 3rd day of December, 2015.
_____________________________
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk