Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000.1019.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL October 19,2000 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. Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED that the Council convene the executive session and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion, which carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#2-RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION Mayor Morgan recessed the executive session at 6:12 p.m. and convened the regular session of the Town Council at 6:30 p.m. Following the pledge to the flag and the invocation by Pastor Don Lawrence from Christ's Church of Fountain Hills, 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 Development Jeff Valder. Mayor Morgan read A.R.S. §38-431-01 G "Public comment is permitted not required on matters not listed on the agenda but must be within the jurisdiction of the Council". AGENDA ITEM #1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5,21 AND OCTOBER 5 2000. AGENDA ITEM#2 - CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY KENNETH BOWMAN FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST 58 LOCATED AT 16850 EAST AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS. THE LICENSE APPLICATION IS FOR A BUILDING FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FALL FESTIVAL ON FRIDAY, SATURDAY (9:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.) AND SUNDAY (10:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M.), NOVEMBER 10 THROUGH 12,2000. AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST SUBMITTED BY GLORIA OWENS FOR THE FOUNTAIN HILLS WOMEN'S CLUB FOR THEIR ANNUAL HOME TOUR, BOUTIQUE, LUNCHEON, BAKE SALE AND RAFFLE. THE EVENT, SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2000 FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M., WILL BE HELD AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER, 11445 N. SAGUARO, AND VARIOUS HOMES IN THE COMMUNITY. NO STREET CLOSURES WILL BE REQUIRED. AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE 44- UNIT, 2.644± ACRE PLAZA DEL LAGO CONDOMINIUMS, LOCATED AT 16715 E. EL LAGO L. BOULEVARD,CASE NUMBER S2000-034. Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 1 of 22 they were opposing his application. He pointed out that in the immediate area of five houses surrounding his property, only one complained. Mr.Matiello contended that he had complied with everything asked of him. Mayor Morgan inquired how many home businesses were located in Fountain Hills. Director of Administration Cassie Hansen responded that there were in excess of 400 home occupation businesses. Mayor Morgan pointed out that home based businesses were not unique. Councilwoman Ralphe asked if the chemicals were to be stored off premises and the only home occupation involved the computer was a home office, would a permit still be required for this business. Planner Burkhardt responded no. Director Valder continued that if the truck were to be stored on the premises and the pesticides were kept on the truck, the answer would be yes. If the truck was parked at the same place where he stored his chemicals so that the pesticides would not be on the premises, then the answer would be no. Councilman Kavanagh asked the applicant to confirm his earlier statement that he had decided to remove all pesticides and chemicals from the home and store them off site. Councilman Kavanagh then asked if the truck were to be parked at his home and would it be devoid of all chemicals. Mr. Matiello replied he had not gotten that far in his planning and said it was open for discussion. Councilman Kavanagh concurred with Councilwoman Ralphe and proposed that if the chemicals were kept at another storage area all the time, the applicant could then withdraw his application for the special use permit, as it wouldn't be necessary. Mr. Matiello noted that before he had started the special use permit process he had inquired of Planning and Zoning that if he did not store chemicals on site, did he need this permit. He had been told yes, he still needed the permit. He explained that he had been confused, as he had not seen the need to undergo this process if he was storing the chemicals off site. He said he was at this Council meeting only because he had been told he had to do it. He stated that he had paid the fees involved with the special use permit process for the luxury of having the chemicals stored in his garage. Councilman Kavanagh acknowledged that the applicant could request the Council vote on this issue. But he advised the applicant to withdraw his request for the pesticide permit because he was willing to store it elsewhere. He noted that he had not heard any objection to the applicant doing his office work in the home. Councilman Kavanagh suggested that with respect to any other use wanted in that house, he suggested that this issue be tabled. Councilman Kavanagh stated that then the applicant could spend a few weeks talking to and reassuring his neighbors that the other use wouldn't impact them negatively. He would do this in the hopes of having it would go through the process smoothly without opposition. He felt that because the chemical issue had upset many people, he did not know if it would pass tonight. Mr. Matiello pointed out that this was a large process to go through unnecessarily and asked why he was advised to complete it. He said he could have been operating his business a month ago. Councilman Kavanagh pointed out there seemed to be some miscommunication. Mr. Matiello felt his wife's business should stand on its own. Councilman Wyman pointed out that Mr. Matiello's letter of September 12th, 2000, addressed to the Community Development Department, stated he intended to run it out of his home and that the pesticides would be in a controlled environment and securely locked up. Councilman Wyman did not see how Mr. Matiello had been mislead if he had intended to have those chemicals at the home. He felt that the Community Development Department had been correct in their request for the permit. Mr. Matiello said that the process changed after he started the process. Councilman Wyman said that the situation changed for all in that sense. Councilman Wyman clarified that if Mr. Matiello was now saying that he would keep chemical off site and that was different than what the Planning Department heard when Mr. Matiello had made the request. Mr. Matiello responded that he had prepared that letter after he found out that the permit process was still required. Mr. Matiello reiterated that he had inquired if storing the chemicals off-site would remove the need for the permit process. Councilman Kavanagh asked for clarification that Mr. Matiello was withdrawing his application. Mayor Morgan asked Mr. Matiello if he wanted to pursue this issue by having the Council vote on this issue. Mr. Matiello replied Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 3 of 22 AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE LA LOMA 4 AT EAGLE MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS, UNITS 55 THROUGH 82 AND TRACT "E" OF THE LA LOMA AT Loy EAGLE MOUNTAIN CONDOMINIUMS,CASE NUMBER S2000-038. Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Councilman Wyman SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results. Councilman Kavanagh - aye Councilwoman Ralphe— aye Councilman Wyman aye Councilman McNeill - aye Vice Mayor Hutcheson- aye Mayor Morgan - aye Councilwoman Fraverd - aye The motion CARRIED unanimously with a roll call vote. AGENDA ITEM # 6 - PUBLIC HEARING ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXTERMINATION BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION TO BE LOCATED AT 15214 E. PALOMINO BOULEVARD, CASE NUMBER SU2000-07. Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Planner Dana Burkhardt stated that this was a special use request for a home occupation for a pest control service. He explained the reason a special permit was required was that hazardous materials were used in that service. He noted that staff had received numerous letters of objection to this application along with another application for this site also. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial on a 6 — 1 vote primarily because of the neighborhood opposition. Staff was recommending approval with stipulations due to the fact it did meet all the zoning requirements. Residents against approving the Special Use Permit William Herbst, 15203 E. Ridgeway Drive Lillian Bowman, 15239 Ridgeway Drive Charles Humes, 15038 E. Palomino Leo Recart, 15212 E. Mustang Verlyn Heldt 15220 Palomino Al Shure, 15050 Palomino Andy Aziz, 15302 Palomino Those opposing a business in a residential area sited the following reasons: decline of neighboring property values, traffic/parking issues, safety/pollution issues, and the noise factor. It was suggested that the applicant rent an off- site storage area to house chemicals or operate his business in a commercial area. Sam Matiello, (applicant)responded: He addressed the four issues of concern as expressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their October 12, 2000,meeting: • Two businesses in one residence—He noted that it was allowed per the Town Ordinance. • Pesticide storage in a residential area — He addressed the compatibility issue of the proposed day care business being located at the same residence and said he was agreeable to moving the pesticides to an off site location and use the residence as a home office. • Community attitude—He felt it reflected fear due to a lack of knowledge. He stated that the Council should look at the content of what he was proposing and what he had done to address all of the concerns. • Number of protest letters - He said this was a by-product of the community attitude. He said if the pesticide issue was removed from the equation and then the letters were reviewed, there would only be seven protest letters. He noted that the thirty-one people who had signed the petition had not given him any reason as why F Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 2 of 22 he did not want to impact his wife's day care business. If withdrawing his request would help her business, then he would. Vice Mayor Hutcheson said a special use application was being discussed and asked if the Council needed a motion regarding this issue. Mr. Nordin answered that the Council was still in the public hearing at this point and might want to close it. Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 7:06 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #7 - CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXTERMINATION BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION TO BE LOCATED AT 15214 E. PALOMINO BOULEVARD, CASE NUMBER SU2000-07. Mr. Nordin suggested that if the applicant were willing to remove the item, no Council vote would be required. He noted that the Council could vote on this issue as it had been agendized, but if the applicant wanted to withdraw his application, further action by the Council would not be necessary. Councilman McNeill asked if the applicant were to withdraw the application, would he be free to renew it at a later date if he was unhappy with the result of Agenda Item #2 tonight. Mr. Nordin said yes. He proposed that the Council consider tabling this item. The Council could then bring it up at a later time if the Council chose to take it off the table at any subsequent Council meeting,perhaps even later during this Council meeting. Councilman Wyman MOVED to table this issue and Vice Mayor Hutcheson SECONDED the motion. Director Valder explained that the Council had just held the public hearing on this issue. If the applicant asked the Council to consider the special use permit at a future meeting, there would be no other public notice required and the Council would merely vote. He expressed concern about that because there had been a lot of public input on this item. Mr. Nordin said it was not staff's intention to box the Council or the public in with his suggestion. If this item were to again be considered by the Council, staff would be sure to notify the public for which staff had addresses. Vice Mayor Hutcheson asked to hear from the applicant with regard to his withdrawing his application. Councilman Wyman asked for a point of order as the Council was discussing tabling this issue. Town Attorney Bill Farrell agreed the Council had a motion and a second before them. The motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#8 - PUBLIC HEARING ON A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD DAY CARE BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION TO BE LOCATED AT 15214 E. PALOMINO BOULEVARD, AKA FINAL PLAT 604-A,BLOCK 1,LOT 9; CASE#TU2000-11. Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Planner Dana Burkhardt said this was a temporary use permit for home day care, which allowed day care of up to ten individuals at the residence. He confirmed that the property was posted, as required, for the ten-day period. He said staff had received a number of neighborhood objections, which had been provided to the Council with the staff report. Mr. Burkhardt said staff found that this application met all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and recommended approval. Councilwoman Fraverd asked about the parking restrictions placed on temporary use permits for day care centers. She pointed out that one tandem space was required for every five persons. She asked for clarification as to how many people the applicant was planning to care for and if the applicant had enough parking. Mr. Burkhardt responded that the applicant had indicated that they would be maintaining four persons at this site and had noted that they could provide the required parking on site. Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 4 of 22 Councilman Wyman asked why grant the applicant a permit for ten persons if they were voluntarily limiting themselves to four. Director Valder explained that the reason for issuing a temporary use permit was because of the pool on the property. If there had not been a pool on the property, a temporary use permit would not have been required. Staff would have simply issued the applicant a business license. Director Valder said at that point, it • would not have come to the Council for approval. He explained that the temporary use permit allowed staff the opportunity to ensure that the pool enclosure requirements were strictly met. He noted that because it was a temporary use permit application, and since one letter of objection had been received, this issue had been referred to the Council for approval. He said the only relevant issue here was whether or not the pool enclosure requirements had been met. Director Valder confirmed that the requirements had been met. Councilman Wyman asked if the pool enclosure had been met, what would be the maximum number of children that they could have since they would not have to request a permit. Director Valder said that the temporary use permit listed the applicant's maximum number of children at four. He stated that if the applicant had wanted to, she could have requested, under the second reason for a temporary use permit, up to ten. He pointed out that was not the issue before the Council. Councilman Wyman agreed and asked if she did not have a pool, would there be some limitation. Director Valder said a day care could have four individuals without a temporary use permit. With a temporary use permit a day care could have up to ten individuals. Councilman Kavanagh reiterated that the applicant had voluntarily restricted herself to caring for four persons. Councilman McNeill asked if there were other similar home care facilities where a business license or a temporary use permit had been issued. Director Valder said there were a number of them, although he did not have a count. He explained that this was the first temporary use permit because of the presence of a swimming pool. Councilman Kavanagh asked that any public comment address the facts that the applicant was limiting care to four individuals and that the applicant had voluntarily removed the pesticide business from the residence. He wanted to know how that affected the public opinion on this issue. (1111, Residents against the temporary use permit: Charles Humes, 15038 Palomino Boulevard Lillian Bowman, 15239 E. Ridgewood William Herbst, 15203 E. Ridgewood Verlyn Heldt 15220 Palomino Al Shure, 15050 Palomino Leo Recart, 15212 E. Mustang Concerns included that the property was too small for play equipment and had a pool; it was located on a busy street, was a poor location for a day care center; noise pollution; traffic/parking issues; and surrounding property devaluation. Leona Matiello, applicant She reminded the Council that the only reason that this application was before the Council was because there was a pool located on the property. She stated that she had agreed with the safety issues and that she had complied with the required pool regulations. She reiterated that if the pool had not been an issue, only a business license would have been required. She felt that the notice signs placed on the front lawn had misstated that her business was to be a day care center, which was wrong. She stated that she never intended to operate a day care center. Mrs. Matiello confirmed that what she was requesting was home occupancy use for a child day care home. She pointed out that she wouldn't be caring for more that four children and that it would be during normal business hours. She said the presence of the public notice led people to conclude that she was requesting a rezoning of Palomino, which was incorrect. Mrs. Matiello said that she had complied with all requirements to obtain this temporary use permit. Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 7:30 p.m. Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 5 of 22 AGENDA ITEM#9 - CONSIDERATION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD DAY CARE BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION TO BE LOCATED AT 15214 E. PALOMINO BOULEVARD, AKA FINAL PLAT 604-A,BLOCK 1,LOT 9; CASE#TU2000-11. Councilman Kavanagh asked if these residents concerns were valid. Could this type of facility evolve from children to adults? Mr. Farrell said he would have to look at the code to determine the intent. Director Valder stated that the Town Code referred to people and not to their age of the people cared for. He said that the facility could not care for any more than four people. He stated that by amending this temporary use permit that the applicant could come back to the Council asking to care for ten people. If granted, that would be a possibility. He reiterated that the Council was only considering a day care facility limited to caring for four children. He restated that this application was before the Council because there was a swimming pool on the property. Councilman Wyman referred to the letter submitted by Mrs. Matiello dated September 11th, which stated that the group size would be for four or less children. He said that there wasn't any wording on the temporary use permit identifying that she would be caring for children. He stated that the objections heard from the residents, although heartfelt and could be appreciated, were irrelevant. Councilman Wyman restated the fact that if it weren't for the pool on the property, this application would not been necessary. This temporary use permit request would not have come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, as it would have simply been granted administratively by staff. Therefore, he felt traffic and noise concerns raised were not relevant. Councilman Kavanagh summarized that the Council did not have much of a basis to deny this application. He asked the Town Attorney what could happen legally if the Council denied this application. He questioned if the applicant went to court and won, could they be granted the right to have ten people. Mr. Farrell stated it was difficult to speculate on an outcome. He stated that the applicant would need to meet state licensing requirements if they cared for five or more children. Mayor Morgan commented that the neighbors would have to be tolerant if a couple lived in the house with four of their own children. She found denial based upon noise or property values very hard to consider. She agreed with Councilmembers Kavanagh and Wyman. Councilwoman Ralphe said that children were everyone's most precious resource. She celebrated that here was an applicant who would take care of children in her home. She reviewed her positive past experiences with in home childcare providers. Councilman McNeill said the original concerns voiced by neighbors regarding two businesses within one home had held some impact for him. He understood their concerns about the children's comings and goings as well as the noise factor, but he did not see four or less children in this home as an issue that should cause the Council to deny this permit. He clarified that the pesticide business had to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission because of the chemicals. He restated that this permit application had come before the Council as an administrative matter for Council approval only. Councilwoman Fraverd agreed with the comments made by the other Councilmembers. She said she had been prepared to deny both applications based upon the two different uses within in one residence. She felt that the issues of concern had gone away. Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve the Temporary Use Permit with stipulations as presented and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion. Councilwoman Fraverd asked Director Valder to address the neighbors concerns as to what they could do if they found that the applicant was not adhering to the stipulations. Director Valder responded that they should contact the Marshals Department and those incidents would be investigated. The motion CARRIED unanimously. kikre Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 6 of 22 Mr. Nordin reminded the Council that now would be the time to revisit the prior Special Use Permit if the Council so desired. He said it would require a'vote to take this item off the table in order for the Council to dispose of that 1. He explained that if the Council chose to leave it on the table, it would remain there until the Council decided %revisit the issue at a future meeting. He summarized that the Council could now revisit that item by takingit off the table. Mr. Farrell disagreed stating the Council could not take it off the table because, in theory, citizens could have left believing that the item had been tabled. He clarified that it would have to come back to the Council at a future meeting after being agendized. Mr. Nordin said he stood corrected. Councilman Kavanagh asked what would happen if the applicant were to voluntarily withdraw his application. Mr. Farrell said staff could then notify the Council of their actions. AGENDA ITEM #10 - DISCUSSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS SANITARY DISTRICT'S REQUEST TO DRILL A FRESH WATER WELL ON THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROPERTY WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF. Sanitary District Board Chairman Bruce Hansen reviewed that the Sanitary District was engaged in a ground water recharge and recovery program. He explained that part of that was their taking over what was then Chaparral City Water's well#9. He said they needed to do that in order to make the program work. Part of the agreement was that they would find a new well for Chaparral, which was now American States Water Company. He said they had made two attempts to find a new well. One well had produced maybe 200 gallon a minute and the other well had been dry. He said a well was needed to produce about 1200 gallons a minute. He said they were confident that if they drilled on the Community Center property, they would be over the aquifer and would get a real gusher. He said that they realized that if they were going to do this on the Community Center property, aesthetics would be very important. He noted they held a brief meeting with Rob Dietz, the architect. Mr. Dietz felt that the Sanitary District could have a very small building near the mechanical equipment location at the Community Center, which 3 house the well and blend in with the Community Center. Mr. Hansen acknowledged that the Sanitary District would assume all costs for design and construction. Chairman Hansen requested that the Council allow staff to work with the Sanitary District to develop a plan of what could be done and allow the Sanitary District to bring that complete plan back to the Council in two weeks for their consideration. Since the Sanitary District wasn't very far into planning the project, he did not have any drawings or designs to show the Council. Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED to direct staff to work with the Sanitary District, Rob Dietz, and anyone else necessary to prepare the package for Council consideration at the November 2nd Council meeting. Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion. Councilwoman Fraverd asked what would be the size of the well above ground. Chairman Hansen responded that the vertical pumps would be no more than five feet above ground. He explained that the building would require a removable roof to allow access in case a pump had to be pulled for maintenance. He said the noise produced would be less than that of an air conditioner unit. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if this would be a separate building or inside the little mechanical building. Chairman Hansen replied that it would be a separate building attached to the mechanical building. Councilman McNeill questioned what the District's plans were regarding the well at Golden Eagle Park. Chairman Hansen said they would abandon that well and restore the area. Councilwoman Fraverd asked what the cost was to drill a trial well. Chairman Hansen stated approximately $80,000. Councilwoman Fraverd said she had numerous calls from residents who were unhappy with the increase in their property taxes due to the Sanitary District. She wished that the Sanitary District had come to the Council if they were sure there was water instead of spending the tax payers money the way they did. Chairman Hansen understood the concern, but explained that the Sanitary District had to deal with a number of regulatory agencies. It wasn't until recently that Toaen Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 7 of 22 L %r► rr they had found out that they could drill a well in this location. He noted that previously they had been told they could not drill there. It would be too close to some of the other wells, but would now be allowed. He said next year would be better. Councilman Wyman asked if the Sanitary District had been just hoping to find water at the Golden Eagle Park but now knew there was water at the Community Center site. Councilman Wyman said that the Sanitary District had thought that there had been a good chance of getting the water from the Golden Eagle site. Chairman Hansen said their hydrologist was confident of finding the water at the proposed new site. Councilwoman Ralphe asked what if the well at the Community Center site did not produce 1200 gallons per minute. Chairman Hansen said they would have to find a new location. Councilwoman Ralphe questioned if they had other sites chosen. Chairman Hansen explained that they felt that Community Center site was located over the aquifer. They were confident that this was the place for the well based upon the production of the wells within the park. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan called for a ten-minute break at 7:52 p.m. and resumed the regular Council meeting at 8:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#11 - PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DESIGN FEATURES OF THE FOUR PEAKS PLAZA COMMERCIAL CENTER INCLUDING BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE. Mr. Nordin said he hoped to address all of the Council's concerns regarding this project. He called on Mr. Ralph Pew to address the overall look of the project. Mr. Ralph Pew, representative of the Barclay Group, introduced consultants associated with the project. Kurt Reed,KDRA Architects;Jeff Bentz and Jeff Burona,Stantec Consulting;and Trey Eakin of the Barclay Group. Ler Mr. Pew stated it was their intention to show their commitment as to what the developer would do with respect to the elevations and design of the center. The consultants presented the Council with an overview of the design features of the center. Consultants would illustrate the building design and elevation, architectural style and colors, and would address how the building complied with the Town Center design requirements. Their consultants would display proposed landscaping designs along the Shea frontage and parking lot landscaping. The signage lighting was to be the last issue discussed. Councilwoman Fraverd asked what the roofing material was made of. Mr. Reed said it was tile. Councilwoman Fraverd questioned whether or not the red lettering for Target would be used. Mr. Pew said that they had tried to do the best that they could but to his knowledge the signage would be red as there was a need for corporate identity for the anchor tenant. Councilwoman Fraverd referenced the book provided to the Council on the project, which stated that individual letters would utilize materials that were, or were made to appear, as naturally occurring material. Mr. Pew agreed that the red was not a naturally occurring material. He noted that at this point they did not have any consent from Target to change from their corporate logo. Visual comparisons were made between the Amber Jack (Summit) Center located in Scottsdale and the Fountain Hills center. Vice Mayor Hutcheson wanted to see the Fountain Hills project design reduced from the 40 feet. Mr. Reed said it could be brought down slightly. Councilman McNeill asked if the 40 feet elevation in the entry was for decorative purposes and Mr. Reed said yes. Vice Mayor Hutcheson asked for a comparison of the signage used in Scottsdale's project to the Fountain Hills' project. Mr. Pew replied they had not made that comparison and could not answer that question now. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the various named stores in the Summit Center had waived their logo rights. Mr. Pew responded that he did not know. Mr. Reed said that the Summit Center plans continued to show the Target logo. Councilwoman Fraverd commented that the preliminary plat notes from the Planning and Zoning Commission had indicated that the maximum height would be 32'. She questioned why there Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 8 of 22 was a difference now. Mr. Pew responded that if that recommendation had translated into the vote by the Council. the 32-foot recommendation would have made its way into the ordinance, then they would have been bound by that cor restriction and he was not sure that it had. Mr. Reed noted that the Fountain Hills project would be two feet lower than the Amber Jack project from the finished floor level to the street grades. Mr.Jeff Bentz, Stantec Consulting,covered the landscaping design. He stated that they planned to salvage over 180 plants, trees and cactus that would be used on site. Along the Shea right-of-way there was a buffer of over 100 feet that would set back the development and create a visual barrier. He discussed the channel revegetation, approved by the Army Corp of Engineers. He said the intent was to revegetate the channel using the salvaged native plant materials and supplement them to break up that new channel alignment. He noted that the channel was approximately 3 '/ feet deep but above the channel would be lush vegetation, which would be carried throughout the development design as a whole. He showed the decorated elements for the entries. Mr. Bentz discussed the design of the parking lot, explaining the use of trees and shrubs to break up the parking lot. Mr. Pew reiterated that there would be 100-foot wash channel buffer along Shea., which would be different from most shopping centers. Councilwoman Ralphe asked why there wouldn't be landscaping in the bottom of the recreated wash. Mr. Bentz said it was a (FEMA) Federal Emergency Management Agency safety issue. He explained that the Army Corp of Engineers had approved the project based upon the wash being clear of obstacles to avoid flooding later on. Councilwoman Ralphe asked for an additional description of landscaping around the perimeter of the project, specifically on the back along Laser Drive. Councilwoman Ralphe also asked for a detailed description of the landscaping planned for the parking lot. Mr. Pew said that the back of the project along Laser would have to be landscaped to whatever the Town's requirements were. Mr. Jeff Burona, civil engineer with Stantec Consulting, addressed the back of the project. He explained that a concrete channel would be constructed. He noted that Laser existed as a FEMA flood plain and would be moved to the north, becoming part of the site channelization and therefore there would be minimal landscaping in the back of the project. 41180, Councilman Wyman asked if there were utility concerns on the back of the project as well. Mr. Pew responded that there were utilities there. He stated that the sewer might be rerouted in the area but they would not connect to the new sewer until it was ready in order to avoid any disruption in service. Mr. Bentz listed the variety of trees and shrubs to be used in the parking lot. He said that under the Town's guidelines, there would be one tree for every ten parking spaces. Director Valder stated that the rezone for this area specifically required that all landscaping on the site be consistent with the Section 18-08c of the Town Center Commercial Zoning District. He said in excess of one tree for each ten parking spaces were required. He stated he had not reviewed the conceptual landscape plan, but once they applied for their permits he would look at the standards. Mr. Pew reminded the Council that this was a conceptual idea that they were reviewing now. Vice Mayor Hutcheson asked Director Valder to describe the landscape requirements in the Town Center Commercial Zoning District. Director Valder stated that there were two standards, one for residential and one for commercial projects. He explained that for every 1,000 or 2,000 sq. ft., depending upon the project type, the development would be required to provide a certain amount of plants. He said the project would quantify all of the landscaped areas,calculate the number of plants required, and then spread them out consistently. Mr. Trey Eakin presented a sample of the lighting that could be used on site. Councilwoman Ralphe asked for an explanation of the lighting that would be used in the parking lots. Mr. Pew said that they were not prepared to discuss that issue. Director Valder stated that parking lot standards were part of the approved PUD. He quoted that parking lot standards should not be more that twenty-feet tall. The light should be shielded so as to shine straight down so that there wasn't any light trespass. Mr. Pew confirmed that Director Valder would advise them how to construct the lighting based upon the ordinance. Councilwoman Ralphe referred to a packet of information that the Council had received from Lori Noss, Chair of the Committee to Preserve the Environment. Councilwoman Ralphe pointed out that the material mentioned the standards or recommended practices from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. She said their goal was the best lighting possible for the benefit of society. She asked Niar Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 9 of 22 Director Valder if there was a possibility to look at these recommended practices as to where they could possibly help the Town. Director Valder said yes as long as the lighting was not more extensive than what was contained in ikiw the PUD. If the standards called for light standards higher than twenty feet, or if the light source was not shielded and shone on the homes to the north of the site, then it would not be consistent with the PUD. He acknowledged that he too had received the packet of information, but had not reviewed it. He said the material could be discussed. Councilman McNeill said that the lighting issue was all about preserving the dark sky. He hoped that would be kept in mind throughout the process. He said that he and others enjoyed the lack of bright light and the ability to see the night stars. Vice Mayor Hutcheson agreed with Councilman McNeill. Director Valder stated that there weren't any proximity standards and that the developer only put lights as close together as they needed to. He noted that the Town had standards as to the kinds of lights that could be used. Mr. Pew said that the lights they were proposing were low sodium lights that would accomplish what was being discussed and agreed that there were design issue that still needed to be dealt with. Mr. Pew reminded the Council that those issues would be dealt with when they applied for their building permits. He said that then Director Valder would pull out his ordinances and then remind them of the Council comments. He said they would work through those issues at that time. Councilman McNeill asked about what accommodations were being made for bicycle and pedestrian traffic for access to the center. Director Valder responded that there were plans for pedestrian pathways and sidewalks, lanes on the street. He assured the Council that he would remember to include provisions for bicycle racks when the site plan comes in. AGENDA ITEM #12 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2000-50 ABANDONING ALL RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST IN ALL OF COSMIC DRIVE LOCATED NORTHEAST OF LOT 1, BLOCK 10 OF PLAT 412-A, FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 158 OF MAPS, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, AND ALL OF THOSE ALLEYS LOCATED NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST OF LOT 1, BLOCK 10 OF PLAT 412-A AND NORTH AND WEST OF LOT 2, BLOCK 10 OF PLAT 412-A, FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 158 OF MAPS, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY. Director Valder said that staff had split these issues into separate resolutions. He said the applicant was proposing that the Town abandon Laser, Cosmic, and some unnamed alleys. If the Council chose to abandon all of the rights- of-way, he explained it would be a two step process. The reason being that the Town needs to keep ownership of Laser Drive because the Town wanted to keep the road open to the public until Technology was put through to Shea Boulevard. If the preliminary plat were to be approved, there would be two plats that would be recorded at the County Recorder's office. Plat One would be recorded shortly after recording the resolution to abandon Cosmic Drive and the alleys. The land that Laser Drive was currently on would not be a part of that first plat. Once Technology was extended, staff would record a second plat absorbing the land that Laser now existed on into lots within the center. Mr. Nordin referred to the map on display and pointed out the alleys in question and Cosmic Drive. Director Valder stated that staff was recommending approval. Councilman McNeill MOVED to approve Resolution 2000-50 as presented and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #13 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2000-17 ABANDONING ALL RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS THAT PORTION OF LASER DRIVE LOCATED NORTHEAST OF LOTS 68 AND 69 OF PLAT 414, FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 287 OF MAPS, PAGE 22, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY. THIS ITEM WILL INCLUDE PRESENTATIONS FROM VARIOUS GROUPS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LASER DRIVE INDUSTRIAL PARK USERS, FIREROCK RESIDENTS,AND THE BARCLAY GROUP. Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 10 of 22 Mr. Ralph Pew, Barclay Group— said the reason for the abandonment of Laser Drive was very fundamental to the success and construction of this project. He said that they needed the extra footage in Laser Drive in order to site this center and allow for parking in the front. He said it was critical to the construction and development of the project. He acknowledged that the abandonment of Laser would create questions and concerns within the community. Barclay felt that the burden was on them to show the Council and staff why the abandonment of Laser and the post abandonment condition of the street circulation would be equally as good or better than it was today. Mr. Pew reviewed the traffic flow patterns after the abandonment of Laser and the extension of Technology to Shea with the center construction completed. Mr. Chuck Wright, traffic consultant for the Barclay Group and employed by Kimly Horne and Associates, described and discussed the truck/car traffic patterns at Shea/Saguaro as compared to Shea/Technology and then Saguaro/Laser as compared to Laser/Technology. Mr. Pew pointed out that a benefit of widening Technology was that the extra right-of-way was coming off the Target project. He noted that the applicant was creating additional dedications to the Town for that right-of-way. Mr. Wright said that this reconfiguration was at least as good and in some ways better than the configuration that existed today. He made the observation that the abandonment of Laser provided the opportunity to separate the residential traffic further south along Saguaro from the industrial traffic that would isolate on Technology Drive. There would no longer be a fourth leg at the Technology Drive intersection so the north/south conflicts that existed at this intersection today would not occur at the new Technology/Shea intersection. Mr. Pew asked that the Council abandon Laser. Laser industrial Park Users—against the closure Jack Bercel and Mike Archabault Rich Monks questioned where the viable truck access loop was that had been mentioned in a 1997 staff report. He did not feel that the traffic flow and safety issues should be compromised. They expressed concern for all traffic that was being forced to one spot onto Shea and restricting access into the industrial park, which devaluated property values. Lo FireRock residents -supported the closure Arvid Dennis and Gene Owens Residents supported separating commercial and residential traffic. Mr. Pew stated that the abandonment of Laser was an important issue, which he recognized was filled with a lot of emotion and had generated much discussion. He responded to the access issue by stating with the abandonment of Laser there was still traffic movement and circulation into the industrial area. The fact that there were curb cuts on the front of Shea to get to a commercial area was not a fair comparison. He said that the Barclay Group had designed Technology to make it serve the industrial area. They felt it did that in a good way. He asked the Council to reflect on the numbers of trips made a day by the large vehicles. He noted that they had tried to accommodate Mr. Monks and the large vehicles that turn into his facilities. It was designed in such a way that he could get his largest vehicles into his site today with the same amount of ease if not better than before. He respectfully asked that the Council abandon Laser. Councilman Wyman asked if the abandonment of Laser Drive made access a problem to these undeveloped areas in the industrial park. Director Valder felt comfortable that there would not be any access problems. Councilman Wyman asked if the utility easements were still there. Mr. Ward confirmed that staff had looked into that issue. He said there were plans to relocate one sewer line by the Barclay Group after the other lines were extended, therefore no easements would be needed at this time. Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED to approve Resolution 2000-17 as presented and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion. L Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 11 of 22 Councilwoman Ralphe asked staff about traffic movement along Shea questions if there were too many driveways into Shea. She expressed concern for those coming out of the center onto Laser and making a right turn but ilby intending to go north on Saguaro. They would be cutting across Shea traffic to make the left turn. She proposed that if Laser were there the public could circle around the back of the center and go directly up Saguaro. Mr. Ward said all turning movements had been looked at. He stated that if there weren't the number of driveways as listed too much traffic would be forced onto Technology and would create gridlock for those exiting Technology onto Shea. Staff felt that by looking at the traffic report and working with the traffic engineer as well as consulting with Larry Woodlan of Burgess Nipple all of these driveways were necessary. Mr. Ward said many traffic issues were taken into account before this plan was submitted to the Council. Staff had looked at the where the frustration level of the drivers would be. They looked for a smooth transition and proper ingress and egress. He said their point was to minimize the truck traffic from Technology and driveways that would exit off of Shea. Staff felt that the right turn lane on Saguaro would be minimal by looking at the traffic count and study. Councilwoman Ralphe asked if staff felt that Technology could handle the biggest part of the traffic load in either direction. Mr. Ward said yes. Councilman McNeill revisited a prior point made of retaining Laser Drive with a one-way in format. Mr. Ward stated that staff didn't feel one-way traffic on Laser Drive was the answer because of concerns for safe turning movements. He felt that truck traffic would then be encouraged to travel that street. He noted that signage and enforcement would then be needed when the public did not take that drive but went through the neighborhood. Councilman Kavanagh said the overall problem was the intermixing of commercial and residential traffic. He noted that this situation had come from prior poor planning. He acknowledged that the solution was the abandonment of Laser and noted that someone would be made unhappy with whatever decision the Council's made tonight. He explained that in weighing the options the Council had to consider who would be disrupted more. He said the continued commercial traffic disrupted the residents 24 hours/7days a week. Taking this access point away from the commercial people still disrupted traffic but to a lesser degree. He felt the abandonment was a good idea because the engineering report pointed out certain benefits that the commercial people get although they would not want to see this happen. One of the main concerns that the commercial people had was easy access for trucks. He pointed out that the proposed reconfiguration provided for a better turning radius. He did not feel excessive congestion at Technology and Saguaro was going to be a problem. He stated that the greater activity in the center area should provide more exposure to those industrial park businesses and would help them and their business. Residents -opposed to the abandonment of Laser Bob Tripp,Jane Bell,Terry Merrill, Glen Roberts, Pamela Curtis, and Karen Huske. They expressed traffic turning safety concerns and asked if there would be an acceleration lane going east on Shea. Disappointment was pointed out that there was an attitude of "out with the old and in with the new" towards the existing park businesses. Isolation of industrial park businesses was also a concern they repeated. Mr. Ward said that today there was an acceleration lane. He explained that it would not always be there. The intersection would identical to Technology when improved. Along with the McDOT project there would be three lanes eastbound to eliminate those pork chop islands now in existence. He reminded Mr. Merrill that there was a traffic signal in place so when he was pulling out, the oncoming traffic would have a red light. Mayor Morgan commented that there probably wouldn't be any right turn on red at that corner Scott LaGreca, Fire Marshal stated that there were multiple access points into the project and they did not have any access concerns regarding the project. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan called for a ten-minute recess at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened the regular Council meeting at 9:50 p.m. Lir Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 12 of 22 AGENDA ITEM #14 - CONSIDERATION OF A CUT AND FILL WAIVER APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE SHEA RETAIL CENTER, A PROPOSED 36.42± ACRE DEVELOPMENT, L. LOCATED SOUTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD, WEST OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF LASER DRIVE,CASE NUMBER CFW99-08. Director Valder combined his staff report on both the cut and fill waiver with the preliminary plat. He stated that there was a wash that traverses the property from the west to the east. He reviewed that in order to develop the site. the applicant was proposing to physically move that wash and create a new channel that would run just south of the Shea right-of-way. The applicant would then take the material that had been excavated for the new wash and put it in the old wash and pave over it. He stated that the maximum height of the fill would be 17' and the maximum height of the cut would be 15', which is what the applicant was requesting. Director Valder said the location of the site was to the south of Shea and northwest of Saguaro Boulevard. The applicant was proposing to replat the site into an eleven-lot subdivision. While all the information depicted on this map showed where the parking lot and stores would be located,that information would not be a part of the plat. He explained that the plat would consist of the property lines, where the roads were,and any easements on the site. Director Valder said that the last time this issue had been discussed one of the major unresolved issues was the hillside preservation regulations. In keeping the site "as is" the applicant was proposing to have a disturbance more what subdivision regulations allowed. Under the Hillside Transfer and Protection option in the subdivision code, there was a way for the applicant to over come that. With Council approval, a developer could preserve hillside slopes off-site and transfer the allowed disturbance from those off-sites on to the subject property. He said that was what this developer was proposing to do. Director Valder displayed a map for discussion. He said the standard staff used for the off-site hillside preservation was if it met one of three criteria it would not be recommended for approval. He asked the Council to keep in mind that this was staffs minimal threshold. Director Valder explained that if an off-site piece of land was zoned in a open space zoning district, already had a hillside protection easement, or the land was currently property controlled by the Town of Fountains, staff would not consider those sites eligible for the transfer. He noted that the developer had identified five separate pieces of land for the off-site transfer: • Two-wash parcels in North Heights • Two-open spaces in Golden Eagle Estates • One - unplatted parcel of land north of the water company treatment plant on the northwest corner of Shea and Fountain Hills Boulevard that had steep slopes. He said the developer would be required at a minimum to provide hillside protection easements to the Town over all five of these pieces of land. Once the Town had those hillside protection easements, the disturbance that would have been allowed on those pieces of land could then be transferred to the commercial site. He said that was the Town's practice when requesting hillside protection easements on pieces of land. Staff would make the offer that the Town could take ownership of those properties if the current property owner wanted the Town to do so. He said that offer would apply to all five pieces of land just described and pointed to those areas on the map. He noted that this would be a stipulation. The developer had not acquired hillside protection easements or ownership of any of these areas. Prior to final plat approval staff would again have to have at least the hillside protection easements in place prior to recording the plat. Director Valder stated that the development of the site in earlier presentations called for six curb cuts onto Shea Boulevard as part of the project. There were two curb cuts west of Technology and there was now one. This was a change that the applicant had made within the last several weeks but the rest of the curb cuts remained. He identified Technology as a curb cut to keep everyone on track. He said there was a driveway entrance onto lot 6 and the main driveway. This was aligned with the Target store and another driveway that would serve the existing bank and lot 11. He said there were two changes, which had been made to the site plan since it had been reviewed for the rezoning. He pointed out that the applicant had extended the parking lot into what had been a part of the on-site hillside protection area. He also directed the Council's attention to the map where the applicant had made a revision for access to the center of the project. He acknowledged that this was essentially the same site plan. He stated that the Council was not approving the site plan, but he had wanted to bring the location of the curb cuts to the attention Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 13 of 22 of the Council as that was a part of the plat. One stipulations was that any part of the perimeter property that accesses a road would require easements that would prohibit any future curb cuts. He said he wanted to add two Lor stipulations to the existing list. One - a turn around for trucks. On the plan that was approved as a part of the PUD the developer showed a 110' wide circle that a semi-truck would need in order to come in and then exit the site. He explained that this wasn't a preliminary plat stipulation but a notice to the applicant that they would need to provide this because it wasn't something that could be platted. He requested that the Council also include a stipulation requiring the hillside piece of land be listed as a part of the plat. He asked that the applicant add it on as a tract so that it became a part of the subdivision. He noted that the Town would offer to take ownership of that land if the applicant would like to give it to the Town although the applicant was not required to do so. He stated that staff recommended approval with the stipulations as listed in the staff report and with the addition of the two items just mentioned. Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the cut and fill waiver as presented and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. Councilwoman Fraverd commented that it was a shame that a natural wash had to be filled in for a commercial project. She felt it was a shame as well to abandon Laser Drive for a commercial project. She wished that there had been a way that this project could have worked and let the Town keep the wash and Laser Drive through more creative planning and development. She had supported the Laser Drive abandonment and would be supporting this cut and fill waiver because the voters had told her they wanted this project to go. These were two items that had to be approved to complete the project. Pamela Curtis,Trevino Drive She expressed concern for the safety of children with regard to the steep construction of the new channel. Councilman Wyman commented that he did not feel that the public appreciated how thoroughly members of the Council review these issues because they do care. He said that one of the reasons that Laser Drive had to be abandoned was to allow the project to be pushed back. That action would provide the aesthetically pleasing buffer along Shea. The motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #15 - CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE 9-LOT, 36.42± ACRE SHEA RETAIL CENTER, LOCATED SOUTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD, WEST OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD,AND NORTH OF LASER DRIVE, CASE NUMBER S99-040. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to approve the Preliminary Plat with stipulations as presented and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion. Michael Downs, Planning and Zoning Commissioner He pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Commission had discussed at great length the number of curb cuts into the center. He said that the driveway entrance to lot#6 could easily been removed as there were two other ways to get into that lot. Regarding the hillside protection, the developer had acquired approximately 38 acres of hillside development easement, which could be either on or off-site. He had suggested that the developer buy some land in the McDowells and deed the land over to the Town, specifically, the 17 acres currently under condemnation. He noted that the suggestion had been rejected. He had then suggested eliminating all the separate lots along Shea Boulevard. This would eliminate about seven acres of zoning and seven acres of the developer's hillside protection requirement,plus it would add seven acres to what the developer was already putting into the hillside. He noted that the developer would probably come out even. He stated that this was also rejected. He said the developer had now come forward with this alternative solution. The developer would deed the original 15 acres along with four other sites. Commissioner Downs said that the total land given would be more than the developer's hillside requirement. Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 14 of 22 The fact that these sites couldn't be developed was a different story. He quoted from Section 5.04 of the subdivision ordinance that stated that the Town could accept those sites, if approved by the Council. Otherwise, the developer would be required to have them on-site. He felt the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance had been to add to the preserve in the McDowells. If the developer eliminated the land up front, the developer would still get his shopping center, the people would get their Target, the Town would get their sales tax and the integrity of the Town's ordinances would be adhered to. Councilman Wyman reminded everyone that the purpose of the hillside ordinance was to protect a hillside and not to deny development. He noted that the developer was responding to the requirements of the ordinance. He asked the public not to make the ordinance more than what it was meant to be. Councilman Kavanagh said if the lot entrance at lot 6 was moved most of the traffic would be forced to use Technology. He pointed out that the business community had stressed that they did not want Technology to be overburdened. Councilwoman Ralphe said that stipulation #29 discussed the requirement of conduit and pull boxes in the middle driveway in case a signal should eventually be needed there. She asked how close it was to a signal in terms of dollars. Senior Engineer Jim Leubner responded that these items would be installed when the roadway was expanded to three lanes. It would allow the Town to have a traffic light there in the future if needed. Councilwoman Ralphe asked for a rough estimate of the signal cost. Mr. Leubner said that the light on Grande/Saguaro had cost approximately $180,000. Councilman McNeill commented that if he had been able to pick the transfer land he would have probably picked other sites, but when he saw the material and what was being set aside he did not have a problem. He noted that many had major washes in them and went through existing neighborhoods. He said they also handled flood drainage, when the area had heavy rains. He felt it would be beneficial if the Town owned those lands and they did meet the criteria. He was concerned for the safety of those drivers at the main access in front of the Target center lbw exiting left onto westbound Shea. He said there was a short distance between the driveway cut into lot 6 and that major access where the left turning traffic would be. He saw a conflict between the exiting traffic at lot 6, which would be making right hand turns at the same time as people attempting to make left hand turns onto westbound Saguaro. Mayor Morgan said she was not going to dodge cars if she was traveling west. She said there had to be some safety features installed there. She suggested a turn arrow signal, but felt that there was a need for traffic control there. Mr. Nordin explained that because of requests made by Council to reduce the number of curb cuts and because of the general requests from everyone wanting new traffic studies, staff had tried to address those concerns with this new study. He said his manager's memo had mentioned that because of that new study, staff felt that a traffic signal at the main entrance to Target would be required in the near future. He said staff would keep a close eye on that situation while working with the developer. Mayor Morgan asked what the projected opening date of center was. Mr. Eakin responded March 7, 2002. Mayor Morgan said that if everyone knew that a signal at that location would be needed, why not install it in the beginning of construction of this center. She said it would be a very busy intersection and she didn't want to dart across two or three lanes of traffic. Mr. Nordin replied that because of the new traffic study, it had identified that as a bigger concern than the previous modeling had shown. Therefore, staff would be looking at this issue within 2 or 3 months and then bring the information back to the Council. As soon as the appropriate answers were obtained, he guaranteed that staff would then bring the issue back to the Council at the appropriate time. Although he could not promise a traffic light there when the Target opens, staff would welcome the Council's continued interest in this issue. He reiterated that staff was trying to respond to the new information received. Mayor Morgan said that she stood corrected. She did not want to see the installation take two or three years if a light would be required anyway. Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 15 of 22 She wanted to have the installation take place while the project was under construction. Mr. Nordin again stated that it very well might happen, but it was just too soon to tell since staff had only preliminary information. Mayor Morgan said she would remind him of this issue. Mr. Pew said the question of a traffic signal at the entrance into the Target center off of Shea had been of some concern. He said that the traffic studies needed to progress to the point of absolute definition that a signal must be there. To do that the traffic studies must understand the center better and see how it was going to work. He agreed with Mr. Nordin and his recommendation. He stated that the Barclay Group would restudy that issue. He said to install a signal required certain traffic warrants. He explained that the traffic warrants were not quite there as the project now exists. He suggested that the Council add a stipulation requiring them to visit this issue in the very near future and allow them to get a traffic study that shows the clear need for a signal. He agreed the issue of a signal there was imperative, but on paper and calculation from a traffic engineer's report it was not that clear. He repeated that they knew that intersection was a problem. Vice Mayor Hutcheson said that the General Plan called for a minimum number of entrances and exits off of Shea Boulevard. She questioned the need for the curb cut at lot#6. Councilman McNeill asked if the traffic light at the main entrance would be a full traffic light in all directions or a partial turning light. Mr. Nordin said the new discussion that had begun because of the new traffic report was leaning toward a full directional signal. Councilwoman Ralphe agreed that a signal was necessary as was eliminating the curb cut at lot #6. That was why she had asked about signal construction costs. She did not want the public to have any surprises. She wanted to see a stipulation that would put the financial responsibility on the developer for the signal. Councilwoman Fraverd suggested that eliminating the curb entrance into lot #6 would increase the traffic numbers 460 for warranting the full directional signal and would also remove one extra turn-in. Councilman Wyman referred to a page 23, section #2 in the Target Center project book as provided by the Barclay Group and pointed out they had anticipated that a signal would be needed. He reiterated what the Mayor was saying that the signal should be installed sooner rather than later. Mayor Morgan said everyone should conduct the traffic studies but advised staff and the Barclay Group that she wanted to see the signal in place when the center opened. Mr. Nordin reminded the Council that not all of the traffic on Shea would be coming from the Target center. He noted that it was standard practice for staff to develop a recommendation through negotiations with the developer as to what would be a fair cost split. He said this had been done with the FireRock folks when the signal was redone at Shea/Fountain Hills Boulevard. He said that although this was the standard practice, the Council could redirect staff otherwise. Mayor Morgan said if other traffic signal costs had been worked out with developers, she felt it could be done in this case as well. She suggested that a percentage split would work. Mr. Nordin again said he was not prepared to recommend any cost splitting tonight. Barclay's traffic engineer consultant, Mr. Jeff Wright addressed the driveway entrance issue into lot 6 and its ability to impact signalization or transferring the traffic to the main driveway. He said that signals were looking at the left turn movements more so than the "right in or right out" movement. He stated that they had evaluated the level of service at an unsignalized driveway, which would indicate the amount of delay for the people in the center turning left across the street. He said the reality was that at unsignalized intersections there wouldn't be a delay for the people on Shea Boulevard so the level of service couldn't be compared as they were being evaluated separately. At lot 6, because it served only "right in right out" traffic into the center, having that combined with another driveway wouldn't impact whether or not that intersection met the requirements for signalization. The question of the conflicts at lot 6,relative to the other location whether signalized or not, was not a critical issue. In essence, people traveling on Shea Boulevard slowing to turn into any driveway would be turning into a right turn lane and getting out of the through volume of traffic. They would then proceed to make their right turn. He said there would be kilar Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 16 of 22 very little delay or impact on Shea Boulevard due to those right turns into the site. Regarding the right turns out of the site, drivers would have to wait until there were gaps in the eastbound traffic on Shea before proceeding. He stated that under typical situations they would not impact traffic either. He said in his opinion the "right in right out" probably had the least amount of potential impact on Shea Boulevard. Mr. Wright addressed the 86 vehicles • per hour listed in their traffic study. 75 vehicles per hour would be considered enough to potentially install a signal, he said. He said although their figure was above the minimum of 75, it was very close and that was why there was now discussion as to what course of action should be taken at this intersection. Regarding the comment of"doing something "sooner rather than later", he suggested that was being done by putting in the conduit under the roadway. That would allow for the installation in the future. Even if it didn't happen prior to the opening of facility, the signal could be installed then without causing major disruption on Shea Boulevard. They had looked at how they could accommodate for the future analysis but then implement signalization without having a huge disruption. Councilman Wyman said that the numbers in the traffic study make the Mayor's point that a signal was needed at the entrance. Mayor Morgan didn't agree that when talking about putting in the signal later that it was a relatively small amount of inconvenience. She referred the signal installation at Grande Boulevard and Saguaro Boulevard and noted that she had heard many citizen complaints because of the disruption. Mr. Pew encouraged the Council add a stipulation stating that some type of signalization would be installed at the Target entrance off of Shea based upon the study of the traffic engineer and Town staff. Include a provision that the Barclay Group would meet with staff to discuss an appropriate cost sharing arrangement for that signal. He agreed that neither Town staff nor the Barclay Group was prepared tonight to say what that should be. He asked that the Council put this stipulation on the plat, which would allow the Barclay Group to meet with staff and come back to the Council for consideration of this issue. Councilman McNeill asked if a full signal was being suggested. Mr. Pew suggested that their recommendation would be based upon all studies as to what type of signalization should be there. The Town's engineer could confirm that and do it up front. He did not want to see the plat delayed but asked that this be included as a condition. In response to Councilwoman Fraverd's comment regarding eliminating the driveway at lot#6, he hoped that the Council would keep the entrance into lot#6 after hearing all of the engineer's comments. Mr. Nordin responded to Councilman McNeill. If the Council would like to accept Mr. Pew's offer, staff would be happy to bring it back to the Council at a future meeting for a full review in terms of what that signal would be. He said that the Council could be kept informed on an individual basis. He concurred with Mr. Pew in asking for the opportunity to study what would be an appropriate type of signal and to bring back a recommendation as a result of that work. He reiterated that the latest studies leaned towards full signalization at that intersection. Councilwoman Fraverd was uncomfortable voting on this issue when the Barclay Group and staff did not know about the signal or costs involved. She stated she wanted to know everything before she voted on the issue. She indicated she was not ready to vote in favor of this tonight. Vice Mayor Hutcheson asked how a partial signal with a left turn only would work if the curb cut remained on lot #6. How would the traffic be controlled that were turning right out of lot #6 if there was a partial signal at the entrance to Target? Mr. Wright replied that there wouldn't be a conflict if there were a signal control, whether it was full or partial signal control,because under any circumstance eastbound traffic on Shea Blvd. would be stopped. Northbound traffic out of the main driveway would be turning left onto Shea Blvd. to go westbound. So there would be no way for a conflict to occur for someone coming out of the driveway at lot #6. All eastbound traffic would be forced to stop when those left turning movements were occurring. Councilwoman Ralphe felt that the developer should bear the financial responsibility for the traffic signal. Mayor Morgan reminded the Council that all the traffic on Shea was not because of the shopping center so why should the Barclay Group pay the entire costs for the signal when the Town had shared costs before. Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 17 of 22 Councilman Kavanagh AMENDED the motion to add a stipulation that a signal will be installed based on the results of future traffic studies but the type of signal will be determined by the Council based upon the information Le provided by the engineers and that the signal costs would be shared as proposed by the Town Manager and Mayor Morgan SECONDED the amendment. The amendment CARRIED on a vote of 5 - 2. Councilmembers Fraverd and Councilwoman Ralphe cast the nay votes. The motion as amended CARRIED on a vote of 6 - 1. Councilwoman Fraverd cast the nay vote. AGENDA ITEM #16 - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING APPROPRIATION OF $989,000.00 OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE BARCLAY PROJECT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME TO ASSIST IN THE CREATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE ECONOMIC WELFARE OF THE TOWN. Town Attorney Bill Farrell reviewed the Economic Development agreement. He referred to state statute A.R.S. §9- 500.11 —Expenditures for economic development; definition of. He stated to the Council that they had the powers to appropriate and spend public monies for and in connection with economic development activities. He explained that the economic development agreement was a relatively simple document. It was an agreement between the Town and the Barclay Group that once the anchored tenant, defined as a tenant occupying 100,000sq. ft. or more starts into operation on the Barclay Group project, defined in the plat map, the Town would start to accrue and collect its portion of the transaction privilege tax. An early concern addressed with Barclay was that the other merchants in this center would not generate new sales tax dollars but would merely trade sales tax dollars from existing merchants to the new center. He said staff worked with them to come up with a mechanism to measure and determine that it would or would not happen. He said that the agreement said that the Town would pay over a period of time $989,000, without any interest to the Barclay Group, in quarterly installments after the center opens. Those quarterly installments would place the burden on the Barclay Group to have the merchants (Target and any other retailer in the center) sign a waiver of confidentiality agreement so that the Town could collect from the material received from the Dept. of Rev. the proportionate sales tax. He said the Town would also establish a base number each year starting with the first year. That base number would be the sales tax collection from all similarly situated types of businesses. He said broad categories by standard and industrial code classification would be set to determine the other businesses that would be competitive with or similar to the type of businesses in the center. As long as the base number increased each year, then Barclay would receive 'h of the sales tax that the Town received. He said that if the number held firm or decreased that then Barclay's participation would be reduced to as low as 25% of the tax that was generated. In any given year the Town would always retain $ .50 on a dollar of the local sales tax and would reimburse $ .50 on a dollar towards the fulfillment of the $989,000. As soon as the last dollar was paid, the agreement would go out of existence. If for some reason it were accumulated within a ten-year period, the agreement would go out of existence at that point. He said there was a lot of confusion in earlier statements about where the $989,000 came from and how that tied into the off-site improvements. Mr. Farrell explained that he was sure that Mr. Eakin would say that the $989,000 represented in his mind additional costs that he had to incur to receive approval of the project. Mr. Farrell said that might be true and might be related to off-site improvement. He felt that from a legal standpoint, it was important to know that the Town was not paying for the off-site improvements. The economic incentive was not a pledge of the Town's sales tax and could be paid by any funds that did not impair the bonding capacity or borrowing capacity for other projects for which the Town was using sales tax revenue. It was an economic incentive in that the dollars had to come into, and be retained by, the Town before any flow out in the way of the economic incentive. He stated that the economic development had been reviewed. Mr. Farrell commented that the "evil" interest component was gone and the payments did not start until sales tax dollars come into the community. Lry Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 18 of 22 Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the economic development agreement in the amount of $989,000 as presented and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. Councilman Wyman encouraged everyone to consider this as an investment. He said the Town expected to receive $640,000 from approximately fiscal year 2004-2005 onwards in terms of tax revenue. This would be after the Town • had paid off the $989,000. He said that was based on the projections that the Town had made that it would take approximately 4' years to pay off. He noted that the Town's projections were conservative when compared to the Target figures that were included in the project materials. He felt a 64% return for as far forward as the Town could think, even if it didn't get better and increase, was a good investment. He wanted everyone to know about the permit fees that would be generated, which would run approximately $90,000. He noted user tax would also be generated although he didn't know how to equate it. He felt that both of those would reduce the $989,000. Councilwoman Fraverd asked about item #9. Where did the Town fit into the picture and where did the Town protect their interests? Mr. Farrell said the $989,000 would be directly reduced if the Barclay Group were to receive some benefit from a third party on Technology Dr. either in work performed or cash contributed to Technology. Councilwoman Fraverd asked how the Town could determine that. Mr. Farrell said that the parties agreed to meet and upon the dedication and acceptance of Technology and improvement and determine whether any reimbursement payment or donation had been in the amount or value of such action. He said that the agreement would then be amended to reflect a reduction in the amount. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if the Town would get receipts. Mr. Farrell said yes. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if staff had any idea of what that amount would be. Mr. Nordin said he was unaware of any costs estimate for that work yet. Mr. Nordin asked if she was seeking the value of the Monks work. Councilwoman Fraverd said yes. She asked if Technology Drive improvements were $325,000, would the costs be half? Councilwoman Fraverd said that Laser had been abandoned and asked if a value had been made on that. Mr. Farrell replied that the statute on abandonments require that the Town make a determination as to whether or not the valuation should flow to you. He said the state statute gave three ways to abandon property. In attempting to determine that, the actual Laser Drive right-of-way was 60' by approximately 850' (a little over an acre) and was in a configuration as such that it would not qualify in any zone to be developed for anything. He said co it was determined to take additional Technology right-of-way that the Town would have had to bargain for or provide an exchange (Technology right of way for the Laser abandonment). Although 1.7 acres of land in a nice configuration of land would have substantial value, this 1.7 acres (60' wide by 850' long) would not qualify for any form of development. He pointed out it didn't have any value. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if the cost of paving that and the upkeep was worth nothing. Mr. Farrell said it had little value. Mr. Ward responded that the rough grading costs for Technology was approximately $50,000. Councilman Kavanagh agreed with Councilman Wyman's economic analysis. He felt there were other benefits to the community. It would save people time and gas money by not having to drive to Scottsdale. Target would provide goods at a lower price and generate competition with other local stores and jobs. He said the Town desperately needed the sales tax revenue base. He said the citizens had known about this issue. He agreed and disagreed this was a tax give back and stated that the Town would not be able to give back the tax if the Target was not there. He did not think this should be considered corporate welfare. The Barclay Group and Target would be putting up their own cash, time and effort. It was not like they were putting up nothing. He felt that the tax rebate was well controlled. Councilman Kavanagh said he supported this issue. Mayor Morgan said that although the Town would only be receiving 50% of the tax right now, the Town would realize 100% in a few years. She said that was more money that the Town had now or ever would have. Councilwoman Fraverd asked how other communities were able to get these projects in and not have to pay anything. She said she knew that had happened in other communities. She said it was more than what she was prepared to spend when she knew there were other communities who had turned a developer down for money and the project had gone forward Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 19 of 22 Councilwoman Ralphe disagreed that this was a good deal for the Town. This was giving away the people's money and she was against paying the developer. She respected the public's two votes, but felt they were only saying yes 460, to a Target and not giving away almost $1 million in sales tax money. She felt the Barclay Group would go ahead with the project if the Town said no to the economic agreement. Councilman Wyman did not feel the developer was taking advantage of the Town. Vice Mayor Hutcheson expressed concern that there might be other companies coming to the Town asking for money. She said residents concerned about property tax increases would find out that sales tax money could address some of the things that they were concerned about. She acknowledged that this would be new money coming into the Town and would be given out in a ratio compared to how that money would be coming in. She knew of other communities that had attracted projects who had offered incentives and there were those communities who had not offered incentives. Vice Mayor Hutcheson said she would be supporting this because the voters had voted twice,there were controls in place,and because the issue would be revisited every year. Councilman McNeill stated he would be willing to contribute to the development with regard to the Shea/Saguaro improvements by sharing the sales tax revenue from the project. He noted that an additional light would be needed at the main entrance and stated there was the possibility that the Town might be responsible for a portion of the costs. He said he would be willing to look at those dollars as part of the sharing in the economic development. He did not think that the $1 million was an appropriate use of tax dollars. He would vote for a lower number, which would represent those items he just discussed. Councilman Kavanagh stated that the total price of the off-site improvements for this project were in excess of$3 million. The Barclay Groups was asking for less than a 1/3 reimbursement if it was assumed that the money was going to that. Obviously, it was not tied to any one thing or another. During the initial presentation, someone from the Barclay Group showed the standard elevations of a Target store and described it as a box. He said that the Town had imposed extra elevation requirements through the PUD ordinance, which was why there was an attractive lw project proposed for Fountain Hills. Councilman Kavanagh felt it was reasonable to chip in a few bucks in terms of beauty and attractiveness to share that expense. Residents against the development agreement Chris Brent,Jane Bell,Bob Barbanica,and Elaine Tarr, Some felt this was corporate welfare and others asked the Council not to pay out any additional monies to the developer. Residents in favor of the development agreement Yetta Siedon and Arvid Dennis The comment was made that this project was a long time in coming. It was stated that the master developer should have built Technology Drive. It was pointed out that the property taxes paid by this project would help ease the burden on residents. Mayor Morgan called for a roll call vote. The vote was taken with the following results. Councilwoman Ralphe— nay Councilman Wyman aye Councilman McNeill - nay Vice Mayor Hutcheson - aye Councilwoman Fraverd- nay Councilman Kavanagh- aye Mayor Morgan - aye The motion CARRIED on a vote of 4-3. Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 20 of 22 Mayor Morgan called for a five-minute recess at 11:40 p.m. and resumed the regular Council meeting at 11:45 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #17 - CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE FOUNTAIN HILLS RESORT, A 59.67± ACRE, ONE-LOT, ONE-TRACT SUBDIVISION, LOCATED NORTH OF SHEA • BOULEVARD, EAST OF PALISADES BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF THE WESTRIDGE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION,CASE NUMBER S2000-033. Planner Dana Burkhardt said this preliminary plat was approved September 21st for this project. He stated that this final plat was similar to what was originally improved in 1999 prior to the expiration of that preliminary plat. He stated that the final plat met all subdivision and Mower amendment requirements along with the zoning requirements. He pointed out that there were eight stipulations on this final plat but staff was recommending approval. Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the Final Plat with stipulations as presented and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion. Councilwoman Fraverd asked what the broken line represented. Mr. Burkhardt replied that was the Hillside Protection easement outer most boundary. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if that fit within the envelope for lodging boundary on the General Plan. She said that when she was on the Planning and Zoning Commission she had reviewed the preliminary plat and that it seemed that it was out of the boundaries here and there. Mr. Burkhardt responded that the Council, which established the mechanism for the applicant to come forward with the preliminary and final plat at this time, had approved the rezoning (PUD). Vladimir Hulpach,applicant Emphasized the preliminary and final plat were in conformance. He said the project had a firm agreement with the Hilton Corporation. The franchise agreement guaranteed they would not put up comparable property or acquire comparable property within a defined territory. The motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #18 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2000-49 ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AND PROVIDING FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, OFFICERS, DUTIES,MEETINGS,AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS. Mayor Morgan MOVED to continue this item until the November 2nd Town Council meeting and Councilman Wyman SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED on a vote of 6— 1. Councilwoman Fraverd cast the nay vote. AGENDA ITEM#19- CALL TO THE PUBLIC. No one came forward. AGENDA ITEM#20-ADJOURNMENT. Councilman McNeill MOVED to adjourn and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 21 of 22 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By. haron Morgan,May r ATTEST: \LJ /4Ltld� Cassie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk PREPARED BY: ✓` ',G/4"." / 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 Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 19"H day of October 2000. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 2°a day of November 2000. Cassie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk Lor Town Council Regular and Executive Session 10/19/00 Page 22 of 22