HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992.1105.TCRM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 5, 1992
A public meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council was convened and called to order by Mayor Cutillo at 6:30
p.m.,Thursday,November 5, 1992,in the Fountain Hills Town Hall,located at 16836 E.Palisades Blvd.,Building
C,Fountain Hills, Arizona.
ROLL CALL - Following the pledge to the flag and the invocation by Councilman Hudson, roll call was taken.
Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor John Cutillo, Vice
Mayor Charlie Fox, and Councilmembers Mike Minarsich, Bill O'Brien, and Wally Hudson. Councilman Frank
Clark arrived at 6:32 p.m. Councilwoman Tibbets was absent. Also present were Magistrate Shoob,Community
Development Director Gary Jeppson,Parks and Recreation Director Robin Goodman,Town Attorney Bill Farrell,
Town Manager Paul Nordin,Town Marshal Steve Gendler,Town Clerk Cassie Hansen and Fire Chief Tom Knapp.
Mayor Cutillo stated there were no consent agenda items for this meeting.
AGENDA ITEM#2 -ACCEPTANCE OF THE MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1ST, 1992.
Councilman Clark MOVED approval of the meeting minutes of October 1st, 1992. SECONDED by Councilman
Minarsich and CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#3 -MAYOR'S REPORT
#3.A. Landfill siting report. Mayor Cutillo said there were three regional public hearings held regarding the
southeast Maricopa County regional landfill siting,none of which he attended. The reports that he received indicated
attendance was very high and no one wanted a landfill in their backyard. There had not been a fmal outcome or
final sites chosen.
#3.B. Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) report. Mayor Cutillo said several items were discussed
including discussion of action,purchase of parkway property and setting priorities as to how the property would be
purchased. The motion was approved and the purchase of that property would begin fairly soon. There was a
$500,000 proposal to identify and remove the legal signs along the state highways that was tabled for further
qualification. Members of that Council didn't understand spending $500,000 to remove signs when there wasn't
enough money to build roads. There was a continued struggle for MAG to meet the air quality specifications that
were federally mandated. A contingency plan was accepted and approved by the Council but work still needed to
be done before it was sent to the air quality bureau. The rest of the discussion centered on toll roads but there
wasn't any clear opposition. All communities and Council would look at what had been put together.
AGENDA ITEM#4 -MONTHLY REPORT BY MAGISTRATE SHOOB.
Magistrate Shoob stated that the outstanding accounts stood at$77,879, the lowest figure in a year and a half.
Minutes of the Regular Session of the Town Council 11/05/92
Page 1 of 8
AGENDA ITEM#5-CONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE SHOOB'S PRESENTATION AND REQUEST
TO MAKE THE POSITION OF THE JUDICIAL COLLECTION OFFICER A PERMANENT POSITION.
Magistrate Shoob stated he felt there would be justification for the Judicial Collection Officer position to be made
permanent when the grant ran out and to continue so long as proven successful and fruitful. He had worked with
Marshal Gendler and the Supreme Court and their representatives. Marshal Gendler supported the request.
Magistrate Shoob said after one year of operation,total fines and penalties were assessed in the amount of$210,000
with$84,000 uncollected,representing a 60%collection rate. After two years the total fines and penalties assessed
were$377,000 with$87,000 outstanding,or 77%collected. After two years and four months (up to the end of last
month) the Court had done$425,000 worth of business with$78,000 outstanding or 82% collection rate. He said
this was probably one of the highest,if not the highest,collection rate of any court in Arizona. He attributed much
of this success to the Council authorized collection officer. The bottom line figure was that$41,000+in collections
could be attributed to the Judicial Collection Officer. Magistrate Shoob said a couple of the figures might be
misleading. Net figures were those the Town kept with approximately 40% of the fines and penalties going to the
State of Arizona. By the end of a 12-month period the figure could be $30,000 and it was hoped it would be
$40,000 net. For one year the full time position would cost approximately $31,700: $22,000 salary, $7,900
employee benefits and$1,800 for vehicle and telephone. The Collection Officer would pay for himself over a period
of time and in doing so would enforce orders and collect monies. He said if it were to be continued to the beginning
of the next fiscal year it would be a Town expense. Marshal Gendler and Magistrate Shoob spent several hours with
the Supreme Court to explore various options and to implore them to pick it up for the rest of the year. The
Supreme Court recommended three or four alternatives. They would allow taking $1,400 to $1,800 that was
allocated for other things in the program and put it toward personnel costs. Other than the monthly gas and
telephone, the outfitting and equipment of the officer had all been covered. The cost to the Town would be
approximately$7,300 for the period from April to July 1. The Court budgeted income for 1992- 1993 of$110,000.
Magistrate Shoob anticipated income for this fiscal year to be$120,000,more than enough from court funds to make
up the difference. Starting July 1, 1993 and for those fiscal years that followed, the cost of the program based on
the salary rate would be$31,700. Annual collections anticipated by the Collection Officer would be a gross amount
of$50,000. Assuming enforcement would go up the level it had in the past, the Court would exceed $50,000
collected by the Collection Officer or$30,000 net,which would cover the actual expense. Other benefits of having
a Judicial Collection Officer on board and available would be: to increase collections of outstanding monies due
the Court; increase awareness to pay current fines; the Collection Officer would be in Town Hall 50% of the time
and provide security to Town Hall and its employees,the other 50%he would be out on the road to look for people
who had not paid; when the Court was in session he would provide security as well as act as bailiff; available to
serve summons, complaints, injunctions, and subpoenas; and arrest people who fail to pay or comply with Court
orders. He stated there had been 20 to 23 warrants that had been cleared by the Collection Officer. He would be
able to, and had in the past, assist the Town Marshal on special projects and investigations and would assist and
enforce Town code violations. The only negative was that this position would cost some money. However,the fact
that this position would continue to be self-sustaining would eliminate the negative.
Councilman Minarsich said he felt this would be a real asset to the Town and the fact that the program would pay
for itself made it obvious this program should be continued. Councilman Minarsich MOVED to make the position
of Judicial Collection Officer a permanent position beginning in April, 1993 at the time that the current grant runs
out. SECONDED by Mayor Cutillo. Councilman Hudson asked what qualifications this individual needed.
Magistrate Shoob said he had to be a fully certified police officer with full training and certification. The individual
would be on the street in all parts of the valley, not just Fountain Hills, sometimes by himself and sometimes with
back-up and would be armed and in a position to look for and find people who had not complied with the appropriate
court orders. The position would be Deputy Marshal of the Town of Fountain Hills who would work directly under
the Town Marshal, Steve Gendler. Marshal Gendler would be responsible for the training, actions,and everything
the Deputy Marshal would do in that position. He would be permanently assigned to the Court as a Collection
Officer and act as one of Marshal Gendler's Troopers. As required by all certified officers he would also be required
Minutes of the Regular Session of the Town Council 11/05/92
Page 2 of 8
to have annual service training. Councilman Hudson said the salary requested was well below the starting salary
of other police officers in that area. He asked if a top notch individual could be hired at that salary range.
Magistrate Shoob said we had hired three people already, two had left. Currently a fully certified officer held that
position. He received prior certification and was the first newly certified Marshal in the Town. If next year or even
by July 1,the Deputy Marshal were to collect net for the Court of around$40,000,Magistrate Shoob would probably
approach Council again and ask for an increase. The following year if the Deputy Marshal were earning more than
his keep,he should be brought up to the level of other enforcement officers in the area and the state. Presently there
was someone who was more than happy and willing to work for that.
Councilman Hudson asked Marshal Gendler how the manual was coming for the Department. Marshal Gendler again
clarified the Deputy Marshal would be a member of the Marshal's Department and would be subject to all rules,
regulations,policies and procedures of the Marshal's Department. Some of the policies and procedures were being
placed into code as a manual for presentation to the Council. Provisions were being made for the liability involved
to place the Deputy Marshal in the field. The individual would follow the same policies and procedures the rest of
the Marshal's follow which included use of force,operation of vehicles,arrests and any other items that might bring
liability to the Town. Specific provisions would not be made in the manual for the Court Officer but Marshal
Gendler would personally supervise him and ensure he followed the provisions and policies in the manual which
would be available before the officer came on board. Councilman Hudson said a Marshal on the street with lesser
authority than a full certified officer needed broader guidelines than the others. Marshal Gendler said he would have
policies that cover items such as service of warrants. Obviously the rest of the Department,unless specifically called
on by the Magistrate,wouldn't go out and serve warrants. The certified officers would but that way it would apply
to the officer that was carrying out the job. There would also be policies on arrests that would apply only to that
particular officer since he would be the only one doing that specific task. Vice Mayor Fox asked Magistrate Shoob
what employee related expenses would be. Magistrate Shoob said the benefits would include insurance,retirement,
medical,etc. Vice Mayor Fox asked if that position would go through the same salary range process. Mr.Nordin
said it would not,that it would be dealt with separately. Vice Mayor Fox felt if that position became full time down
the road,we might be setting ourselves up as far as not treating all employees the same. He recommended that be
looked again at the start of the new budget year. Mr. Nordin said it would definitely be the intent to look at the
situation exactly as the Judge presented it at budget time. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#6 -INTRODUCTION OF REBECCA APPEL,THE NEW PARKS AND RECREATION
PROGRAM COORDINATOR.
Ms Goodman introduced Rebecca Appel who came to the Town from the City of Glendale. She said that Ms Appel
was one of the most qualified candidates in the selection process and had been with the Town for five weeks. She
had a strong program and recreational background and had worked for the City of Glendale,the City of Tempe,and
the YMCA program.
AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING A NEW PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSIONER TO FILL THE SEAT VACATED BY BILL TIBBETTS.
Mayor Cutillo MOVED to appoint Dee Schroeder to fill the unexpired term of Bill Tibbetts for the Parks and
Recreation Commission. SECONDED by Councilman Hudson and CARRIED by five aye votes,Councilman Clark
abstained.
Mayor Cutillo called a recess to the regular session at approximately 7:02 p.m.
Minutes of the Regular Session of the Town Council 11/05/92
Page 3 of 8
AGENDA ITEM#8 - PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING FOR MORNINGSIDE 2.
Niromo
Mayor Cutillo called the public hearing to order at approximately 7:03 p.m. and read the rules of procedure. Mr.
Jeppson introduced Ms Loras Rauch from his Department to present the staff report. Ms Rauch reviewed the fmal
plat for Morningside at Lakeside Village Unit#2. The applicants had requested a R-4 R.U.P.D. The R.U.P.D.was
required because of the reduced lot size,reduced set backs,and reduced splits that were being requested. The R-4
zone required a lot area of 6,000 square feet. The Commission and staff recommended 4,500 square feet and the
applicant requested 4,500 square feet. The staff felt this was a continuation from the Momingside Unit#1 or Phase
#1 project. Phase#1 project had lots of 4,000 and 4,500 square feet. Because of that continuation,the street system
was a continuation from that which was established with Unit#1 and the staff felt comfortable to recommend to the
Commission the applicants request of 4,500 square feet. The R-4 zone required a lot with a 60 foot front. The
Commission recommended 45 as the applicant requested; the present zone had some lots that were 40 feet in width.
The front yard requirement for the R-4 was 20 feet,the applicant as well as the Commission and staff agreed to the
11 foot front yard set back. The rear yard set back and the R-4 zoning district was 25 and the applicant, the
Commission and staff agreed to the 10 foot rear yard set back. The front request was for 11 feet and currently Unit
#1 had 8 foot. Unit#1 currently had a side entry garage in the front. The applicant requested 1-1/2 feet at the
garage. Applicant had requested lot coverage of 52.2% on the Eagle model only. If the Eagle model, the most
popular unit,were to be put on a 4,500 square foot lot,it would exceed the lot coverage. Only six 50 foot wide lots
were in the proposed sub-division. The Commission and staff recommended those set backs and maximum lot
coverage of 50%. If the Council recommended and approved the rezoning as the applicant requested,the maximum
lot coverage would need to be changed to 52.2% to allow the Eagle unit on the 45 foot wide lot. It would be
conceivable there would be more than six Eagle model units to go on 4,500 square foot lots and the lot coverage
would need to be increased to allow that to happen. Councilman Minarsich asked what the 52.2% lot coverage
would do to the set backs. Mr.Jeppson said in order to put the Eagle model on a 45 foot wide lot,a foot and a half
garage side yard set back would be required. Vice Mayor Fox asked if the garage could be moved over further in
the floor plan. Mr. Jeppson said the model was 38-1/2 feet wide. Ms Rauch said that if the garages were shifted
and the 38 foot width reduced,it could be achieved.
Mayor Cutillo asked for comment from those in favor of granting the request. Mr. Dale Zing, the developer, said
when he went into Phase#1 it had a zero lot line. There were a few places built by Gary Martinson that had garages
attached to one another but he felt some area for wash and drainage would need to be included to comply with the
5 feet but the problem was in the esthetics value of the house. He said it would give an extra 3-1/2 feet to landscape
at the entry side of the house and put the front doors further apart. From a builders standpoint, Mr. Zing would
make adjustments to put the 5 feet in and also save money. On the Eagle model he requested a 1-1/2 foot set back
on 52% because there would be two covered patios. If the Council wouldn't allow 52%,one patio would not be
covered as the covers were what put it over 50%. Mr.Bill Standage, 1136 East Harmony Avenue-Suite 203,Mesa,
Arizona,was a consulting engineer on the second phase of the Morningside project. That phase had a plat that was
approved, however time had elapsed and it had expired so it was necessary to go through the process again. The
original layout had 52 lots which were reduced to 49 lots. The lots were larger with more frontage and were
expanded from a 45 foot radius to a 50 foot radius to allow for emergency vehicles to turn around without having
to back up. Several points were made in favor of the foot and a half set back: since these were patio homes, to
allow a five foot set back on each side would result in two mediocre yards. If the house were shifted to allow a
small,somewhat unusual yard on one side it would open up the other side for access and be more useable and help
with drainage on both sides. A fine wall would be required if lots were closer together which would incur additional
cost to the builder. The fire wall would not be necessary with the five foot set back. The developer offered to pay
the$12,000 to $15,000 expense to present a nicer product.
Mayor Cutillo asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to granting this rezoning request. No one came
forward.
Minutes of the Regular Session of the Town Council 11/05/92
Page 4 of 8
Mayor Cutillo closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and returned to the Regular Town Council meeting.
‘440)
AGENDA ITEM#9- CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 92-15,AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA AND THE TEXT OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS,ARIZONA PURSUANT ARTICLES XXVII AND
XXXI OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, IN THE AREA
COMMONLY KNOWN AS "MORNINGSIDE II", CASE#S92-01.
Councilman Minarsich said the bottom line for the developer seemed to be aesthetics. He asked Mr. Jeppson to
clarify what the major problem with the one half foot set back would be. From the staffs standpoint it came down
to what size lot the Eagle model could be placed on and would it be going over the design density or the sub-division
by putting the largest model on the smallest lot. The developer was encouraged through the platting process to make
more 50 foot wide lots but he had desired to keep the 45 foot wide lots. With the Eagle model, the most popular
unit,in order to retain five feet on one side in the same floor plan a foot and a half of the zero lot line on the garage
side would be needed. Currently in Phase#1 some garages were right on the edge. If the Eagle model were to be
put on a 4,500 square foot lot, it would exceed the lot coverage. In the Morningside Development Phase #1 a
petition was signed by all the available residents (28 lots - some were out of town) except for two who signed a
petition in favor. Councilman Clark asked if Blue Chip's (the developer)request was not a downgrade from staff
recommendation from the existing phases based on the land use and he was concerned that it would cause a problem
down the road. He was concerned with the long range implications as well as the current. Mr. Jeppson said a
developer would use everything to his advantage to plead his case. If someone would use this as an example for
future cases, he would assume it would be applied if something went wrong. Vice Mayor Fox asked Mr. Zing if
that development was purchased from a previous owner and when it was purchased,was the plat still on the books.
Mr. Zing said when he bought the property there were lots cut out and the property was bought from MCO. Mr.
Gary Martinson owned the whole property. Mr. Zing felt it essential to be able to build it out for the people who
had purchased it. He said the residents of Morningside felt Blue Chip Development were very people oriented and
they were very happy. Vice Mayor Fox felt that should be looked into on a case by case basis. A case could be *a)
made with the R.U.P.D. where the extenuation of a property already existed when someone took it over. He was
concerned with the one and a half foot and where the wall ran between the two,there was no way a fireman would
get through on that side or somebody would be able to escape a walled in area with the narrow width. An option
would be to go to 48 or 50 foot wide lots that would provide five feet at the garage level with the aesthetics of the
front view elevations. He would like the Fire Marshal to look into it. Mr. Knapp said it was on the agenda to be
reviewed, however the building and fire code didn't handle that and that was where the fire wall came in. Vice
Mayor Foxs' concern was there would not be enough access for a family member to escape in race of fire. If the
Council would agree, a stipulation would be added to the one and a half feet and the wall connecting the two
buildings must be back at least four feet beyond and into a five foot area, a gate and exit would be on both sides
in case an emergency arose. In other words,move the connecting wall between the two buildings back into the five
foot wide area versus the one and a half foot area to allow for an exit gate from an emergency standpoint which
shouldn't add any additional cost. Councilman O'Brien asked if there were any other R.U.P.D.'s in Town where
an adjacent, incomplete area would present the same kind of question regarding platting something to match the
original version of the improvement. Mr.Jeppson said that was done with the Fountainhead development but didn't
recall any others coming up. Councilman Minarsich stated the precedent had already been set and each one was a
case-by-case situation and it would be different in every sub-division plat. He had no problem with the one and a
half foot simply by virtue that it existed and met the fire code. He felt the experts on the fire standard were the fire
department which had already indicated it passed code. He supported the Blue Chip request since the 1.5 foot versus
the 5 foot was so close it didn't really make a big difference. Councilman Hudson asked who would take care of
tract B and if there would be a Homeowners Association. Mr. Jeppson said the Homeowners Association would
control and take care of that tract. Councilman O'Brien said he realized building codes had to be present when the
building was inspected and thereafter the owner would do whatever it wanted,as in tear down fire walls and there
Minutes of the Regular Session of the Town Council 11/05/92
Page 5 of 8
would be loopholes that needed to be written. Mr.Jeppson said his understanding was that thicker sheetrock would
be put in along that wall so if someone wanted more storage all they would have to do is tear down that wall. That
would only be a gain of about 5/8" since the sheetrock was only an additional 5/8" thick and it was Mr.Jeppson's
understanding that this would constitute a fire wall. Councilman Minarsich pointed out this had already been
addressed by Chief Knapp and it did meet the safety standards of Fountain Hills. Councilman Minarsich MOVED
to accept the Blue Chip request as stated and approve Ordinance 92-15. Mr.Jeppson stated the issue of a lot with
1-1/2 foot garage side yard and maximum lot coverage percentage needed to be addressed. Councilman Minarsich
RESTATED his motion and moved to adopt Ordinance 92-15 with the stipulation that it would allow a 1.5 foot
garage side set back and 52.2% maximum lot coverage. SECONDED by Vice Mayor Fox. Mayor Cutillo asked
Councilman Minarsich to repeat his motion because the wording of his original motion was unclear. Councilman
Minarsich MOVED to adopt Ordinance 92-15 as stated with the stipulation that we allow the 1.5 foot garage side
yard set back and the 52.2% maximum lot coverage. SECONDED by Vice Mayor Fox. After further discussion
Vice Mayor Fox WITHDREW his second. Councilman Minarsich RESTATED the motion to adopt Ordinance 92-
15 with the stipulation that on the garage side yard or the garage area only we allow a 1.5 foot side yard set back
and 52.2%maximum lot coverage. SECONDED by Councilman Hudson. Vice Mayor Fox AMENDED the motion
to add that on that side, the dividing wall should only be connected at the 5 foot set back area 4 feet back so it
couldn't be connected between the two garage side walls. SECONDED by Councilman Clark. A roll call vote was
taken on the amended motion and the results were as follows:
Mayor Cutillo nay
Vice Mayor Fox aye
Councilman O'Brien nay
Councilman Hudson aye
Councilman Clark aye
Councilman Minarsich nay
The roll call vote results were three aye to three nay votes. The motion FAILED for lack of majority.
Mayor Cutillo asked for a vote on the original motion to accept Ordinance 92-15 as Councilman Minarsich stated.
Mr. Bob Thomas asked Councilman Minarsich if it was his intention that some of the side set backs would be a
minimum of 10 feet with 1-1/2 foot set back on the garage side in order to allow the lot to meet the code.
Councilman Minarsich concurred. A roll call vote was taken and the results were as follows:
Councilman Minarsich aye
Councilman Clark nay
Councilman Hudson aye
Councilman O'Brien nay
Vice Mayor Fox nay
Mayor Cutillo aye
The roll call vote results were three aye to three nay votes. The motion FAILED for lack of majority.
Councilman O'Brien MOVED that Ordinance 92-15 be approved as originally written and presented. Vice Mayor
Fox SECONDED. Mr.O'Connell said the way the house was designed,every living room in the house had access
to outside and the back side had no access to the outside anyway. He felt it was a mute point, if Phase#2 was
grandfathered in 52% or 52.2% and if it were a new platting it would handle the type of house that was going to
be put on it. Mr.Elmer Wall from the public, said one of the things he had found with his new home was that it
sat in the middle of the lot. If the house was sitting over to one side it would be more useable. A wash ran down
both sides and he would have preferred to have the house over to one side and have a wider area on the opposite
side. From a fire standpoint,he personally couldn't see anything wrong with it. Phase#1 had 70+units. Mr.Zing
Minutes of the Regular Session of the Town Council 11/05/92
Page 6 of 8
didn't know why the Council would say that 72 people should stay in jeopardy and the other 49 would be saved and
taken out of jeopardy. He didn't understand the logic and asked what would cause anyone on the Council to give
a nay vote. Maybe the people wouldn't know until after the house was built and they would be in the same position
as Mr. Wall. The matter of drainage was discussed with Ms Rauch and Mr. Jeppson. There would be a limited
amount of drainage from that side because the grading would go from the top side down. Councilman Clark said
if the Eagle model were placed on the proper size lot, there wouldn't be the concerns expressed by the arguments.
There were adequate side yards on the non-garage side. It was permitted by the County prior to the time the Town
was incorporated One reason the Town incorporated was to improve the standards in Town beyond those permitted
by the County and Councilman Clark would go along with staff recommendation. Mr.Zing said he felt the motion
was deadlocked. With one Councilmember absent he thought an exception should be made because it was a part
of Phase#1. Councilman Clark said it was a matter of economics. If one more lot were eliminated,nine more 50
foot lots would be created and an adequate number of lots for the front would be the highest seller. From what staff
had recommended he didn't see that downgrading would be the proper use of the land and the Ordinance would be
met. Mayor Cutillo asked if the motion were amended to say 1-1/2 foot garage side yard but the 50% lot coverage
be kept it,would that be more satisfactory. It was stated that could be done easily. Mayor Cutillo AMENDED the
motion to add the stipulation that the garage side yard set back be 1-1/2 foot for the garage only. Councilman
Hudson SECONDED. Vice Mayor Fox MOVED a second AMENDMENT as stipulated before to have five feet
back off of the garage rear wall where the connections between the two structures were made. SECONDED by
Councilman Clark. Councilman O'Brien asked if the property owner would have a chance to look at this and
evaluate the Ordinance because what was currently on the floor before any amendments were added was exactly what
was written down. Attorney Farrell said that was correct. Councilman O'Brien asked if the property owner would
withdraw and rework it. Attorney Farrell said he could come forward and request it. If the Ordinance received the
affirmative vote,in order to draw a building permit it would have to be in conformance with those stipulations. Mr.
Jeppson said he had discussed with Mr. Zing that afternoon the problem with the 50% lot coverage. The Eagle
model would exceed that and if the Council were willing to have the Eagle model on a 4,500 square foot lot it would
also need to be aware of upping the lot coverage to 52.2%. Mr.Zing stated he had not seen the Ordinance. Vice
Mayor Fox said one problem he had was the fact that an individual had inherited a problem and he asked Mr.Zing
to state his feeling about the amendments that had been proposed. Mr. Zing said he didn't have a problem with
moving it back five feet for egress. It was the garage part only that he had a problem with. Mayor Cutillo asked
for a vote on the second amendment which CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Cutillo said the first amendment was
to accept the Ordinance 92-15 as written with the stipulation that the garage side yard be 1-1/2 foot at the garage
only. The first amendment CARRIED with a five aye to one nay vote cast by Councilman O'Brien. The original
motion CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#10 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR MORNINGSIDE 2.
Ms Rauch said some changes to the final plat had been made and the improvement plans had been approved. The
final plat was ready for Council's approval contingent upon rezoning. Councilman Clark asked Mr. Zing if the
passage of the ordinance would cause him to make any changes before Council considered approval and Mr.Zing
said he would not want any changes made. Councilman Hudson MOVED acceptance of the final plat.
SECONDED by Councilman Minarsich and CARRIED unanimously.
Prior to the call to the public,Mayor Cutillo referred back to the Mayor's report and the report on Los Altos Hills
which had been omitted. He said that Mr. Felker said work was still being done on what he called his prize
development and felt if there were a break in the economy something would happen very soon and he would be
talking to the legal staff and planner to be sure there wouldn't be any stumbling blocks.
Minutes of the Regular Session of the Town Council 11/05/92
Page 7 of 8
AGENDA ITEM#11- CALL TO THE PUBLIC. (PUBLIC COMMENT IS ENCOURAGED BUT PLEASE
BE ADVISED THAT THE COUNCIL HAS NO ABILITY TO RESPOND OR DISCUSS MATTERS
BROUGHT UP DURING THE CALL TO THE PUBLIC AS SUCH DISCUSSION IS PROHIBITED BY THE
ARIZONA OPEN MEETING LAW.)
Mayor Cutillo made the call to the public. There was no discussion.
AGENDA ITEM#12-PURSUANT TO A.R.S.38-431.03.A.4,VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEYS OF THE PUBLIC BODY IN ORDER
TO CONSIDER ITS POSITION AND INSTRUCT ITS ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE PUBLIC BODY'S
POSITION IN PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
Councilman Hudson made a MOTION to approve as read. SECONDED by Councilman Minarsich and CARRIED
unanimously.
Mayor Cutillo called a recess to the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and the Council went into the executive session.
AGENDA ITEM#13 - RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION
The Council returned to regular session at approximately 8:50 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#14 - ADJOURNMENT
Lir Mayor Cutillo called for a MOTION to adjourn. SECONDED by Councilman Minarsich and CARRIED
unanimously. The Town Council adjourned at approximately 8:51 p.m.
TOWN OF LS
By:
ATTEST: etizad.t.A.,
• 1.14 ituAi J M. Cutillo, Mayor
Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk
PREPARED BY: 4
/L J
Marcia M. Jewett, Admin. As ist.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held
by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 5th day of November 1992. I further certify that the meeting was duly
called and that a quorum was present. y2,
DATED this 011 Wt. day of January 1993. 0A11.14- - . )1,1A4 ,.)
Cassie B. Hansen, Town Clerk
Minutes of the Regular Session of the Town Council 11/05/92
Page 8 of 8