HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000.0203.TCRM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 3,2000
A public meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council was convened and called to order by Mayor Morgan at 6:30
p.m., Thursday, February 3rd, 2000, in the Fountain Hills Town Hall Council Chambers located at 16836 E.
Palisades Blvd.,Building B,Fountain Hills,Arizona.
Mayor Morgan called the regular session of the Town Council to order.
ROLL CALL: Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor
Sharon Morgan, Vice Mayor Sid Apps, and Councilmembers Pen Mower, John Wyman, Marianne Wiggishoff,
and Sharon Hutcheson. Councilman Al Poma was absent. Also present were Town Manager Paul Nordin, Town
Attorney Bill Farrell,Town Clerk Cassie Hansen, Interim Town Engineer Tom Ward, and Director of Community
Development Jeff Valder.
After the Invocation by Father Tot O'Dea, Church of the Ascension, Mayor Morgan announced that Agenda Item
#2 had been withdrawn from the Consent Agenda at her request and Agenda Item#6 had been withdrawn at the
request of staff. She then read the remaining Consent Agenda Items for approval:
AGENDA ITEM #1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY
18 AND 20,2000.
AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE 15.26 ACRE, 10-
LOT, 2-TRACT, FIREROCK COUNTRY CLUB PARCEL P-1, LOCATED IN THE FIREROCK
COUNTRY CLUB SUBDIVISION SOUTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD,CASE NUMBER S99-46.
AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE 6.58 ACRE AND
THE 15.58 ACRE, 21-LOT, 1-TRACT, FIREROCK COUNTRY CLUB PARCELS P-2 AND 0-1,
LOCATED IN THE FIREROCK COUNTRY CLUB SUBDIVISION SOUTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD.
CASE NUMBER S99-047.
AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE 6.70 ACRE, 10-
LOT, FIREROCK COUNTRY CLUB SUBDIVISION SOUTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD, CASE
NUMBER S99-034.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda Items 1,3,4, and 5 as read. Vice Mayor
Apps SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff— aye
Vice Mayor Apps - aye
Councilman Wyman - aye
Councilman Mower- aye
Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye
Mayor Morgan - aye
The motion CARRIED unanimously with a roll call vote.
AGENDA ITEM#2 - CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE ANNUAL GREAT FAIR. THE EVENT
TH TH
WILL BE HELD FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 25 AND 26 FROM 10:00 A.M. TO 5:00
TH
P.M.; AND SUNDAY,FEBRUARY 27 FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. THE EVENT WILL REQUIRE
THE CLOSURE OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD BETWEEN EL LAGO AND PARKVIEW FROM 5:30
P.M. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24 THRU 6:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28 . THE
1 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS WILL BE CLOSED AT 5:30 P.M.ON THURSDAY,FEBRUARY 24TH.
‘111r Vice Mayor Apps read the agenda item and asked for a motion to approve. Councilwoman Wiggishoff clarified
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
1 of 15
that the Mayor had recused herself because of a conflict of interest, as the Mayor was also the Event Coordinator.
Mayor Morgan confirmed that was correct.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff MOVED to approve the Special Event as read and Councilwoman Hutcheson
SECONDED to motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Councilwoman Wiggishoff— aye
Vice Mayor Apps - aye
Councilman Wyman - aye
Councilman Mower- aye
Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye
The motion CARRIED unanimously with a roll call vote.
AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR FOUNTAIN PARK
PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS RE-BID (TO BE ANNOUNCED FOLLOWING THE BID OPENING ON
2/1/00).
Town Manager Paul Nordin stated that the bids had come back in woefully over budget. Therefore, staff
recommended that the Council reject all bids. He said that the project would then be pared down in order to come
back with something that would be under budget.
Councilman Mower MOVED that the Council reject all the bids and Councilwoman Wiggishoff SECONDED
the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #7 — DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 603.E OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WOULD PERMIT OFF PREMISE NON-
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS WITHIN TOWN RIGHTS-OF-WAY BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
filisy Mayor Morgan announced that this item had been brought before the Council at the request of Councilman
Wyman. Director Valder explained that a property owner had expressed an interest to facilitate the erection of a
sign in the Town's right-of-way. He said the current Town Code prohibited permanent off premise signs with the
exception of the small signs that must be removed every night at sunset. The property owner was interested in
having the Council talk about whether or not the Town would allow construction of signs maintained within the
right-of-way. He said he had prepared some language, which would be a text amendment to the sign code,just in
case the Council wanted to initiate the text amendment. He explained that text amendment would allow for
signage in the Town's right-of-ways on a case by case and issued by special use permit.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to initiate the amendment as presented and Councilman Mower SECONDED the
motion.
Councilman Wyman explained the purpose of this item was to give the Council the option to approve or deny
such applications. Councilwoman Wiggishoff said she was surprised this item was on the agenda as Council had
spent months to remove signage from the Town's right-of-ways. She was of the opinion the Town did not need
more signs in the right-of-ways. She said if a number of these off premise signs were approved, then on what
basis could the Council deny them. Vice Mayor Apps stated he had a problem with any regulation of business
signage, as it was very important exposure to business, especially to new businesses, to get the traffic in. He said
he had no problem with the amendment as presented. Councilwoman Hutcheson said she understood signs
helped businesses, but she had a problem with putting signage in the right-of-ways. Councilman Mower
suggested the text presented was too broad and that the Planning and Zoning staff should prepare a more
definitive definition of signage affixed to a building that would extend out over a right-of-way area.
Councilman Mower AMENDED the motion asking staff to prepare a more definitive definition and the
parameters associated with right-of-way signage and Councilman Wyman SECONDED the amendment.
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 2 of 15
Robert Sternfels, DayBreak Travel
He acknowledged that this item was for their building across from Town Hall. He said he would support the
amendment.
Karen Huske, 16727 Greenbriar
She said she was employed by DayBreak Travel. She said this would be a beautiful sign and signs should be
approved on an individual basis by special permit or waiver.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff said she agreed with Councilman Mower that there was quite a distance between what
was being described and what staff was presenting the Council for the language of the text amendment.
Mayor Morgan called for a vote on the amendment, which CARRIED unanimously (6—0).
Mayor Morgan called for a vote on the original motion as amended, which CARRIED unanimously(6—0).
AGENDA ITEM #8 - CONSIDERATION OF RE-APPOINTING MR. BUD OHSMAN TO THE BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO-YEAR TERM.
Mayor Morgan said staff had informed the Council that after two weeks of advertising they had received only one
application. She said Mr. Bud Ohsman, who had served on the board for four-years, had agreed to apply for
another two-year term and staff would continue to advertise until the other vacancy was filled.
Councilman Mower MOVED to reappoint Mr. Bud Ohsman for another two-year term beginning February 1,
2000 and Vice Mayor Apps SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #9 — PRESENTATION ON POSSIBLE TRAFFIC CALMING SOLUTIONS FOR
BLACKBIRD DRIVE WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON IMPLEMENTATION.
Interim Engineer Tom Ward reviewed that on September 2, 1999, Town Engineer Randy Harrel had come before
the Council and submitted a petition for the closure of Blackbird Dr. at Boulder Dr. The item had been tableed
and staff had been directed to explore the alternatives to a full street closure. He announced he would be assisted
in the discussion by Larry Woodlan of Burgess and Niple. He said they looked into:
• Speed Bumps—not a possibility due to the delay in reaction time for emergency vehicles.
• Chokers — was to be implemented to narrow a street and as Blackbird was not a wide street to
begin with it would limit parking, impede bicycle traffic and legitimate truck traffic.
• Rumble Strips — would merely alert drivers to their speed and would not promote alternative
routes, it would increase noise pollution and required continuous maintenance by the Street
Department
He said staff had public meetings with both the neighbors on Blackbird and beyond to get their input and feelings
on the traffic issue. He said staff had met with the school officials and asked if there would be a problem with
school buses. Mr. Bill Dugas, school representative, said he did not have a problem with the options, which were
being presented. Mr. Ward stated that the Marshals Department and Rural Metro had been consulted and that
traffic counters had been set out at various intersections and at many different times.
Mr. Ward said staff had followed the practices of the four engineering warrants that had been considered:
• Speed
• Line of Sight
• Accidents Records
• Traffic Volume
Mr. Ward reviewed the history of this Blackbird traffic issue. He then turned the discussion over to Mr. Larry
Woodlan who described the options being considered:
• Full closure - Reviewed the different signs to be installed. He said the test closure would utilize
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 3 of 15
concrete jersey barriers or the ones filled with water to block Blackbird Dr. at Boulder with provisions
for a chain that would enable the street to be opened for emergency traffic.
• Closure of the south lane - Reviewed the sketch which included an overview of the different signage
to be installed so that the residents in the area would know what was going on. The second sketch
contained more details on how the temporary closure would be installed. On the southside there
would be some type of jersey barrier or temporary barrier installed during the 30-day test period.
• Restrict left turning movement from Boulder onto Blackbird. The first sketch was an overview on the
different signage that would be installed to inform the public as to what was going on. The second
sketch was the detail on how to actually install or restrict the left turning movements. He said the dots
represented the plastic type of barriers that would be glued to the pavement and they would restrict the
turning movements of people from Boulder Drive left or east bound traffic onto Blackbird. These
would also restrict the turning movements of Blackbird residents from turning south onto Boulder.
Mr. Woodlan announced that after reviewing the three options, staff was recommending the closure of the south
lane, or Option #2, for a test period of 30-days. During that time traffic counts would be taken and staff would
look at speeding and the traffic turning movements. The data would be analyzed after the 30-day test period for a
staffs permanent recommendation, which would be brought to Council for their consideration. Mr. Ward added
that staff had taken the time to do a mailing of the identical packet material received by Council on this issue to
those residents who attended the neighborhood meetings. He said the object to make sure the residents were
informed as to what the options were.
Councilman Mower MOVED to direct staff to implement the traffic calming proposal on Blackbird as
recommended by staff for a 30-day test period and Councilman Wyman SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff said she was surprised at the recommendation and asked what the enforceability was
of blocking off the south lane as opposed to putting a barrier up in the center of Boulder to ensure the "no left
turn" onto Boulder. Mr. Woodlan responded said this had been done in other communities in the valley and was
enforceable. But he recognized someone could cut through there if they chose too, but the signage would be up
and the area would be restricted to the point where they would have to knowingly break the law to cut through the
corner. He acknowledged that if the public chose to cut through the corner illegally, that there would not be a lot
that could be done to enforce compliance except to have a patrol car in the area.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff stated that was what Council was trying to get away from because the downhill speed
had not been controlled and a patrol could not be stationed there constantly. Mr. Woodlan stated the public
would not be permitted to turn left and go downhill on Boulder without breaking the law, as the barricade would
be installed in such a manner that the public could not turn off of Boulder onto Blackbird. It would be prohibited.
So the only public traveling downhill would be the neighbors, which also reduced the amount of cut through
traffic. Councilman Mower asked if the residents of Blackbird would only be able to exit their neighborhood and
travel south unless they made a right turn on to Boulder. Mr. Woodlan responded that the south lane closure
would permit the residents exiting Blackbird to either to go north or south, if the Council implemented that
option.
Town Manager Paul Nordin tried to clarify which option was being discussed. Mr. Woodlan confirmed staff was
recommending Option #2. Councilwoman Wiggishoff said Councilman Mower had understood the discussion
was reviewing Option #3, which would in effect make it a right turn only out of Blackbird and no left turn off
Boulder onto Blackbird. Councilman Mower asked Mr. Woodlan to indicate, on the displayed map, where the
barriers were to be placed so that the Council could understand the options.
Mr. Woodlan reviewed the options on the map indicating staffs recommendation of Option #2 — the south lane
closure. He pointed out the traffic flow pattern and where barriers would be placed. Mayor Morgan reiterated
that if no one was observing the corner, even though it was breaking the law, there was nothing prohibiting the
L. public from going around the barrier unless there was a patrol car stationed there. Mr. Woodlan agreed.
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 4 of 15
Councilwoman Wiggishoff said her concern was for night traffic because some people cut that corner and it could
become a safety issue for the person at the stop sign. She felt it made the traffic flow awkward and could muddy
the traffic counts during a 30-day test period. Mr. Woodlan stated the southbound lane closure option would
install some of the plastic barriers in the middle of Boulder. So, in order for the people to turn left and go down
Blackbird, they would have to drive through those plastic barriers. That would restrict anyone from turning left
knocking down those plastic barriers. Councilman Mower said the goal was to restrict traffic to travel east on
Blackbird was good and he agreed some sort of barrier in the median strip of Boulder would be necessary.
Councilman Wyman clarified that they were trying to protect against a non-issue, because anywhere in Town
there wasn't a Marshal or a Sheriffs vehicle the public could turn left into an incorrect lane and violate the law.
He asked how would the Council protect against that. He felt this was a non-issue. He was troubled that the
Council was leading towards creating a cul-de-sac and that was not what was wanted. He didn't want to deny the
public within the test period, the opportunity to go up the hill on Blackbird and go right into the northern section
of Town. Councilman Mower responded that the public was not being restricted from going west on Blackbird
and turning right or north onto Boulder. What was restricted was traveling left on Boulder and going south and
anyone on Blackbird or going up Blackbird would only have the choice would be to turn right at the top of the
hill. He said there must be a compromise on everyone's part to do this.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff stated she favored the left turn restriction (the 3rd Option), which limited the left
turning ability into Blackbird. The reason this action was even being contemplated was because the street
exceeded the speed parameters for the traffic calming measures for the downhill traffic and traffic volume. She
felt the uphill traffic speed was tolerable. She said this option allowed the people in the northern neighborhoods
to come home in their usual way, but restricted their traffic flow by moving them to different streets built for the
higher volume of traffic. Councilman Mower asked if the study of cars traveling down Blackbird had been done
and how many were making a right turn onto Blackbird off Boulder and how many were making a left turn. Mr.
Ward stated that between 85 — 90% were southbound on Boulder turning onto Blackbird, and the northbound
traffic percentage onto Boulder was very small, between 15%-20%.
Councilman Mower agreed with Councilwoman Wiggishoff s point. Councilwoman Hutcheson said she favored
the Boulder left turn restriction as well, partially because she would like to include in the 30-day trial, the effect
the change in the traffic pattern would have on Golden Eagle and Boulder.
Councilwoman Hutcheson AMENDED the motion to implement Option #3 with the monitoring of the Golden
Eagle and Boulder intersection for the 30-day trial period and Councilwoman Wiggishoff SECONDED the
motion.
Councilman Mower agreed that one of the criteria of approving this would be to monitor the intersection of
Boulder and Golden Eagle. He acknowledged that Mr. Ward had already indicated that this was staffs plan.
Councilman Wyman pointed out he had traveled the area between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. using a
stopwatch and again in the mornings between 7:30 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. He said he had traveled the route several
times and from the intersection of Blackbird and Glenbrook to the top of the intersection of Blackbird and
Boulder it took him 55-seconds by obeying the posted speed limits. From that top intersection
(Boulder/Blackbird)down to Golden Eagle, left to Bainbridge, over to Glenbrook and back up to the intersection
of Glenbrook and Blackbird it took him less than 3 minutes. He said if the folks that live on Blackbird could be
assisted by inconveniencing ourselves to the point of adding 2 more minutes to their travel time. He didn't think
that would be too much to ask of the folks who live north of this neighborhood. He acknowledged driving on
Blackbird was just habit for a lot of the residents.
Mr. Nordin suggested that all parties, for the sake of clarity, withdraw their motions and seconds and make one
motion for the option being discussed. All parties withdrew their prior motions and seconds.
rr." Councilman Mower MOVED to implement Option #3 (Boulder left turn restriction) for a 30-day trial and
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 5 of 15
Councilwoman Wiggishoff SECONDED the motion.
Vice Mayor Apps asked if there had been any fatalities or accidents at the intersection of Boulder and Glenbrook.
Mr. Ward said their records did not show any accidents at that intersection but at the intersection of Golden Eagle
and Boulder, entering from Boulder onto Golden Eagle, there has been one accident since 1994. Under the
engineering warrants it should show five accidents in a twelve-month period in order to meet the criteria for any
action. Vice Mayor Apps was concerned about changing the traffic flow and creating an opportunity for more
accidents. He asked the accident numbers be obtained from the Marshals Department and brought into the study.
Mayor Morgan asked if Deputy Martinez had any information on this. Deputy Martinez stated he had none at this
time. Mayor Morgan reiterated that this was for a 30-day test period and a permanent change wasn't being made
at this point.
Mayor Morgan opened the meeting to the public. The consensus was as follows:
Nine people were opposed to the closure and four were in favor of the closure.
Councilwoman Hutcheson pointed that out of the three options, Option #3 was the least restrictive for a 30-day
trial and was a good compromise. She stated the results would be studied. Vice Mayor Apps agreed with the
school issues raised and said a change in traffic pattern for 30 days was not enough time to change the public's
habits. Councilman Mower stated he understood everyone's concerns but he was willing to see the test through
for the 30-day trial. He asked that the Marshals Department and the Sheriffs Department keep a close eye on
what was going on at Boulder and Golden Eagle intersection. He asked that if law enforcement saw the situation
getting out of hand,they call Councilmembers and an emergency change be made ending the trial period. Mayor
Morgan agreed that she was willing to try this for 30-days but she didn't think this was a cure all and reiterated
that the results would be evaluated after the 30-day trial period.
• Mayor Morgan called for the vote, which CARRIED on a vote of 5 - 1. Vice Mayor Apps cast the opposing
vote.
Mayor Morgan called for a 10-minute break at 7:50 p.m. Mayor Morgan reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #10 — PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 00-03 APPROVING A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
ALLOWING THE TOWN COUNCIL TO APPROVE MODIFIED SET BACKS FOR NON-
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
CASE NUMBER ZZ00-01.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session at 8:01 p.m.
Director Jeff Valder stated this process had been at the request of a resident who wanted to construct a nursing
home. He said a couple of years ago the Town had changed the set back regulations in most of the Multi-family
Zoning Districts to make them more restrictive. This ordinance, if approved, would allow the Town Council, by
special use permit, to allow modified set backs. He acknowledged it was a sensitive issue because of the amount
of time and effort that went into amending the set back regulations as to what they were today. However, it
would allow the Council, on a case by case basis, to review requests for non-residential structures in multi-family
zoning districts if the Council believed that modification in a set back was in the Town's best interests. He said
there were some characteristics of the special use permit application that would be logical and reasonable for the
Town to approve a modified set back. He said staff was recommending approval of ordinance amendment.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff asked if this ordinance wasn't opening a can of worms, having a Special Use Permit
(SUP) in a certain area, which would bear no relationship to anything else around it. Director Valder confirmed
there were only a couple of churches (non-residential structures)within a multi-family zoning district. He agreed,
if it were written to say "for any use in a multi-family zoning district",that every project would probably ask for a
Lw modified set back. But, because it would only affect non-residential uses, he didn't feel it would be problematic.
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 6 of 15
He rationalized that the Council could always say no.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff said based upon having said yes once, then on what basis would you base denial.
Director Valder said the genesis of the set back reduction, when done, was because the Four Peaks Vista project
was three stories and close to a heavily traveled road and because the massing was so big it seemed to loom over
the street. It impacted a lot of people as a lot of people drove on the adjacent street. In talking about the
application being presented tonight, it would be a reduction in the set back on the end of a small cul-de-sac with
very little traffic and so it mitigated the issue a little bit. What he recommended was not to completely allow for
the old set backs but for a compromised set back of 30-foot. He felt that was reason for the Council to consider.
Councilman Mower asked if the Council was dealing with a text change, or were they just trying to appease one
individual who was asking for a different set back. He was uncomfortable with making a text change for one
individual.
Mr. Nordin said it would be incumbent on the Council and staff, when considering the adoption of a special use
permit provision for a given area,that the given area be examined in detail to determine whether or not there were
sufficient differences that could be articulated in each case that would give rise to an appropriate justification for
the differing action that the Council might take. He asked the Town Attorney in what legal instances the SUP
process should be applied. Mr. Farrell stated, generally speaking, a SUP was a mechanism that Councils employ
because it was difficult to write broad based zoning regulations that would cover every conceivable use of land.
It was a legislative decision and avoided sending cases to the Board of Adjustment where the strict letter of the
law would force some to seek a variance in order to develop their property. He said it was a better tool to give
Council the flexibility and leave those decisions in the Council's hands than to say this was the last, final, and
best option if their property didn't fit and then send the case to the Board of Adjustment.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff questioned if this wasn't changing what the Special Use Permit was all about. Mr.
Farrell responded you very well might be. He said again when you write the base zoning codes, generally
speaking, you give uses by right and uses that were permitted with a special use permit. He stated, very often,
cities and towns would find themselves unable to keep up with the variety of changes that occur within a
commercial-one district. So very often you would find a catch all in some zoning codes which weren't amended
as frequently as the Town's. Any use not enumerated herein could be a use in any zoning district by a special use
permit. So, if you wanted to stay with a few basic residential, commercial, and industrial zones, and you don't
wish to add constantly to the list of uses by rights, then you employ Special Use Permits. Mr. Farrell confirmed
that Special Use Permits in other jurisdictions were treated in an extremely broad sense.
Director Valder explained the Special Use Permit was a tool. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission,
which voted unanimously to recommend denial of the text amendment, cited that as one of their main reasons for
their recommendation for denial. They felt that if the property owners could not meet the criteria for a PUD, and
could not meet the findings for a variance, the Town already had two other processes set up for people requesting
some relief.
Councilman Wyman asked if putting Item D, regarding required set backs in the text change, was redundant
because the Special Use process was broad enough. If the Council chose to include set backs or any other
parameter, wasn't the Council setting themselves up for continuous adjustments in amendments. Mr. Nordin
agreed that was one of the distinct dangers of the Special Use process, if over used. He reminded the Council
there were other mechanisms, with a process more difficult, but available. He said this was one policy area that
the Council should consider carefully. He asked the Town Attorney if there was any case law that gave guidance
in this area. Mr. Farrell said no. There were general cases on the abuse of power in granting or denying a
rezoning request and there were a limited number of cases in the subdivision, but nothing that would take the
quantified or defined term of special use permit and give the Council any guidance.
Councilman Mower said the text change was rather broad and gave a lot of latitude. He asked if the Council was
considering this because there was an applicant looking for a modification and would they then change the text
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 7 of 15
back again. He said he couldn't approve this change.
Emanuel Ursu, 10660 E. Devlin Circle
He said the amendment was critical to their project and he considered it a useful tool for the Council to use in
other projects. He reminded the Council this change would only apply to non-residential projects in multi-family
zoning districts.
Lowell Allen,Terrace 3 HOA President
He said the applicant had other options available to him other than having the Council change the set backs.
Art Ursu, 10660 Devlin Circle
He said he was the property owner and he pointed out that this project would be exposed to high traffic and the
project wouldn't affect anyone. He stated the additional 8 - 12 residents that would be added would be good for
the Town and was needed.
Ron Hopley, Gunsight Dr.
He recommended that the Council deny the text change.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened the regular session.
AGENDA ITEM #11 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 00-03 APPROVING A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
ALLOWING THE TOWN COUNCIL TO APPROVE MODIFIED SET BACKS FOR NON-
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT,
CASE NUMBER ZZ00-01.
Vice Mayor Apps MOVED that the Council approve the text amendment and Councilwoman Hutcheson
SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Hutcheson stated she would not support the amendment as there were other options available and
Councilwoman Wiggishoff agreed. Director Valder confirmed for Councilman Wyman that there were other
options(the PUD and the variance process)available.
The motion was DENIED on a vote of 1 —5 with Vice Mayor Apps casting the aye vote.
AGENDA ITEM #12 — PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE
FOUNTAIN VIEW NURSING CARE CENTER, A 42,100 SQUARE FOOT NURSING,
CONVALESCENT CARE AND ASSISTED CARE FACILITY ON 2.03 ACRES LOCATED ON PLAT
207, BLOCK 1, LOTS 8 — 10 AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL LAGO BOULEVARD AND VERDE
RIVER DRIVE. THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR THE BUILDING TO
EXCEED THE 30-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND FOR THE BUILDING TO OBSERVE LESS THAN
THE REQUIRED SIDE AND STREET SIDE-YARD SET BACKS,CASE NUMBER SU99-14.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session at 8:34 p.m.
Director Valder briefly reviewed the history of the project. He stated that the applicant was asking the Council to
reauthorize his expired permit. Once they have that, they will be able to apply for a building permit and get on
with the project. Due to the fact the last item was not acted upon by Council, one of the stipulations was moot.
The applicant must conform to the existing R-4 set backs, which on the front yard (Verde River Dr) was 30-feet
or 1 '/ times the height of the building. The building was 24-feet tall and so the set back was 36-feet and
currently the site was observing a 20-foot set back. If the special use permit was approved, one of the stipulations
iiittlistir would redesign the project to a 36-foot set back on Verde River Dr. He said the applicant was not in
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 8 of 15
conformance of the rear yard set back by 3 or 4 feet and that would have to be redesigned to conform. He stated
there were now two parts to the special permit. One part was the approval of the nursing home use and the other
part was the Town Council's ability to allow the building height to exceed the 30-foot height limit for a non-
residential structure.
Director Valder reviewed some of the Planning and Zoning Commission stipulations for the special use permit.
He said the project needed to observe all of the set back regulations of the R-4 Zoning District, the applicant must
move a cooling tower out of a set back, and must comply with code enforcement actions to remove 2 — 3
truckloads of concrete blocks, which had been stored illegally. He said it was important that the Town compel
action and give the applicant 2 weeks to remove the concrete blocks or the permit would be void. He said the
applicant must follow the revegetation stipulation that was of concern to the property owners to the south of the
project and the development would have to have a landscaping plan (colors and roof materials that conform to the
Town Center Commercial standards), which would be in use across the street in the Town Center area.
Emanuel Ursu, 10660 E. Devlin Circle
He asked that the time stipulation be extended to March 1 to allow them time to remove the blocks from the site.
Kate Morgan,President of the Casa Bella HOA
She said their condominiums would be impacted by the project more than anyone else would and the residents did
not have a problem with the project
Lowell Allen,Vice President of the Terrace Phase III HOA
He stated that the project was too large for the site and expressed concern about the additional traffic it would
create.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. and reconvened the regular session.
AGENDA ITEM #13 - CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE
FOUNTAIN VIEW NURSING CARE CENTER, A 42,100 SQUARE FOOT NURSING,
CONVALESCENT CARE AND ASSISTED CARE FACILITY ON 2.03 ACRES LOCATED ON PLAT
207, BLOCK 1, LOTS 8 — 10 AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL LAGO BOULEVARD AND VERDE
RIVER DRIVE. THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR THE BUILDING TO
EXCEED THE 30-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AND FOR THE BUILDING TO OBSERVE LESS THAN
THE REQUIRED SIDE AND STREET SIDE-YARD SET BACKS, CASE NUMBER SU99-14.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff MOVED that the Council approve the special use permit application with stipulations
as presented with the additional stipulation to extend the deadline for the concrete block removal to March 1,
2000 and Councilwoman Hutcheson SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#14- PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO PERMIT
A GOLF BALL FENCE ALONG A PORTION OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE DESERT
CANYON GOLF COURSE DRIVING RANGE, AKA FINAL PLAT 401B, PARCEL "D", AN "R1-10
RUPD" ZONING DISTRICT, CASE NUMBER SU99-12.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session and opened the public hearing at 8:50p.m.
Planner Dana Burkhardt stated this was a special use permit application for a 25-foot high golf ball fence to be
located on the northwesterly area of the Desert Canyon Golf Club Driving Range. He said staff had observed the
air and golf ball situation on the range and was of the opinion that the proposed location would not serve the
complainant's needs and would be a detriment to the adjacent lot owners#45,44, and 43. He confirmed that staff
had received written objections to the fencing from those three lot owners. Councilwoman Wiggishoff asked
which lot received all the balls. Mr. Burkhardt stated that was lot #42. She asked where on the site map the
proposed fence was to be installed. He clarified what was being discussed now was the northern fencing
application, which was proposed to be next to lot #45. Councilwoman Wiggishoff asked if that lot had any
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 9 of 15
complaints. Mr. Burkhardt responded no. He said the next application to be heard would be from lot #42. He
said staff did not feel this golf ball fencing would be an effective return for the aired golf balls. Therefore, staff
and the Planning and Zoning Commission were recommending denial of the special use permit application.
tkisor
Councilman Wyman said it was his understanding that the purpose of this agenda item was not to protect lots#45
and/or #44 and it would not do anything for lot #42 other than encourage golfers to hit their balls in another
direction. He acknowledged that the homes on lots #45, 44, and 43 were well set back from the driving range.
He stated the only possibly offering would be some protection to lot#42, but would impede the views for lots#45
and 44, particularly to the east or the northeast. Mr. Burkhardt agreed that was a fair statement.
Larry Lane, 10431 N. Indian Wells Dr., (Lot#45)
He was against the proposed fencing, as it would ruin his views.
Ed Body, 16822 Nicholas Dr., (Lot#44)
He opposed the proposed fencing.
Marilyn Lane, 10431 N. Indian Wells Dr. (Lot#45)
She was opposed to the proposed fencing.
Jack Bercel,Malta Dr.
He was opposed to fencing that would break up views anywhere in Fountain Hills.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing and reconvened the regular session at 9:05 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#15 - CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO PERMIT
A GOLF BALL FENCE ALONG A PORTION OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE DESERT
CANYON GOLF COURSE DRIVING RANGE, AKA FINAL PLAT 401B, PARCEL "D", AN "R1-10
RUPD" ZONING DISTRICT,CASE NUMBER SU99-12.
Councilman Mower MOVED to deny the special use permit application as presented and Councilwoman
Wiggishoff SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#16- PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO PERMIT
A GOLF BALL FENCE ON LOT 42,BLOCK 6,FINAL PLAT 401b,AKA 16850 E. NICKLAUS DRIVE,
CASE NUMBER SU99-13.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session and opened the public hearing at 9:06 p.m.
Planner Dana Burkhardt said a golf ball fence had been erected at one time here and that the Town had required
that it be removed as it had been constructed illegally. He said the proposed location of the fencing would be in
the direct line of fire of a number of golf balls. He confirmed that the homeowners were being struck by a
number of golf balls and that staff found that a 25-foot golf ball fencing would be appropriate in this case. He
said they received the same three letters of objection from lot owners #45, #44, and #43, but staff was
recommending approval, where as the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the special use
permit application.
Councilman Mower asked how far was the house from the back lot line. Mr. Burkhardt stated the distance was up
to 27-feet at the far south corner of that house and the closest corner to the eastern property boundary was
approximately 30-32-feet. Councilman Mower asked how far the fence would be in from the lot line. Mr.
Burkhardt responded that the distance from the northern property boundary would be required to be 25-feet.
Director Valder pointed out the applicant would be in conformance with staffs stipulations. Councilman Mower
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 10 of 15
questioned if there was any limitation on the length of the fence. Director Valder responded there wasn't a
limitation on the length. However, if the Council believed it wouldn't be of any use to have it extremely long, the
Council could approve the fencing but stipulate the exact acceptable length. He felt the lengths of the two section
of fencing were appropriate to protect the home and its occupants from physical harm. Councilman Mower asked
how the view, from lot #43, would be affected by the fencing. Director Valder explained the topography of the
area and said it was also safe to assume that the proposed net would obscure at least a portion of the property
owner's view on lot#43.
Councilman Mower asked if there would be any benefit from a safety standpoint for the residents of that home if
Council stipulated the fence should be a little closer to the home. Director Valder responded that staff already
was requiring the fence be placed closer to the house. He explained that the applicant had applied for the fence to
be placed on the property line next to the track and on the property line next to the golf course. But because they
had not given staff written permission from the property owner of lot #43 to install the fencing, there was a 25-
foot set back requirement from that property line. Then there was a 10-foot wash tract so there would be a 15-foot
set back from the applicant's property line. Also,because of how the land disturbance envelope was created when
the house was built, they indicated a space between the house and the eastern property line to be a non-
disturbance area and they had maximized that out. So staff had stipulated that the net had to be within a
disturbance area on the lot so that will also make the fence closer to the house. That would mean the applicant
wouldn't have the protection of the entire yard and that they would have the 25-foot net. He said by moving the
net closer to the house, more protection would be provided for the house because the trajectory of the shots tend
to come straight down rather than line driving in. Therefore, the closer the net was to the house, the more
protection provided to the house. Councilman Mower suggested the length of the fence along the golf course
could be shortened because it was less likely to have balls coming in from that direction. Director Valder said he
felt that the length of the eastern net was fairly reasonable.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff stated she did not know on what basis the Council had to decide that the eastern fence
was too long. She deferred to the homeowner's judgment, as they would not want to make the fence any longer
than necessary, as it would also obscure their views. She did not see that the fence impacted that much whether
that leg of the fence was 25-feet or 15-feet and she did not see how that changed the affect, real or perceived, of
the neighbors. She did not want to redesign anything.
Councilwoman Hutcheson asked for clarification as to if it was the intent to protect the yard or the house.
Director Valder stated the assumption was that it would do no good to try to protect the roof of the house unless
there was some kind of horizontal netting installed. He said it was the intent to provide a safe area outside the
house where there was human activity. He acknowledged that the scope of the problem was enormous and that
there had been a long history of problems between the homeowners and the driving range. He said this problem
had been the catalysts behind staff approaching the Council with the netting amendment that would allow
residents to put up a net.
Mr. Nordin pointed out that one of the key reasons for putting this fence along this leg of the house had a lot to do
with the driveway, so the fencing was to be placed as close to the house it could reasonably be.
Councilman Wyman stated the homes on lots #45, #44, and #43 were set well back from the line drive. When
looking at lot #42, you had to have a considerable amount of sympathy because they were a target. He said
something should be considered since this family was in a very dangerous situation.
Victoria Lilly, 16830 Nicholas
She was opposed to the fence.
Joanne Body, 16822 Nicholas
She was opposed to the fence and suggested they plant trees for protection.
Marilyn Lane, 10431 N. Indian Wells
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 11 of 15
She was opposed to the fence
Larry Lane, 10431 N. Indian Wells
He was opposed to the fence
�r Karen Leuder,Lot#42
She asked the Council to consider approving the fence so they could have relief from the golf balls
Ed Body
He was opposed to the fence
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing and reconvened the regular session at 9:35 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #17 - CONSIDERATION ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO PERMIT
A GOLF BALL ENCE ON LOT 42, BLOCK 6, FINAL PLAT 401b, AKA 16850 E. NICKLAUS DRIVE,
CASE NUMBER SU99-13.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff MOVED to approve the special use permit application with stipulations as presented
and Councilman Wyman SECONDED to motion.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff said the history on this house went back a long way. She acknowledged that this was
one of the houses for which the Council had approved the golf ball fence ordinances to begin with. She stated the
reason for approving the golf ball fence ordinance was to allow the Council to respond to situations where there
was a verified need relative to the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of a house along a golf course. She
said the Leuders were receiving more golf balls than anybody should have to receive or tolerate. She expressed
her dismay at the neighbors' attitude and said the ordinance should be applied in this case. Councilman Mower
suggested that Desert Canyon Golf Course change the angle of the tee boxes for a more northeasterly direction
before going to the fence option.
Vice Mayor Apps said he was sympathetic to the property owners. He asked the Town Attorney what the Town's
liability was. Mr. Farrell responded the liability lay with the individual golfer,not the Town.
Councilman Wyman asked if the Golf Club used irons only. Mr. Valder stated that, as a result of the civil actions
the Leuders took against the operator of the driving range, he understood the judge had issued an order requiring
the driving range to do several things. One action was to apply for a special use permit as just heard by Council
and the other was to put up a 6-foot high concrete block wall, which they could do in order to get golfers to aim
more to the southeast. The other thing was to prohibit woods and make it an irons only range. He said if they
were complying with that order, he felt it would reduced the number of shots coming into the Leuder's yard. Mr.
Leuder said those actions had helped somewhat, but they were still getting a lot of golf balls. Councilman
Wyman asked if the tee boxes had been moved back further up towards Indian Wells. Director Valder said the
tee boxes varied depending when the turf gets used.
Councilman Mower confirmed that the Golf Course was enforcing the "no woods" policy. But they had not
angled the tee boxes, and with the concept of moving the boxes around, it might be worthwhile for the Desert
Canyon Golf Course to consider a terraced effect where one was angled with a foot drop so that balls were hit in a
southeast direction. He said those actions might lessen the balls that go into the Leuders' yard. He felt that was
the first step that the Council should try and if that didn't do the job then go back to the drawing board.
Director Valder explained that staff had met with representatives of the Golf Course last March and talked about
all of those things. He said the Golf Course had refused to take any action at all until the Leuders initiated their
civil suit and were ordered to do so by a judge. He agreed Councilman Mower's suggestions would help solve
some of the Leuders' problems, but he felt that because of the location of the platted lot, it was a responsibility of
the government to protect the people's health and safety. Councilman Mower said it was also the responsibility
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 12 of 15
of the Golf Course to try to avoid doing any injury to someone's property. He asked why the Golf Course had
refused to follow the suggestions that had been made to the angling of the tee boxes. Director Valder
acknowledged that the Town did not have the ability to compel the Golf Course to make those changes. There
was separate code enforcement, something that the Town Prosecutor was working on now, which had to do with
the golf balls impacting Nicholas Dr., which was a public road on the southside of the range. The conflict
between the Leuders and the Driving Range was a civil matter and one that the Town had not been inclined to
join.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff stated that in the spirit of self-reliance the Town should allow the Leuders to protect
themselves. That was what the whole ordinance was about.
Doug Williams, works at Desert Canyon
He stated the angling of the tee boxes and the use of irons on the driving range would minimize but would not
provide the Leuders with the satisfaction and relief they were looking for. He said the Golf Course was working
with the Leuders to try and find some resolution. He said most of what was ordered by the court was being done
and they wanted to try to come to an amicable solution as it was in the best interests of all.
Vice Mayor Apps said he had a problem with regulating mandates on a business but asked about the use of lower
compression ball used by consumers. Mr. Williams said using those balls was simulation but not close to what
would normally be experienced when hitting a regular golf ball.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Vice Mayor Apps- nay
Councilman Wyman - aye
Councilman Mower- nay
Councilwoman Hutcheson - nay
Councilwoman Wiggishoff— aye
Mayor Morgan- nay
The motion was DENIED with a roll call vote of 2 -4.
AGENDA ITEM #18 - CONSIDERATION OF A CUT AND FILL WAIVER APPLICATION FOR THE
FIREROCK COUNTRY CLUB PARCEL M-2, LOCATED IN THE FIREROCK COUNTRY CLUB
SUBDIVISION SOUTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD,CASE NUMBER FHCFW00-01.
Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup said this was a request by the Firerock Country Club for a cut and fill waiver for
their M-2 subdivision preliminary plat. He stated staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff MOVED to approve the cut and fill waiver as presented and Vice Mayor Apps
SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #19 - CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE 17.78 ACRE, 22-
LOT, 3-TRACT, FIREROCK COUNTRY CLUB PARCEL M-2, LOCATED IN THE FIREROCK
COUNTRY CLUB SUBDIVISION SOUTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD,CASE NUMBER S99-035.
Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup said the cut and fill waiver had just been approved and explained this was a request
for approval for the M-2 preliminary plat, which was a 22-lot, 3-tract subdivision in Phase III. He explained it
would not be coming on line for a while. He said the applicant had worked through the majority of the technical
review comments and the remaining items could be handled through the improvement plan and review process
prior to final plat. He said staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
preliminary plat.
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 13 of 15
Councilman Wyman MOVED to the preliminary plat as presented and Councilman Mower SECONDED the
motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #20 — PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 00-04 APPROVING A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
RESTRICTING THE SIZE AND HEIGHT OF BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS IN THE "C-2",
"C-3","IND-1"AND"IND-2" ZONING DISTRICTS, CASE NUMBER ZZ00-02.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session and opened the public hearing at 9:59 p.m.
Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup stated this text change would allow for the complex sign needs to become the main
standard for all other commercial signs. This ordinance would reduce the heights from 6-feet to 5-feet and
maximize the free standing signs to 24 square feet, thereby making the free standing monument signs consistent
across the board and was basically correcting text left over from the County who had a much more liberal sign
code.
Mayor Morgan closed the public hearing and reconvened the regular session at 10:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #21 - CONSIDERATION ON ORDINANCE 00-04 APPROVING A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
RSTRICTING THE SIZE AND HEIGHT OF BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGHNS IN THE "C-2",
"C-3","IND-1"AND"IND-2"ZONING DISTRICTS,CASE NUMBER ZZ00-02.
Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve Ordinance 00-04 as presented and Councilman Mower SECONDED
the motion, which CARRIED unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#22- CALL TO THE PUBLIC
No one came forward.
AGENDA ITEM#23 -ADJOURNMENT.
Councilwoman Wiggishoff MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Councilman Mower SECONDED the motion,
which CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 10:01 p.m.
r'
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 14 of 15
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By-
Sharon Morgan, ayo
ATTEST: CL4 \.L
Cassie B. Hansen,Town Clerk
./yl
PREPARED BY:
Bev Bender,Executive Assistant
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Session
rd
Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 3 of February 2000. I further certify that the
meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
th
DATED this 20 day of February 2000.
L (,44,44. 5
Cassie B. Hansen,Town Clerk
L
Town Council Regular Session 2/03/00
Page 15 of 15