HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000.0907.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE
likar FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
September 7,2000
Mayor Morgan called the regular session of the Town Council to order at 5:30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM#1 -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 REGARDING THE
TOWN VERSUS MCO PROPERTIES.
Councilwoman Ralphe MOVED that the Council convene the executive session and Councilman McNeill
SECONDED the motion, which carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM#2—RECESS THE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION AT
6:35 P.M.
Mayor Morgan recessed the executive session and convened the regular session of the Town Council at 6:30 p.m.
Following the pledge to the flag and invocation by Dennis Daniel, First Baptist Church, the roll call was
taken.
ROLL CALL -Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Sharon
Morgan, Vice Mayor Sharon Hutcheson and Councilmembers Leesa Fraverd, John Wyman, John McNeill, John
Kavanagh, and Susan Ralphe. Also present were Town Manager Paul Nordin,Town Attorney Bill Farrell, Director of
Administration/Town Clerk Cassie Hansen, Interim Town Engineer Tom Ward, and Director of Community
Niv Development Jeff Valder.
Mayor Morgan announced that at the request of Councilwoman Fraverd, Agenda Items#8 and 12 had been removed
from the consent agenda. She also stated that the Town Attorney had requested that Agenda Item#5 be continued
until the September 21, 2000 Town Council meeting. Mayor Morgan said she would read the remaining items on
the Consent Agenda but would abstain from the vote because of a perceived conflict of interest.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 3
AND 14,2000.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE ANNUAL FOUNTAIN FESTIVAL. THE
ANNUAL EVENT, SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 10 THROUGH 12, WILL RUN FROM 10:00 A.M.
TO 5:00 P.M. AND WILL REQUIRE THE CLOSURE OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD BETWEEN
STEWART VISTA AND PARKVIEW AVENUE AND THE AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS BETWEEN
SAGUARO BOULEVARD AND LA MONTANA DRIVE.
AGENDA ITEM#3- CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST SUBMITTED BY BRIAN
NELSON OF THE ARIZONA BICYCLE CLUB FOR AN ORGANIZED 96 AND 62-MILE BICYCLE
RIDE STARTING AND ENDING AT GOLDEN EAGLE PARK. THE EVENT, SCHEDULED FOR
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2000, WILL BEGIN AT 6:00 A.M. AND CONCLUDE BY 5:00 P.M. NO
STREET CLOSURES ARE REQUIRED.
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 1 of 14
AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTENSION OF PREMISE/PATIO PERMIT
SUBMITTED BY CRAIG CAPIRCHIO FOR THE ALAMO LOCATED AT 11807 NORTH SAGUARO
BOULEVARD. THE REQUEST IS TO TEMPORARILY EXTEND THE ALAMO'S CLASS 6 LICENSE
FOR ONE DAY ON SATURDAY,SEPTEMBER 9, 2000 TO AN ENCLOSED AREA ADJACENT TO THE
EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF A FIVE-YEAR LEASE WITH ONTARIO INC.; L.B.
LUKENDA FOR THE 42,000 SQUARE FOOT TOWN HALL COMPLEX LOCATED AT 16836 EAST
PALISADES BOULEVARD AT A RATE OF$8.50 PER SQUARE FOOT.
This agenda item was continued until the September 21, 2000 Town Council meeting at the request of the Town
Attorney.
AGENDA ITEM #6 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 00-18, LEVYING UPON THE ASSESSED
VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE COTTONWOODS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO TAXATION, A CERTAIN SUM UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) OF
VALUATION SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE REQUIRED IN THE
ANNUAL BUDGET,TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN PEDESTRIAN AREAS,
PARKING AND PARKWAYS,ALL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING THE 301H DAY OF JUNE,2001.
AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2000-43, ABANDONING WHATEVER
RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND
DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT
431, BLOCK 6, LOT 14, (17342 E. BACA DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 151 OF MAPS, PAGE 43
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA (RICHARD J. SAUER) EA00-11 WITH
STIPULATIONS.
AGENDA ITEM#9 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT OF TRACT C AT PUERTO DEL LAGO.
AGENDA ITEM #10 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2000-45 ACCEPTING A PORTION OF
TRACT C (TRACT C-1) FROM THE PUERTO DEL LAGO PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
AGENDA ITEM #11 - CONSIDERATION OF A REPLAT FOR FOUNTAIN HILLS FINAL PLAT 208,
BLOCK 3,COMBINING LOTS 20 & 21 INTO ONE LOT, CASE#S2000-032.
Councilman McNeill MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the
motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results.
Councilman Wyman aye
Councilman McNeill - aye
Councilwoman Hutcheson - aye
Councilwoman Fraverd- aye
Councilman Kavanagh - aye
Councilwoman Ralphe— aye
Mayor Morgan - abstained
The motion CARRIED unanimously (6-0) with a roll call vote.
AGENDA ITEM #8 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2000-44, ABANDONING WHATEVER
RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND
DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINES
OF PLAT 204, BLOCK 7, LOT 11, (17145 E. RAND DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 142 OF MAPS,
PAGE 10 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA (BARBARA SUDDERTH & AL &
MERRILL WOLFE) EA00-26.
Councilwoman Fraverd excused herself from the discussion and vote due to a conflict of interest.
Ilarr Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 2 of 14
Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED to approve Resolution 2000-44 as presented and Councilman Kavanagh
SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously (6-0).
AGENDA ITEM #12 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL REPLAT FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
BETWEEN LOTS 17A AND 17B, BLOCK 10, IN PLAT 104, LOCATED NORTH OF THE ASHBROOK
DRIVE/BAYFIELD DRIVE INTERSECTION, CASE#S2000-30.
Councilwoman Fraverd again excused herself from the discussion and vote due to a conflict of interest.
Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED to approve the final replat as presented and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED
the motion, which CARRIED unanimously (6-0).
Town Attorney Bill Farrell interjected that in order for Agenda Items #20, 21, and 22 to be moved up in the agenda
order, it would be necessary for the Council to make a motion to suspend the rules and that action would require a
majority vote of the Council. If that was received, the Council could then make a motion to continue those three
items until the September 21, 2000 Town Council meeting. Mr. Farrell explained the amendments to the zoning
ordinance provided for regulations and restrictions with regard to the lot size followed by Agenda Item#22, which
requested approval of the final replat. He stated that over the past week or two there had been continued discussions
with the property owner and staff review of these items. He said that the property owner and the Town staff would
like the Council to consider continuing these three items. He reiterated that in order to move those items up behind
Agenda Item#12 it would be necessary for the Council to make a motion and only then could the Council made a
motion to continue those items.
Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED to "suspend the rules" and move Agenda Items #20, #21, and #22 up behind
Agenda Item#12 and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously (7—0).
Charles Maxwell, representative of Bob Prather and Janice Aberason
He stated his clients asked that the Council proceed with the agenda item. He said the Planning and Zoning
Commission had unanimously approved this item and he did not feel there was any reason to delay Council action.
Marge Vistlan, 16410 Inca
She said she supported the ordinance as it was in the best interests of the Town.
Town Attorney Farrell stated that the applicant was in support of the continuance as was Community Development
Director Valder.
Councilman McNeill MOVED to continue Agenda Items #20, 21, and 22 until the September 21, 2000 Town
Council meeting and Vice Mayor Hutcheson SECONDED the motion.
Bob Frist, 16410 Inca
He asked for an explanation of why these items were being delayed.
Mr. Farrell said staff was looking to determine whether or not Ordinance 00-19 as constituted and as written would
withstand a legal challenge. Staff also wanted to make a determination as to its validity so that the Council could be
advised. He said the matter had been set for review by the Council in executive session but was unable to be
reviewed because of time constraints. He explained that when a new ordinance was drafted, staff looked at all
aspects as to whether or not the ordinance, standing by itself, was constitutionally firm. Then staff would look at it,
if challenged by specific individuals, to see if it was still constitutionally firm. He said there was such a challenge
present and that in order to give certainty to this issue, staff needed an additional two weeks.
The motion CARRIED unanimously (7—0).
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 3 of 14
AGENDA ITEM #13 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2000-42 ACTING IN SUPPORT OF THE
TOWNS OF QUEEN CREEK AND GILBERT AND THE CITY OF CHANDLER URGING THE
MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO DEFER THE PROPOSED SALE OF ANY OF
. THE 2,400 ACRES OF LAND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SAN TAN MOUNTAIN
REGIONAL PARK AND REQUEST THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSIONS AND MEETINGS WITH
QUEEN CREEK AS WELL AS PINAL COUNTY AND CITIZEN GROUPS FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF THE LAND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Town Manager Paul Nordin said he had been approached by the City Manager of Queen Creek to solicit the
Fountain Hills Town Council's support on behalf of her mayor and council for this resolution. He explained that
Chandler, Gilbert, and Queen Creek were striving to make sure that the land being described in the resolution as
adjacent to the San Tan Mountain Regional Park continued to be preserved and not sold. He stated that there was a
proposal on the table in front of the County Board of Supervisors for such a sale. He noted that between the time he
had been asked to bring this to the Fountain Hills Town Council's attention, it appeared that the three communities
had initially prevailed with the County Board of Supervisors and at least temporarily, or perhaps permanently, won
their battle. He called the City Manager of Queen Creek and asked if they would still like the Fountain Hills
Council to go forward with this resolution and she had said yes. Mr. Nordin said it was his judgment that the
Fountain Hills Council might still want to consider approving this resolution to give aid and support for Fountain
Hills' sister communities to the south. He recommended approval. He acknowledged that the critical timing was
not now present.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve Resolution 2000-42 and Vice Mayor Hutcheson SECONDED the
motion.
Councilman McNeill said this resolution spoke at length of the interests of the three communities and he expressed
why the Town should be interested in a piece of land that was approximately 50 or 60 miles from Fountain Hills.
He acknowledged that over the years there had been a number of issues that Fountain Hills faced with regard to
proposed development in McDowell Mountain Park, which would have been of considerable concern to Town
L., residents. He said he supported this resolution but felt that it was important that the County manage its parklands
appropriately. He proposed the additional language, which was specific to Fountain Hills, be added to the resolution
as follows, since it would be an indication as to why Fountain Hills was interested in other County parks:
• WHEREAS, the Town of Fountain Hills was also concerned that the County manage all of its
parklands appropriately, and
• WHEREAS, residents of the Town of Fountain Hills have had concerns in the past regarding
proposals for development in the McDowell Mountain Regional Park, including a proposal for a large
outdoor statuary display during 1999, and more recently have been concerned regarding reports that
the County might consider granting permission to locate a large cellular communications tower inside
that park's boundary, and also have concerns regarding maintaining the integrity of the park's
boundary, and
• WHEREAS, the Town of Fountain Hills urges the County to preserve the San Tan, McDowell
Mountain, and other County parks to retain their value as examples of relatively pristine Sonoran
desert.
Councilman McNeill MOVED to amend Resolution 2000-42 with the additional language as stated and
Councilman Wyman SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Ralphe stated she supported the amendment. She said it was important to protect the boundaries of
all the regional parks and to incorporate the broad picture and the history of what had been happening. She
acknowledged that Fountain Hills' residents had successfully resisted past efforts by the County to sell off part of
McDowell Mountain Park north of Fountain Hills.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked the Town Attorney if he had reviewed Councilman McNeill's language to make sure
it would fit the nature of the resolution. Mr. Farrell said yes, though he had not heard it before this evening. He
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 4 of 14
reminded the Council that he also represented the Town of Queen Creek as their legal counsel. He said the
resolution before the Fountain Hills Council was a portion of his doing. He said the mayor and council of Queen
Creek would especially accept and respect the additional language. He noted that the three communities had been
successful in holding off the sale at this time and Mr. Nordin was correct when he pointed out this was an ongoing
effort. He felt Queen Creek would appreciate the extra language and support by Fountain Hills.
Mayor Morgan called for the vote on the amendment to Resolution 2000-42, which CARRIED unanimously (7-0).
Mayor Morgan then called for the vote on the original motion to approve Resolution 2000-42 as amended with
additional language, which CARRIED unanimously (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM #14 - PRESENTATION/UPDATE BY KATHY SENSEMAN, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE, AND SAM O'CONNELL, LOCAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE
FROM SOUTHWEST GAS ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND FUTURE LINE EXTENSIONS IN THE
COMMUNITY.
Kathryn Senseman said they had been approached to speak to the Council about alternative fuels. She pointed out
that the packet of material, which had been distributed to them before the meeting, probably went into more
specifics than they wanted to get into at this moment. But, she felt it was a good outline of what incentives are
available, as well as an idea of what would be entailed if the Town would be interested in putting in their own
alternative fuel station. Ms. Senseman stated that Mr. Ward and Mr. Sam O'Connell (Southwest Gas Corporation
Sales Representative) had discussed how Southwest Gas could facilitate the Town's interest and put in a fueling
station. She pointed out that Southwest Gas did not own or operate any fueling stations but did want to provide the
gas for it. She then turned the presentation over to Mr. O'Connell.
Mr. O'Connell gave a quick overview on how Southwest Gas extended facilities. He said it was a business decision
and based upon economics. He acknowledged that they were governed by the Arizona Corporation Commission so
each time that Southwest Gas looked at a new job, they had to cover the same process. He said what would affect
ram, the Town would be where it was placed. He pointed out that the recent line extension had come down Palisades.
There had been a lot of questions at that time and he hoped that now that it was over with people would look back
on the process as a positive experience,just as Southwest Gas did. He said that from that line extension, three miles
of pipe had been run at a cost of$280,000 to Southwest Gas. He said Southwest Gas had not requested, because of
the extension policy, any money from Fountain Hills or the customers who would be tying into it. Southwest Gas
had made gas available to 261 home lots, one nursing home, ten restaurants, two dry cleaners, and two supermarkets
and still had ten more accounts that were holding. He said that was an example of how one small project could
grow. He said they try not to work in the streets and prefer to work in back of sidewalks and utility easements.
With regard to the Town Center project, they had made arrangements for the work to be completed within an area
before the construction was done which would then not affect area traffic.
Mr. Nordin said that staff continues to work with Southwest Gas on their line extension policy to see if a
compressed natural gas station can be brought to the Town for Town vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #15 - PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT FEE
PLAN PREPARED BY RICK GIARDINA & ASSOCIATES WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF
REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.
Mr. Nordin said there had been a lot of discussion relative to whether or not Fountain Hills should impose impact
fees or development fees. He pointed out that the Council was aware that Rick Giardina and Associates had been
engaged to study the issue and come back with some preliminary studies and recommendations. He referred to the
report before the Council provided by Rick Giardina and Associates. He clarified that staff was not asking the
Council to take action this evening. This was to be the first of several public hearings on this issue. He said staff
would continue to work with Giardina and Associates to bring to the Council in the coming weeks a firm positive
recommendation that the Town impose an impact fee. He then introduced Mr. Tom Pippen, of Rick Giardina and
Associates, as the primary preparer of the report.
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 5 of 14
Mr. Pippen introduced his associate Jim Carpenter. Mr. Pippen thanked staff for their help, recognizing the
contribution by Tom Ward and Jeff Valder. Mr. Pippen assured the Council that the methodology was one that was
tested throughout the western United States. It was the same methodology that was used in Chandler and Gilbert
and the same methodology represented and defended to the development community. He explained what would
happen next if Fountain Hills adopted impact fees. Mr. Pippen asked the Council to express any concerns or
questions after the presentation. He said they would then count on staff, particularly Town Attorney Bill Farrell, to
do a final review of their document to make sure they were comfortable moving forward. He stated that on
Wednesday, September 13th, Mr. Valder had arranged a meeting with the building and development community
where they would be available to make a presentation and answer any questions that they might have. After that
meeting, Mr. Pippen said his firm would be looking for direction from the Council and staff as to how quickly they
will be required to come back. He said their staff felt this report before the Council tonight was essentially done
and they now wanted to hear the Council's comments. He assured the Council that his firm could move very
rapidly from this point on.
Mr. Pippen explained that he would be talking about General Fund Impact fees, in particular Town Marshal, Streets,
Parks, Open Space, and general government facilities. He said Mr. Carpenter would later talk about school as they
were somewhat up in the air. He noted that when staff had first worked with Mr. Giardina they had worked with
utility fees.
Mr. Pippen drew their attention to the definition of impact fees as listed on page 1-2 of the report. He explained that
Mr. Carpenter would then go through the general government fees in detail and describe what their firm goes
through to make their conclusions. He said Mr. Carpenter would then conclude his portion of the presentation with
a summary of all the fee categories. He briefly covered three aspects or cardinal rules of development/impact fees :
1. Impact fees are only charged to new development. Existing residents and existing businesses
do not pay impact fees as they are already served by the Town's infrastructure.
2. Emphasize support infrastructure. Fees can not be used for operations.
3. Proportionate share of the capital cost for that infrastructure.
Mr. Carpenter explained that what they were trying to do with these fees was to recover the costs for infrastructure
to serve new growth. He said there were really three types of capital spending:
1. Repair and replacement of facilities
2. Enhancement of facilities
3. Expansion of facilities
Mr. Carpenter stated that the third category was the only one that was eligible for recovery through impact fees. He
said the Town had the responsibility to fund other ways. The third one could be funded through impact fees,
specifically to serve new growth. He explained that they were trying to figure out what the current service levels
were so that they could calculate an appropriate amount to charge for expansion of facilities for new growth.
Mr. Carpenter referred their attention to the table pictured on page 6-2. He explained this table outlines how their
firm calculated the fee for general government and public buildings. He said they first tried to determine what was
the Town's current service level of general government and public buildings. He said to do that they had to figure
out what type of infrastructure the Town had for general government and how much had been spent to develop it.
He noted that those costs were then inflated using the engineering news record, which was a standard construction
cost inflamer. Mr. Carpenter stated their firm had calculated that figure to be $5.1 million of infrastructure in
general government. He stated that the next step would be to adjust those numbers to reflect only new growth
service. He reviewed that the Town could only collect money for equity held in buildings. He noted that the leased
space could not be included for a fee basis. Another adjustment was to look at the type of capital infrastructure to
make sure they were only applicable to that category. He directed the Council's attention to the last row, which
showed the cost of developing this fee study and stated that only 13% of that total was appropriate to charge to
general government and public building. He pointed out that after the adjustments were made Fountain Hills had
$4.7 million of infrastructure for general government.
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 6 of 14
Mr. Carpenter outlined how they calculate that money into fee development. He explained they tried to understand
how much of the $4.7 million infrastructure was devoted to residential uses and how much was devoted to
commercial uses in the community, which was typically calculated on a square footage basis. By working with
kiliw Director Valder they had come up with 93% of the total built square footage in residential buildings and 7% in
commercial and industrial or other types of buildings. Using those calculations he reviewed the fees as outlined on
page 9-1 of the report:
$3,477—residential unit
$3,180—multifamily unit
$2.35 sq. ft.—commercial unit
$0.91 sq. ft. —industrial unit
Mr. Carpenter reviewed that these fees were, in their estimation, the maximum legally allowable development fees
that the Town could charge. He pointed out that they would need to know if the Council wanted to charge the
maximum amount or a lesser amount. He noted that school fees were not described in this report as those fees were
postponed given current litigation and also pending the outcome of the growth referendum. He explained they
would need to wait for the outcome of these actions in order to advise the Town if school fees could be charged.
He explained that they projected the Town could collect $15.3 million in revenues over the next 20-year time period
based upon numbers provided by Director Valder, which could be applied towards capital infrastructure for new
growth.
Councilwoman Fraverd said she had found the report enlightening. She said she had been of the opinion that the
Town would be basing fees on what the Council would like to see, not on what infrastructure the Town already had
in place. She reiterated what she had heard: was that for communities, who already had quite a bit of infrastructure,
their impact fees were higher. She inquired if a community really didn't have much infrastructure (for example, if
the community leased their offices and had no other buildings) their impact fees for that particular general
government would be very small. Mr. Carpenter acknowledged that in that situation it would be zero. He reviewed
that development fees must recover the cost of only capital infrastructure and if the community was leasing, it was
not a capital expenditure. She asked if it were true the more the community had, the more the community could
law levy as far as impact fees. Mr. Carpenter said that was correct. Councilwoman Fraverd asked what impact the new
Community Center and the Library/Museum would have. Would the Council have to revisit this issue in a few
years if the Council wanted to raise the fees. Mr. Carpenter said impact fees could only be charged for the equity
the community had in a building, because as debt was issued, the people moving in would be paying off that debt in
the future through their property taxes and they could not be charged twice. He explained that since the
library/museum was going to be debt funded, and the Town hadn't paid any of the equity down on that, it couldn't
be included in the basis for the fee now. In five years, when the Town had accumulated equity in that building, the
Town would have a service standard for the library/museum for however much equity was held. At that point, a
library fee could be imposed to recover those fees from development. He said the Town would want to reconsider
those fees at that time.
Mr. Pippen added there was another approach to calculating impact fees for some communities that have well
developed improvement plans. He reviewed that when their firm first sat down with staff and discussed the process,
they had decided there was better data and it would be a more defensible study if the equity approach were taken.
He stated that over the next several years, as the Town developed CIPs for what major capital investments the Town
was going to make, it was absolutely possible to revisit this and even change the methodology as you go.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked what was the average number of years between reviews. Mr. Pippen said it was a
two step process. He said communities would review their fees every year and that the community would inflate
these fees according to some type of cost index. He reiterated that they use the ENR index, which was pretty
common practice. He explained that just as annual maintenance the community would update it by 3% or 5% and
then every 3 to 5 years the community would take a comprehensive look at the CIPs. He noted that Mr. Farrell
might suggest something different for Fountain Hills. It was entirely at the discretion of the Council as to how often
the fees were updated.
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 7 of 14
Councilman Wyman clarified that in a sense the community was redeeming a proportionate share of the equity in a
town that existed and if there was no equity another methodology could be used for calculation purposes. Otherwise
there would be no equity to redeem. Mr. Pippen agreed that was true and referred to the case of Gilbert. Gilbert
had leased almost all of their public buildings and had a very low service standard in terms of infrastructure. Mr.
Pippen said Gilbert was providing a service standard but it was out of their operation budget. He explained that
Gilbert was getting ready to review their fees because they are just now developing some CIPs.
Councilwoman Ralphe said she believed that water treatment facilities would be best owned and operated by
municipalities. She acknowledged that Fountain Hills had a privately owned water company and she was not
suggesting that was unwise or inappropriate at this time. She pointed out that the Town at one time had considered
buying the local Water Company and might consider that issue again at some point in the future. She noted that it
would be a very expensive purchase. She asked if that purchase could be added in at some point. Mr. Pippen
responded he was not an expert in this area and answered that generally yes, the costs to acquire water treatment
plants or expanding those plants could be considered in impact calculations. He reminded the Council that if the
Council did buy that plant and it served many of the existing residents then that would be a community wide
responsibility. It would only be the portion of whatever treatment capacity that the Town was buying for growth of
Fountain Hills that could be folded into the impact fees.
Mr. Farrell said that was an excellent question and was at the heart of the issue with Apache Junction (A.J.) and the
homebuilder's association in the development fees for schools. He interjected that A.J. did not provide the service.
He explained that the Arizona statute on development fees stated that it must be the cost to the municipality of
providing the necessary public services. He stated that in A.J. they tried to say that there were costs to the
municipality in providing educational services. He said that was where the heart of their argument lay. If the trial
court's decision was ultimately affirmed, then Fountain Hills could visit those issues for services that were not
currently provided,but would have to be a cost or an impact on the Town. His legal advice would be to wait for the
pending the citizen's growth initiative passage, for change in the law, or for a favorable court decision before going
forward with the issue of sanitary, water, sewer, and school based impact fees. He said he would report back to the
Council at the second meeting in November.
ilb' Councilman Kavanagh stated this study and discussion had cleared up a lot of misconceptions that people had
labored under for years concerning impact fees. He said residents had thought that impact fees were a cash cow that
would solve all of Fountain Hills' problems and it was obvious that it wouldn't by the revenues projected. He
pointed out that many people had believed that impact fees were a way to make future residents pay their fair share
of what the rest of the residents had already built, even though the rest had only lived here for two years. He noted
that these fees were calculated on the additional infrastructure that the new residents would require to service their
needs. He viewed another misconception that impact fees were going to make the rich residents pay more that any
other resident. He said some had thought that impact fees would be based on a percentage of the property's value
that was built. Councilman Kavanagh remarked that the same amount would be paid whether or not Bill Gates built
a $10 million dollar mansion or a newly married couple bought a starter house. He felt those were some sobering
realities. Another point to keep in mind when discussing impact fees/developer fees was that these were not really
developer fees. Almost all, if not every penny, of the impact fee would be passed on to whomever bought the
house. He did not know how many developers would absorb the fee but essentially what was being discussed was
taxing the future residents. He wanted to look carefully at the formulas to assure it was done fairly.
Mr. Pippen agreed implementing impact fees did go into the cost of housing or a lease rate with a small part coming
from the developer/builder. He said it was their experience that another fee category existed on raw land prices. He
explained it was common for builders/developers to have a letter of intent to acquire land and to lock up parcels.
He said in other communities where they had done development fees, once those fees go into effect then
builders/developers were armed with some negotiating tools when trying to secure raw land because that raw land
was no longer buildable. It was buildable once those fees were paid. He posed that it was their experience that not
all fees went into the home price but also came from the raw land.
Councilman Kavanagh asked how their calculations would have been affected if they had used a 10 or 25-year
buildout time. Mr. Pippen responded that the timing didn't have any affect on the per unit cost as they were only
`�✓ Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 8 of 14
looking at per unit. He said that what would be affected would be the estimates that Mr. Carpenter had given the
Council: the total revenues collected. He further explained that they had used 20-years because those were figures
that staff was comfortable with and had developed to interact with MAG and regional growth plan.
Councilman Kavanagh was uncomfortable with the calculations in how much the fee would be. The firm had
looked at current level of service, which dealt with monies expended on all past projects. He asked if grant money
received by the Town had been excluded in those calculations. Mr. Pippen responded they were not of the opinion
that grant equity had to be excluded. They had looked at the Town's equity and he would say more power to the
Town if that equity came from grants. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the impact fees would be adjusted downward
if the Town discovered in the future that half of the money budgeted to be spent on parks had come from grants so
that those people weren't paying for expenses not incurred.
Mr. Farrell replied that the ordinance that the Council would adopt at the time would set a specific time limit and
will have not only an offset mechanism, but also a refund mechanism. If the Town continued the acquisition of
cash to pay for capital improvements, it did not have to affect these impact fund accounts as they could be refunded.
If a developer came to the Town with a proposal to provide something in the way of parks and recreation, library,
street, school, or police, then the Town could exempt them from the fee at the time that the building permit was
issued. Mr. Farrell acknowledged there was a give and take and an outward limit on the period of time in which the
Town could maintain the money and a refund mechanism.
Councilman Kavanagh asked who would receive the refund, the developer or the homebuyer? Mr. Farrell
responded that technically the person who pays the fee was whoever applied for the building permit. The person
who would receive the refund would be the person who owned the property at the time the refund was made. In
theory, Mr. Farrell said the current property owner would have purchased the previous owner's position.
Councilman Wyman asked why the Town should consider a refund when there was no guarantee that the grant
would be available to maintain the level of service. Mr. Pippen responded to Councilman Wyman's comment by
stating that every 3 to 5 years they recommended reviewing the population and equity numbers. If in five years
there were 10,000 more residents, but the infrastructure hadn't kept up and the cost per unit (impact fee) was lower,
limy then there was a flaw in the system. He said by the manner in which the fees had been calculated, that should not
happen. Mr. Pippen stated that as the unit cost of the equity increased, the impact fee should also increase.
Vice Mayor Hutcheson said the report was interesting and very enlightening. She noted that up to $800,000 a year
was a significant amount of money for the Town to recover. She pointed out that the new residents would not be
paying for what was already provided but only for new services as they go along. She acknowledged other
communities across the valley and state had realized the value of imposing development fees and felt it time that
Fountain Hills also consider it. She thanked them for their report.
Councilman McNeill said he had come into the meeting having a number of questions but now felt he understood
the issue better. He said that if in a year or two the Town had a more refined capital-spending plan for the
community, the Council might want to revisit this issue and use a different method of calculation. He referred to
the square footage calculation in Section #2 of the report. He said it had made certain assumptions as to the size of
an average single family residence. He questioned what the relevance was and if it would be possible to more
accurately measure what Fountain Hills' average single family residence was rather than use the national average
and how that would affect the outcome. Councilman McNeill surmised that there was a pie with a certain amount
of dollars and that the square footage probably had to do with how the pie was split up. Mr. Carpenter said that
was correct as the pie allocated the cost among residential and non-residential uses.
Slaw Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 9 of 14
AGENDA ITEM, #16 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 00-15, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, SECTION 9.02, TO ALLOW FOR A SPECIAL
EVENT FACILITY AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE, IF CERTAIN
CRITERIA ARE MET, CASE NUMBER Z2000-11.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 7:35
p.m.
Director Valder said staff had become interested in special event facilities at clubhouses last fall when they were
having some problems at the Eagle Mountain Golf Course. Eagle Mountain had put up a white special event tent
that was left up for several months. In the process of taking care of that problem, staff found that the Town might
want to take a look at special event facilities at clubhouses both in terms of structures that house them and other
matters relating to them, such as hours of operation and parking. He pointed out that clubhouses tended to be in
close proximity to residential uses such as the Eagle Mountain clubhouse. Staff wanted to make sure that if the
operators of a golf course wanted to get into the business of hosting special events, the Town had some type of
control as to how the adjacent residential users were impacted. Director Valder said staff had worked closely with
representatives of the Eagle Mountain Golf Club to put together these regulations. These regulations were initially
aimed at making sure that if a golf course operator wanted to have a special event facility, that it was not a tent or
some kind of a structure that would be objectionable to nearby residential users. The regulations would require that
the event would be housed in a structure that looked like a clubhouse so that it wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb.
He said the meetings with Eagle Mountain representatives went well. Staff was able to put together a set of
regulations that not only addressed the architecture and related items, but also the hours of operations, parking, and
programs to make sure when these special facilities were used that they would not negatively impact those around
them.
Director Valder said that later in the process staff had a request from the operator of the FireRock Country Club
who felt that because of some prior understandings that he thought he had with the Town, that they were exempted
from the regulations. The operator of FireRock said that the clubhouse had been planned with a special event lawn
that staff saw when FireRock was presenting that project to the Council. He said it was their understanding that the
limited use of special event tents was part of their vision for the operation for that clubhouse. Director Valder
explained he had put together a small amendment to Section 7a where it talked about the prohibition of tents or the
use of tents to house special events. The language change stated that tents would be permitted if their use were
permitted with a development agreement. He directed their attention to the end of the agreement where it noted that
if there were things that later on in the process that needed to be worked out, there was a Town representative
identified in that paragraph who would talk with the property owner and work things out. Director Valder noted
that the proposed alternative ordinance language would give the Town representative, who was the Town Manager,
the ability to say it was a known or accepted use for tents to be a part of that project for special events. Then the
Town would allow that special event to occur. Director Valder stated that staff was recommending approval of the
alternative version of Ordinance 00-15.
Councilman Kavanagh suggested a minor change. He said, regarding Section 7c, it had occurred to him that the
wording Holiday might be unnecessarily restrictive, as there might be a situation where it was a non-holiday and it
was appropriate to extend the hours to midnight. In as much as the Community Development Director could say no
and prevent it from becoming an abusive or frivolous use of some evenings, it seemed to him it would allow for
more flexibility and still allow control of the situation.
Director Valder stated that the intent was to make it so that if it was a weekday (school night) and a holiday, let the
event go until midnight. If there was a holiday on a Friday and an event was planned for the preceding Thursday,
the intent was to make it so that the Director could allow that event. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the wording
would have to be changed to allow that to happen. Director Valder agreed the wording would have to be changed.
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 10 of 14
Mayor Morgan asked if the same intent wouldn't be there if the word holiday were to be changed to event.
Councilman Kavanagh proposed that dropping the word holiday would accomplish the same thing. Director Valder
noted that the Planning Commission had felt there needed to be some type of a hard ceiling with extensive
discussion on hours of operation. Mayor Morgan asked what was the definition of a holiday. Director Valder said
if he were to make the interpretation, he would use the scheduled ones observed by the Town and defined in the
Town Code. Mayor Morgan said the term holiday could cause some problems, as she did not think that the Town
observed all the legal holidays or all holidays. Director Valder stated that issue could be clarified. Councilman
Kavanagh said he was comfortable leaving the decision up to the Community Development Director to deal with
these events and just strike the word "holiday".
Mr. Nordin agreed staff could change the ordinance wording to allow approval of these events at the Community
Development Director's discretion and to strike the word "holiday" as discussed. Mr. Farrell proposed striking "on
holidays that occur on Sunday through Thursday evenings".
Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 7:50 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #17 - CONSIDERATION ORDINANCE 00-15 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, SECTION 9.02, TO ALLOW FOR A SPECIAL EVENT
FACILITY AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE, IF CERTAIN CRITERIA
ARE MET,CASE NUMBER Z2000-11.
Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to adopt the alternate form of Ordinance 00-15 as proposed by staff with the
deletion of the words "However, on holidays that occur on Sunday through Thursday evenings", and Councilman
Wyman SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Fraverd stated, as a former member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Director Valder's
comment was right on target. She stated that the wording "holiday"tended to limit the requests that the Community
Development Director might get for additional evening events that might run until midnight. She stated that with
the language change the Council had now opened the interpretation up to anything and everything. Councilwoman
Fraverd stated that now the decision would fall on his shoulder as to "pick and choose" what would be deemed
appropriate. She wished there was a middle ground as she felt it was now wide open to anyone to go until midnight
and that all the public had to do was to ask. Mayor Morgan disagreed, stating the wording was sufficient as is.
Councilman Kavanagh proposed that the Community Development Director could come back to the Council to
reinsert the word "holiday"if abuses occurred.
The motion CARRIED unanimously (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM#18 - PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GUEST HOUSE
TO BE LOCATED AT 15334 GOLDEN EAGLE BOULEVARD, AKA PLAT 505A, BLOCK 1, LOT 8,
CASE NUMBER SU2000-03.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 7:53
p.m.
Director Valder said the property owners had applied for a special use permit for a guesthouse on their property. He
explained that it was a zoning requirement that, prior to the approval of a guesthouse, the property owners must
obtain a special use permit from the Town. He stated that part of the process was to post a zoning sign in their front
yard and mail a notice to every property owner within 300 feet of the property. He said staff had placed several
quarter page public notice ads in the local newspaper. Director Valder said the application met the Town's
requirements for size and location of the guesthouse and staff recommended approval.
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 11 of 14
Valerie Frost, 15138 E. Golden Eagle Blvd.
She said she lived next door to applicant and she did not have any problem with allowing the special use permit.
She stated that she and her husband offered their support for the guesthouse.
Now
Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 7:56 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #19 - CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GUESTHOUSE
TO BE LOCATED AT 15334 GOLDEN EAGLE BOULEVARD, AKA PLAT 505A, BLOCK 1, LOT 8,
CASE NUMBER SU2000-03.
Councilwoman Ralphe MOVED to approve the Special Use Permit as presented and Vice Mayor Hutcheson
SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously (7-0).
Agenda Items#20-22 were continued until the September 21, 2000 Town Council meeting.
AGENDA ITEM #20 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 00-19 AMENDING CHAPTERS 5 AND 10
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS BY PROVIDING
ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS REGARDING LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH
FOR PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY-ZONED LOTS SO THAT RE-SUBDIVIDED SINGLE-FAMILY-
ZONED LOTS WOULD BE CONSISTENT IN SIZE AND WIDTH OF EXISTING PLATTED LOTS IN
THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY,CASE NUMBER Z2000-13.
AGENDA ITEM #21 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 00-19 AMENDING CHAPTERS 5 AND 10
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS BY PROVIDING
ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS REGARDING LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH
FOR PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY-ZONED LOTS SO THAT RE-SUBDIVIDED SINGLE-FAMILY-
ZONED LOTS WOULD BE CONSISTENT IN SIZE AND WIDTH OF EXISTING PLATTED LOTS IN
THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, CASE NUMBER Z2000-13.
AGENDA ITEM #22 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL REPLAT FOR PLAT 203, BLOCK 9, LOT 9=
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF INCA AND MANITOU DRIVES TO SUBDIVIDE THE
LOT INTO TWO LOTS, CASE NUMBER S2000-024.
AGENDA ITEM #23 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 00-20 AMENDING SECTIONS 12.02 ( C )t
12.05 AND 12.06 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS SO THAT
GAS STATIONS (FUEL DISPENSING STATIONS) AND CONVENIENCE STORES ARE ONLY
PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CASE NUMBER Z2000-10.
Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 7:56
p.m.
Director Valder said that if someone wanted to construct a gas station or a convenience store, and owned C-2 or C-3
rezoned property, there would be no special permits required by the Town in order to construct either of those two
uses. He said it was the Town's understanding that there was a piece of property on Shea Boulevard where the
property owners were actively marketing for a gas station. He said it was in an area where there were already a few
gas stations and likely a third one, if and when the Target center was built. Staff felt that the Council might want to
enable themselves to further regulate how many service stations and/or convenience stores would be located in
Town, especially along more congested areas of Town like the Shea corridor. Director Valder said this text
amendment would make convenience stores and service stations only permitted within the C-2 and C-3 Zoning
Districts by Special Use Permit. Otherwise, if a property owner not within those zoning districts wanted to
construct one of those two uses, they would have to convince the Council that it would be in the Town's best
interests to do so. He stated that staff recommended approval.
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 12 of 14
Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 7:58 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #24 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 00-20 AMENDING SECTIONS 12.02 ( C ),
12.05 AND 12.06 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS SO THAT
GAS STATIONS (FUEL DISPENSING STATIONS) AND CONVENIENCE STORES ARE ONLY
PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT, CASE NUMBER Z2000-10.
Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve Ordinance 00-20 as presented and Vice Mayor Hutcheson
SECONDED the motion.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked if this text amendment would apply to the Shea corridor project that the public would
be voting on September 12th should that referendum pass and the property owner wanted to build a gas station.
Director Valder responded no it would not because that property, if rezoned, would place it into a C-2 P.U.D.
Zoning District. He explained that this amendment would only cover the C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts. He stated
that when a P.U.D. was formed, a new zoning district was created. If the Council wanted to include the proposed
Target property, staff would need to change the text to read C-2, C-3, and specific P.U.D.s, which would be listed
by case number. He explained that would make the text change applicable to that or any other land that had a
tailored commercial zoning district.
Councilwoman Fraverd asked if she could amend this motion so that it did apply specifically to the Target property.
Director Valder said it could be done, but staff would have to readvertise before Council could take action on that
item.
Mr. Nordin proposed that the Council take action on this ordinance and that a separate ordinance could be drafted at
a later time addressing the Target property.
Councilman Kavanagh asked what practical control did this ordinance place in the Council's hands in terms of
regulating gas stations. Director Valder said it would place the burden on the property owner to convince the
Council that a gas station and/or a convenience store would be an appropriate use at a certain location. He pointed
out that the Town already had the requirement that for a non-residential project the property owner would have to
get site plan approval. He stated that the property owner would have had to go to the Planning and Zoning
Commission to at least have site plan approval on something like this. Because of the amount of traffic,congestion,
and the unattractive nature of uses that sometimes occur at service stations, staff felt that if the Council wanted to
have a greater control that the Council would have that ability with this proposed ordinance.
Mr. Nordin pointed out that if the Council passes a special use permit for uses such as this, it gave the Council what
he felt was an additional legislative level of control. He said a rezoning also gave the Council that additional level
of control. He noted it gave the Council the ability to take a look at general health, safety, and welfare concerns that
the Council did not have prior to the adoption of a special use permit process. He said it gave the Council a
significant amount of legislative control that was not presently there without the special use permit language.
Councilman Kavanagh asked if this would also allow the Council the ability to enter into discussions with the
applicant concerning the number of pumps, lighting, architecture, and those types of things. Mr. Farrell agreed it
would.
Councilman McNeill expressed his desire to see the Council exercise some control over these types of high traffic
facilities. He also recognized that Councilwoman Fraverd's question was a good one. If the Council was going to
expand the scope of Council view in one area of Shea, then the Council probably should think about whether or not
it would be done in similar areas just down the street.
Mr. Nordin reiterated his suggestion that if the Council wished to take action on this item this evening it would
indeed institute that level of control for the instances presented (C-2 and C-3 zoning districts) and the control put in
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 13 of 14
place. If the Council wished to sponsor an additional amendment then, of course, that could be done. Councilman
McNeill stated he would like to move forward with what was on the table tonight.
Councilman Wyman asked by definition of a P.U.D. if the Council didn't already have Council control. And if so.
why did the Council need something other that that which was in place. Director Valder replied that the P.U.D. that
was referred to was the Target P.U.D. Councilman Wyman acknowledged he understood that. Director Valder
explained that the Council already acted on that issue. By virtue of the Council's approval, the Council had already
said that a gas station on that site was permitted. Councilman Wyman agreed and asked what they would be trying
to protect.
Councilwoman Fraverd answered that that P.U.D. had been an action voted on by the previous Council.
Councilman Wyman asked if that prior action could be changed. Director Valder replied it could.
Mayor Morgan called for the vote on the motion, which CARRIED unanimously (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM#25- CALL TO THE PUBLIC.
No one came forward.
AGENDA ITEM#26-ADJOURNMENT.
Councilman McNeill MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion, which
CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
TOWN OUNTAI ILLS
By 4k
Sharon Morgan, Mayor 7
ATTEST: �i L
Cassie B. Hansen,
Director of Administration/Town Clerk
PREPARED BY: } . ,{ '' ` 1j�
Bev Bender, Executive Assistant
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular and
Executive Session Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 7th day of September 2000.
I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 21st day of September 2000.
Cassie B. Hansen,
Director of Administration/Town Clerk
Town Council Regular and Executive Session 9/07/00
Page 14 of 14