Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.0104.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL January 4,2001 Mayor Morgan called the regular session of the Town Council to order at 5:30 p.m. Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED that the Council convene the executive session and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion, which carried unanimously. ITEM#1 PURSUANT TO A.R.S. § 38-431.03.A4, 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 OR IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO AVOID OR RESOLVE LITIGATION; SPECIFICALLY MCO COMMITTEE V. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS (REFERENDUM), TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS V. MCO PROPERTIES (EMINENT DOMAIN); MCO PROPERTIES V. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS (CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION REGARDING THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE). ITEM#2 RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION Following the pledge to the flag and the invocation by Vice Mayor Hutcheson 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 Development Jeff Valder. ITEM#1 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19 AND 21, 2000. ITEM#2 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-02 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 505-C, BLOCK 3, LOT 18 (16419 SKYRIDGE LANE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 158 OF MAPS, PAGE 42 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. (LEROY &JEAN HALE) EA00-32 ITEM#3 CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING THE BID TO H&H CONSTRUCTION INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,800 FOR ADA AND STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TOWN-OWNED FACILITY CURRENTLY LEASED TO THE FOUNTAIN HILLS COMMUNITY THEATER. ITEM#4 CONSIDERATION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MARICOPA COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT AND THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS FOR FULL LIBRARY SERVICES FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY AT THE NEW LIBRARY FACILITY. Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results. Councilman Wyman aye Councilman McNeill- aye Vice Mayor Hutcheson- aye Councilwoman Fraverd- aye Councilman Kavanagh- aye Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 1 of 14 Councilwoman Ralphe— aye Mayor Morgan - aye The motion CARRIED unanimously with a roll call vote. ITEM#5 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING SEVEN CITIZENS TO THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 19,2000 BY RESOLUTION 2000-49. Mayor Morgan MOVED to appoint Jerry Gorrell, Cheryl Murray, Wally Nichols and Gail Hallstrom Pape to serve the two-year term; and Bill Muehlhauser, Barbara Patterson, and Peg Tibbetts to serve the one year term on the Community Center Advisory Commission. Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. ITEM#6 PUBLIC HEARING ON NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FEES BEING CONSIDERED BY THE TOWN. Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Director Valder reviewed that last November the Council had held a similar public hearing for residential, commercial and industrial development fees. Later that month the Council took action to adopt residential fees and directed staff to review and come back at a later date with proposed commercial and industrial fees. This public hearing was being held to assure compliance with Arizona State Revised Statutes and was solely in the commercial and industrial fees. He said that staff had contacted the consultants and had looked at different methodologies that the town could use. He said that the Council had expressed interest in having staff find a way to reduce the commercial fees. Director Valder said that the options used didn't amount to much of a reduction and staff was left with a concept that Councilman McNeill had introduced,where staff would look at arbitrary numbers. In the packet before the Council, staff was not proposing any numbers. He explained that staff had included a copy of the ilow consultant's study and copies of the ordinances that the Council adopted for the residential fees in order to give the Council a feel for where they had left off. He said that where the amount for commercial or industrial fees were listed had been left at zero. Frank Fererra,Director of the Chamber of Commerce He said he was representing the Chamber and a group of major developers and some of the Chamber's members who still had lots left to be developed on the north side of Plat 208. He referred to a letter sent to the Council outlining the Chamber's position relative to commercial/industrial impact fees. He agreed there was a need for General Government, Police/Sheriff fees @ .32 per sq. ft.,but suggested that the Street Fee at the rate of.24 per sq. ft. He proposed that the fees be phased in over a six year period starting with the year 2001. If the study assumption materialized,he felt the fees could be revisited at that time. Councilwoman Fraverd said she was impressed that he had taken the time and effort to come up with an alternative proposal. In looking at the figures on page 8-2 of the consultant's proposal, she stated that the Town would need over twenty years approximately $4.3M dollars for roads. What she was hearing was that Mr. Fererra was suggesting that commercial share should be approximately $270,000. Mr. Fererra restated that what was being suggested was that the Council look at this over the next six years and implement the Chamber's and builders' position immediately in 2001. He proposed that the fees be looked at annually. Councilwoman Fraverd noted at the rate proposed would result in a $2M shortfall over twenty-years. She asked where the money to maintain the roads would come from. She asked if$1.93 was not an appropriate rate for commercial/industrial, was it being suggested to increase the residential portion. Mr. Fererra clarified that $1.93 was not appropriate today, but might be seven years from now. Councilwoman Fraverd said that eventually all of the money would be needed. She felt that by having only a small portion of the revenues coming in from commercial/industrial fees now would require that significant increases would be needed in the future for commercial/industrial fees if the fee were to be implemented at substantially lower rate now. Mr. Fererra disagreed that the consultant's proposed fees were needed now. He did not want to put a burden on infant commercial development. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 2 of 14 Councilman McNeill asked how Mr. Fererra came in with a six-year phase in. Mr. Fererra responded the six-year figure was his own idea. He had looked at what the total impact would be and what should be coming on line in the next two or three years. The town, at that point, would have a good idea. He acknowledged that there wasn't tie anything mathematical about his six-year proposal. Councilwoman Ralphe said that after the Council's last consideration of this issue, she had also started thinking of graduated fees. She had not gotten to the point of putting years to it, because the Town Attorney had reminded her that this Council could not bind any future Council actions. She pointed out that Mr. Fererra's six-year proposal would go beyond the life of this current Council. Councilwoman Ralphe felt it would be advisable to enact a partial fee now with an agreement to revisit the issue in a year when this Council was in existence. Councilwoman Ralphe said that was about as far as this Council could graduate the fee schedule. Councilman Wyman asked the Town Attorney if it was legal to phase in the commercial fees over a six-year period but not to apply that to residential. Mr. Farrell responded that the amounts could vary, but the phasing in of the fees would create the problem. It appeared that the state statute, as written, states that any change to development fees triggers the requirement of a report, the necessity of the 90 day notice, and then the implementation period afterwards. He acknowledged that Councilwoman Ralphe pointed out correctly that this Council could change the fees several times during the course of the political life of this current Council, but none of those changes could go into effect at a point that would require a future Council to act. Councilman Wyman observed that if Fountain Hills had the demographics where commercial enterprises were kicking the doors down to do business here, then Fountain Hills could probably dictate that each developer pay for infrastructure. They would do so in order access the market here. He said that businesses needed to be brought in to generate needed sales tax or the town would not be self-sufficient. Councilman Wyman felt that the plan check fee, building permit fee, property tax, and sales tax fees listed in Mr. Fererra's proposal were not relevant as everyone had to pay those fees to build. It was when the discussion turned to additional fees that it became relevant. He felt that Mr. Fererra was trying to leverage the Council by presenting the building related fees. Mr. Fererra stated he was showing that there was a burden there and would be continuing. Councilman Wyman replied that in talking about roads, it was Shea and Fountain Hills Boulevard that had to be considered. He asked Director Valder if the Barclay Group was paying a large share of the infrastructure with regard to Shea. Director Valder said the Barclay Group was responsible for the off-site improvements to Shea where it abuts their project. Councilman Wyman asked if Vladimir Hulpach would be paying for improvements with regard to Palisades when his project was started. Director Valder said that Palisades was already built to its future width but he would be responsible for some improvement to get in and out of his project. Councilman Kavanagh thanked the Chamber for this input. He acknowledged that some of the Council had been concerned about freezing commercial development by imposing those originally high fees. He said this gave the Council a good feel for what was reasonable. He noted that the Chamber's proposal pointed out the revenue that came from a commercial building(based on the 10,000 sq. ft. building) was averaged at $16,503.61 per year. If the Council were to impose the excessive fees suggested by the consultants, and if that delayed the development by a year or two, all of the money that the Town would receive from the impact fee would disappear. Councilman Kavanagh said that in many ways when commercial development fees were imposed, you bite your nose to spite your face. He pointed out that these commercial businesses were cash cows and did not cost the town money. He reminded everyone that when reviewing property tax bills that a majority of the money was being paid to schools. He did not know of any commercial building that sends their kids to school. Commercial buildings do not have kids that needed to be educated. He agreed that the Town had to be careful not to scare those potential commercial ventures away or slowing them down. Jim Heasley, 14842 Mayflower He said he was the president of the board of directors for Plat 208 (north side of the downtown). They were opposed to any impact fees regardless of the amount. They viewed it as a front-end tax that would be a detriment to the commercial activity in the downtown. Edward Keye, 16620 Agate Knoll He was in favor of implementing a commercial/industrial development fee. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 3 of 14 Gordon Pittsenbarger, 15620 E. Cholla A resident and builder in the area for 16 years. He was opposed to commercial/industrial development fees. He corpointed out that it was extremely expensive to build a commercial building in Fountain Hills. He noted that there were many commercial vacancies at this time and imposing these impact fees would have a negative effect. Bill Pape, 16128 Emerald He was opposed to fees and urged the Council to keep the commercial/industrial fee at zero to encourage development. Councilman Kavanagh clarified that commercial/industrial fee could not be compared to the residential fee because there were two categories that the residential households pay for that the commercial category did not. Those two categories were parks and recreation and open space preservation. Those two categories comprise over 70% of the residential fees. The actual categories that were applied to commercial, which were Marshals, Streets, and General Government were only a tiny part of the residential fees. Vice Mayor Hutcheson said that the Town had to be careful when determining the reasons that Fountain Hills was not getting the types of development in the downtown that would be desired. Impact fees would be something to be looked at. In considering that, the Town must look around the valley and ask developers where can they build without fees. Fees might be called different names, but she felt there were fees to build wherever you go. She also felt that the current vacancy rate and population projections must be factored in. She noted that Fountain Hills did not have unlimited growth potential. She was willing to consider not imposing a high impact fee, but she did not want to give the impression that was the only reason that the Town would have some difficulty in continuing or attracting commercial development to the downtown. She acknowledged that there were a lot of contributing factors. Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 7:22 p.m. ikiw ITEM#7 CONSIDERATION OF THE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY EMERALD MESA VILLAS TO ALLOW ONE OF THE EXISTING UNITS AT 16107 EAST EMERALD DRIVE TO BE USED AS A SALES MODEL FOR THE REMAINING UNITS. Senior Planner Jesse Drake reviewed the situation. This temporary use permit would allow one of the existing units to be used as a sales model for the remaining units, beginning immediately and ending December 30, 2001. She said this sales model would be open between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. She explained that under normal circumstances staff would issue the temporary use permit, but because one letter of protest was received from Mr. and Mrs. Pape within the ten-day posting period it was remanded to Council. She explained that of the twenty-three units, eight were currently occupied. The sales model would be used to market the remaining 15 units. The use of one of the sales models was permitted by Section 10.03c of the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance with the temporary use permit. Ms. Drake stated that letter of protest and the rebuttal letter had been attached to the packet material before the Council. Councilman McNeill referred to two points contained in the letter of protest received from the Papes: • The period of one year be changed to allow for a period of one year or until the units at this location were sold, whichever came first so that no other units were sold from this location. • The owners do not use the same bright turquoise awnings Councilman McNeill asked if the zoning regulations already require that the facility only be used to sell units at that location. It would violate the temporary use permit to sell units at another location from this model. Ms. Drake replied that this model sales unit could be used to sell units anywhere within Fountain Hill,just not outside Fountain Hills. Director Valder clarified that according to the Town's zoning ordinance, which had been written for a custom home or a production home type of a model but was also permitted in condominiums, a model home could be used for product sales regardless of that product's location within the town limits. The model sales office could not be ittitiv used as an office to sell property that had been developed or property outside the town limits. Agents having their office within a model home, according to this set of regulations, could not sell a house that was picked up from that Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 4 of 14 model home. He acknowledged that was not the case today. Director Valder felt it was common practice for real estate companies to put agents in models and then use that model home as an office for that agent. He pointed out according to the Town's regulations,agents were not allowed to do that. Councilman McNeill said he now understood the distinction. The concern was that this owner could use this sales office to promote similar condominiums units at another location in town, but not some totally unrelated product. As he understood it, this owner just had units at this location at the present time. Director Valder agreed that was also his understanding. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the applicant would be willing to agree to the stipulations as written in the letter of protest. Ms. Drake said that the only information that she had from the applicant was the letter he had sent in response, which had been provided to the Council in their packet. She pointed out, if stipulated, it would be difficult to police. Councilman Kavanagh said the awning would not be difficult to police. Councilman Kavanagh said he had no problem allowing this permit subject to the addition of the two stipulations raised by the Papes. Councilman McNeill said the second stipulation dealt with the awning color and the response from the applicant had been that the color had been approved by the NPOA. He was not sure what the basis would be for the Council to remove what had been approved. Ms. Drake replied that the color of awning existed on the property now. Councilman McNeill stated he would support a motion to add the first stipulation as to the duration and types of sales but not the awning color. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the applicant would be willing to voluntarily comply with both stipulations listed in the letter. Ms. Drake responded that she could not answer for the applicant. Mayor Morgan said she did not interpret from the applicant's response that he would be willing to voluntarily comply. Councilman Wyman mentioned that he had driven by the property. He said the awnings were definitely visible on other units at this time. He said the Council would have to take it on faith that the NPOA had agreed to the color, but there was no basis for the Council to object regarding the color. He concurred with Councilman McNeill and Councilman Kavanagh with regard to the use of the model sales unit stipulation. Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve the temporary use permit with stipulation #1 as presented and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion. Bill Pape, 16128 E. Emerald His concern with the awnings was that they were down for a period of time and the building was much more attractive without the awnings. He felt the awnings were fine for a commercial building. He opposed that the applicant trying to turn a residential building into a commercial office space. He was concerned the applicant might move those awnings down towards the end of the building where they would be even more visible. If the NPOA had approved the awnings, he requested that the Council ask the NPOA to review the situation since the awnings were down for a period of time. He thought it might be necessary for the NPOA to again approve the installation of the awnings as far as the color was concerned. He expressed concern also at the size of the signage that they might put up as what would be typical of a commercial facility. Since this was strictly a residential area, it seemed that the color of the awnings should be toned down. Councilman Wyman asked if the Council had any legal authority to control the color of the building or awnings. Director Valder said that the Council had authority within the Code to consider a number of characteristics: lighting, landscaping, hours of operation, signage, parking, and neighborhood impact. Councilman Wyman said the Council could stretch their control by saying this issue was a neighborhood impact. Mayor Morgan disagreed that would be a stretch. Director Valder asked what was the purpose of the awning. Were they installed to get attention? Director Valder said he felt it was within the Council's ability to consider action. Councilman Wyman was also concerned about treading into the realm of the NPOA's authority. Director Valder said he would not even consider the NPOA's position in the Council's deliberations. 41060, Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 5 of 14 Councilman Kavanagh AMENDED the motion to include the second stipulation as presented in the letter of objection with the understanding that the applicant could address the need of these awnings at the next Council meeting. Councilman Kavanagh withdrew his amendment for the purpose of further discussion. Ms.Drake asked if it was the Council's intent to stipulate no awning or to define a color requirement. Vice Mayor Hutcheson asked Mr. Farrell if it was a definitive answer that the Council could address the awning issue under the "neighborhood impact"category? Mr. Farrell replied that it was difficult to say how neighborhood impact was defined. He stated that colors or pallets were not specifically included. Mr. Farrell said that Director Valder's interpretation that certain types of awnings, in connection with a trademark or logo, might be a form of signage. That would be one of the decisions that would have to be tested. He said he could think of some businesses where an awning color identifies a corporate logo. He said the Council would have to make that call. He noted that he felt uncomfortable about the color issue as causing a problem within the neighborhood in and of itself. He said it would be different if the awning was over a sidewalk or an impediment of some kind. Mayor Morgan asked if this was one awning on one unit or awnings on all the units. She questioned if the NPOA approved turquoise, what's to stop yellow or green. Was there a chance to have a circus atmosphere with the awnings? Mr. Farrell said that if the Council found that the awnings were detrimental to the neighborhood of(not part of the fundamental structure) then the Council could deny that particular amenity. It made him uncomfortable to say the awning was OK but the color of the awning was not. Councilman Kavanagh acknowledged that one of the problems was that the applicant was not present. He did not think the Council could find a reasonable middle ground without the applicant present. He pointed out that in the past this Council had been pretty successful in doing so. He said he did not feel the applicant was anxious to upset everyone. He said there was probably some less loud awning that would work, but the applicant was not present to discuss the situation. Councilman Kavanagh AMENDED the motion to include the second stipulation but allow an awning that would coe blend with the color of the structure. That would give the applicant the ability to find some middle ground with the residents in the area and allowed the operation to begin immediately without tabling this issue until the next Council meeting. If the applicant were to have a problem with the compromise, the applicant was free to come to the Council and have the issue reviewed. The amendment died to the lack of a second. Mayor Morgan quoted from the applicant's response letter saying that this awning type and color was the standard feature at this product. If this was a standard feature, why were the awnings not on the units to be sold and only on the sales unit if it were not a beacon to be used for sales? Ms. Drake noted that these awnings were on multiple units. Councilwoman Fraverd confirmed that these awnings would be on all of the units and were approved by the NPOA. In thinking back to the project, she remembered that the applicant had asked that the awning be put on because the project faced east and helped block the sun. She said that because these awnings were already on multiple units, she felt it would be expensive to change the color, but it could be suggested. Councilwoman Fraverd said it would be easier if the applicant were to appear before the Council. Perhaps middle ground could be found. For the Council to try and pass an action tonight and tell him that he could come back if he did not like the stipulations would place a burden on the applicant and complicate the situation for the Council and staff. Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to table this issue until the next Town Council meeting and Councilman Kavanagh SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED on a vote of 6—l. Councilman McNeill cast the nay vote. ITEM#8 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-01 AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12, TRAFFIC, ARTICLE 12-1, ADMINISTRATION, SECTION 12-2-2, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES; SPEED LIMITS, BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH C OF SAID SECTION TO REFLECT A DECREASE IN THE SPEED LIMIT ON FOUNTAIN HILLS BOULEVARD BEGINNING Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 6 of 14 200 FEET SOUTH OF CRYSTAL POINT DRIVE NORTHWARD TO PALISADES BOULEVARD FROM 45 MPH TO 35 MPH. Mr. Ward referred to the packet material on this issue. He said that presently the speed limit was 45 m.p.h. He pointed out that there was inadequate sight distance on the horizontal curve south of El Lago Boulevard. He mentioned that the east portion of El Lago Boulevard, approximately two-year ago east of Fountain Hills Boulevard was not paved and did not tie in to Fountain Boulevard. Since that time there had been increased development. Presently the senior care facility was under construction, multi-family development has taken place and the Community Center was coming on line as well as single family development on the northwest corner of El Lago and La Montana. He said that staff was looking at future proposed downtown commercial projects, which would be involved with Town Center III and II. He pointed out on the displayed map the portions of Palisades Boulevard and Fountain Hills Boulevard that were designated 35 m.p.h. Staff felt that this would create speed limit consistency as drivers approached the commercial areas and would help ease the speed limit situation on Fountain Hills Boulevard. He noted that presently Fountain Hills Boulevard carried approximately 11,000 vehicles per day from Shea Boulevard to Palisades Boulevard. He confirmed that there was a 40 M.P.H. warning sign on the horizontal curve south of El Lago Boulevard that was posted now. He referred to his memo in the packet material stating that a portion of the manual used by staff on Uniform Traffic Control Devices had been included for Council's review. Mr. Ward stated that the support data for speed limit evaluation study was available although it had not been included. He said the staff report had not gone into the lengthy portion of the support data on the speed limit evaluation study. Mr. Ward drew their attention to factors that staff considers under the uniform traffic control guidelines: • Road surface characteristics, shoulder conditions, grade alignment and sight distance • What the 85th percentile speed was • Roadside development to these road as well as road side friction (Streets that tie in to Fountain Hills Blvd. at this point) • Ingression and egression of driveways from those developments • Safe speed for curves on hazard locations within the zones • Pedestrian activity on both sides of the street in this area • Reported accident experience for a twelve-month period (He reported that there had been one fatality in the last year on this portion of roadway.) Mr. Ward stated that after review of the traffic data, the Engineering Department and the traffic Standards Committee had recommended that a speed reduction take place on Fountain Hills Boulevard. Staff requested that the reduction begin 200 feet south of Crystal Point northward to Palisades Boulevards. He said that staff believes there were adequate safety and engineering reasons to support this recommendation. He stated that members of the Traffic Standards Committee include individuals from the Marshals Department and the Sheriff's Office. He pointed out that these departments voted for the speed reduction but it was their request that the reduction be posted at Ironwood Drive, a three-way stop intersection. From an enforcement standpoint, they felt there would be less confusion. The Engineering staffs reasoning on 200 feet was that there was a clear field of view in an open area and that the traveling public could see the speed reduction as well as the signage that would be posted. Mr. Ward stated that it was staff's recommendation that the reduction from 45 m.p.h. to 35 m.p.h. on Fountain Hills Boulevard beginning 200 feet south of Crystal Point Drive northward to Palisades Boulevard. Mayor Morgan asked how many speed limit changes were there between Shea and Palisades on Fountain Hills Boulevard. Mr. Ward stated that from Shea Boulevard traveling northward on Fountain Hills Boulevard it was 35 M.P.H. to Kingstree. At Kingstree the speed limit changes to 45 M.P.H. until Palisades Boulevard was reached where the speed limit was 35 m.p.h. He explained that this would put a reduction just north of Ironwood Drive to Palisades Boulevard to a posted speed of 35 m.p.h. Mayor Morgan said there would only be a small strip of Fountain Hills Boulevard that would remain at 45 m.p.h. Mr. Ward confirmed that was correct, from Kingstree to Ironwood. Mayor Morgan asked why that higher speed limit was necessary there and why not just make Fountain Hills Boulevard 35 M.P.H. all the way from Shea all the way in. Mr. Ward said staff had looked at that possibility. He said he had talked with the traffic engineer, Randy Harrel, and Leticia Carrillo (traffic engineering analyst) L., concerning that issue. Mr. Ward said staff felt that was an open residential area without streets entering that area Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 7 of 14 that would make a speed reduction necessary at that point. Mr. Ward said that had been his concern. Did staff want to look for consistency or would that frustrate the traveling public if it were to be reduced to 35 m.p.h. Staff also consulted with the Marshals Department. He reiterated that the Marshals Department felt it should remain at 45 M.P.H. in that area. Councilman Wyman responded that one of the reasons for leaving that portion of Fountain Hills Boulevard at 45 M.P.H. was due to the hilly nature of the terrain there. According to law enforcement it was difficult for the public to control their downhill speed in that area. He explained that as long as there wasn't a major danger and the standards didn't call for it, it was probably acceptable to leave the posted speed at 45 M.P.H. Councilman Wyman agreed it made sense to start the reduction in the posted speed limit at the three-way stop sign located on Ironwood. Maricopa County Sheriff Sgt. Lockwood made the point at the recent Traffic Standard Committee meeting that changing the speed limit at that point might enhance the safety in the area. Councilman McNeill said he was aware of the difficulty that motorist have maintaining a 45 M.P.H. speed as they go north from Kingstree as that was his drive home every night. He said it made common sense for the existing 45 M.P.H. be left between Kingstree and Ironwood. However, he did not feel there was much to be gained by allowing motorist to travel 45 M.P.H. from Ironwood northward .3 of a mile to where the recommended starting point of the 35 M.P.H. speed reduction take place. He said he would support establishing the speed limit reduction point at Ironwood. Mr. Nordin asked the Town Attorney if the way this agenda item was worded could the Council impose a 35 M.P.H. speed limit below the point shown on the map to Ironwood. He suggested that staff could take a direction to bring another item to the Council at a future meeting. He deferred to the Town Attorney. Mr. Farrell agreed that since the violation of Chapter 12 could result in a criminal citation he would feel more comfortable if there was to be any varying of where the speed limit was to be changed, that the agenda item be brought back at a future Council meeting. Councilman Kavanagh asked the engineer to restate the arguments for staff's recommendation. Mr. Ward said that the reason was there was a clear field of view and staff was not looking at line of sight problem at that situation. Staff felt that gave the motorists a time for speed adjustment. Councilman Wyman asked if the ordinance could be amended to have a different starting point for the speed reduction. Mr. Farrell said it could not be altered. If it were the Council's desire to get the ordinance back with the changes as discussed, other than the area reflected, that then he would prefer that this item be reagendized with proper public notice. Mayor Morgan asked if it could be continued until the next Council meeting. Mr. Farrell stated that action could be done. Councilman McNeill MOVED to continue this item until the next meeting with direction to staff to prepare a new ordinance with the speed reduction beginning at the Ironwood intersection and Vice Mayor Hutcheson SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. ITEM#9 DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EVENT POLICY. STAFF WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE POLICY AND RECEIVE COMMENT FROM THE COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO PREPARING THE FINAL ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION. Mayor Morgan called upon Mr. Farrell to begin the discussion. Mr. Farrell said that subsequent to the last meeting he had met with the Clerk and the Marshal. He stated that they had tried to address those issues that the Council had questioned. He said it had prompted some spirited discussion among the staff regarding the whole special event policy and preparation of the special event ordinance. Mr. Farrell said that the desire of the Council to put a limit on the number of major special events that occur in the Town and the overall feeling of the members of the committee were expressed very strongly by the Marshal and the Town Clerk. They said that there was an increasing number of complaints and concerns that town staff and Council Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 8 of 14 hear from time to time about the major events in which street closures of at least five hours or more or large crowds occur because of the disruption in the normal habit of patrons, community members, and the general public. On the iititio other hand it became clear that Fountain Hills was a community that had an unlimited supply of creative ideas for special events and a community that seemed to enjoy the special event once there. He said they tried to come up with was some balance between the two. Staff felt that it was important to get a commitment from the Council on was the magic number of special events to be held in Fountain Hills was. They had debated whether or not the holiday events, which would normally qualify for special event status, needed to be included in that number. The reason that they had difficulty was because of the tolerance policy that the committee had come up with was about a twenty-five day window. If it were decided that there would only be four special events in this community, but they were on consecutive weekends, you would probably have very angry citizens by the third or fourth weekend. The committee felt that a tolerance policy of about once a month would probably be best and that was where the twenty-five days window came from. Special care was paid to the fact that if the Town only required the users to apply for the special events permit they would probably all be in a period during which time the population of the valley and the town were at its zenith. He pointed out that other than the Fourth of July, the third Sunday in August was not a real popular day to be outdoors as opposed to the number of people that were available and the climate that the valley enjoyed during the winter season. There was a balancing test that went on and resulted in the position where staff was going to recommend that the total number of major special events during a calendar year would be ten, and that two of those would be the events that were currently eligible for the grandfathered status. That would leave eight events that could be scheduled. Some of those events were a third to a half way towards becoming grandfathered events in and of themselves. The four holiday events would be calendared, but excluded from the twenty-five day window. He explained that the four defined holiday events were mentioned earlier in the ordinance. He said staffs question tonight was there agreement or direction from the Council that ten events would be a good place for staff to start the written policy, of which eight would be open. He said they had responded to the questions with regard to the effectiveness of a January ordinance with a January start date. Mr. Farrell said the policy would be amended to start the policy with a July ls calendar to coincide with the fiscal year and the policy would have an April 1st application date, which would allow the Council to adopt the finished product either at the second January Council meeting or at either of the February meetings without an emergency clause. He said the policy would be well in effect before April 1st and would allow for the calendar to be prepared starting July 1st, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002. He asked that the Council to provide direction to staff on that major policy issue. Mr. Farrell answered a question posed by Councilman Kavanagh regarding the 501c3 charitable nonprofit organization status and if that affected people who had not obtained the federal tax exemption (not state). He confirmed that did not affect their ability. It merely affected the fee they paid for the permit. He said the committee had recommended a lower fee in the fee schedule for those who had obtained the status of 501c. Mr. Farrell addressed the previously raised question regarding exceptions to the major special event policy. He noted that the committee had labored over the exceptions. The committee suggested that three additional exceptions be added to the major special event policy: • Regularly scheduled religious services • Funerals and memorials • Dignitary visits Mr. Farrell stated that the committee had wrestled with the definition of major events versus minor events. The committee concluded that the definition of a major event stay very close to the written draft. That would be an event that required the closure of any major or minor arterial town street, sidewalk, or right-of-way for more than five consecutive hours and/or and event that would have five hundred or more participants, or spectators, and/or require public safety services. He pointed out that the committee had tried to make the definition event driven so that if the event was a public safety risk to yourself, the spectators, or the event would draw more five hundred or more participants, and/or the event would close an arterial street, sidewalk or right-of-way for more than five consecutive hours,then that event would fall into the major event category. Mr. Farrell then concluded that a minor event became anything that was not a major event. Staff felt it was important to leave minor event in. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 9 of 14 Mr. Farrell discussed how the individual or groups would know if the event needed a permit. Staff felt strongly that most of the organizations were run by individual who did have the good sense of community and community purpose. They would know that they could not go out and barricade a street, they would know that if their event needed public safety services that they would have to contact the Marshals Department. He said the permitting process would give staff a certain amount of discretion when considering those types of events where the definitions could not be written that far in advance. He noted that the committee had changed the grandfathered event to ten years rather than fifteen years. He explained that was a jurisdictional issue. Although many events had occurred for far longer than ten years,he felt more comfortable using that time frame. Mr. Farrell talked about the committee's recommendation of limiting certain fundraising events to four events per year per organization. The committee felt that the four events per year per organization, although not necessarily tied to the state's temporary liquor license permit, would certainly discourage a fifty-two week a year event from occurring and was reasonable. It would help eliminate the impact that might occur on a neighborhood area or a specific area by such events. Mr. Farrell suggested that if an organization came with needs in excess of four, the ordinance could be amended. Mr. Farrell stated that the medical services versus the public safety services counted on. the fundamental basic intelligence of event organizer so that they seek out through the Fire Department, the Sheriffs Department, the Marshals Department, or the Clerk's office for some information on when they try and promote events that would attract a large number of individuals. He did not think that there had been a single occasion where somebody built their own barricades or blocked off major streets. He proposed staff was comfortable that the citizens would become familiar with this policy. He said knowledge was the key to the effectiveness of this policy. Councilman Kavanagh questioned the definition of major events. He asked if the basic requirements were more than 500 people, street closure, and/or street closure. Councilman Kavanagh gave a scenario of a golf tournament that would have 600 people attending but would not require street closures. He asked if that would be considered to be a major event. Mr.Farrell said that if the event was conducted entirely on private property, had adequate parking facilities available,and public safety was not an issue,then the policy would allow the Town not to classify that as a major event. It would become major event if there were more spectators than participants because then crowd control would become an issue with the additional issue of public facilities and street parking needed. Councilman Kavanagh asked if a banquet were to be held at the Hilton with 600 people attending, would that be considered a major event. Mr. Farrell replied the event would be looked at to see if the banquet facilities were fire rated for 600 people and for adequate parking. It met those criteria then it would not be classified as a major event. Councilman Kavanagh asked if a rummage sale held by the high school, which usually had 700 — 800 people at times, would be classified as a major event. Mr. Farrell said probably not under those circumstances, but again said that each component of the event would need to be looked at. If there were to be a huge amount of traffic congestion, which effected public safety it would be suggested that either that the event be minimized or they would have to get in line for major event status. Mr. Farrell explained the Town did not want to prevent those types of private property activities but did not want to encourage them as to allow them to accidentally become events that would cause a great deal of interference with side streets. Councilman Kavanagh said this process seemed very subjective in terms of which public official reviewed the event. He gave another example: a high school football game, 800—900 people in attendance for a short period of time, with a need for crowd control. Mr. Farrell said the school presently did provide some crowd control for home football games. Councilman Kavanagh asked if that would be considered a major event. Mr. Farrell said no, that under the present intent of the policy it was never treated as a major event. Mr. Farrell suggested that schools could be written into the exceptions but that the schools should not think that they could now start blockading the streets. Councilman Kavanagh stated that was why he was favoring verbiage to reflect that if the event did not cause the closure of a street and was held entirely on private property or school property the event should be allowed. He did not think there was clear guidance in terms of policy wording. Mr. Farrell responded that the issue becomes the size of the facility for those types of events. He said it was not the intent to discourage private events on private property. He stated that the number 500 had been picked arbitrarily, Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 10 of 14 as a place to start within the policy. He questioned if the insertion of a major event definition, without a population number, would have Council support. Councilman Kavanagh asked if an event were to be held on private property (such as a bowling alley) with many more people than their capacity could meet would the Town have any control? Mr. Farrell said yes. If the event were to exceed their rated occupancy by the fire code, the Fire Department could order the excess participants out of the bowling alley. If unruly conduct occurred, the Marshals Department would be called in. He explained that by using the number 500 it had been the committee's intent to allow everyone who had a reasonable rated capacity to use that rated capacity. Councilman Kavanagh questioned if another category should be created called moderate event. This category would be for events with more than the 500 people but not requiring any street closures. That way these people would still have to come to the Town and establish that they had taken care of medical needs,crowd control and parking issues,but because of the ten year limit he thought there might be a problem with allowing this event. Director Hansen suggested that verbiage could be added to denote that if the event were held entirely on private property, it would not be classified as a major event. Councilman Kavanagh felt comfortable that if the event did not require the closure of a public street it was not a major event. He pointed out that the organizers would have to deal with other issues such as crowd control, adequate parking, etc. Mr. Farrell said that staff would check with Rural Metro to see how many commercial facilities the Town had that had rated occupancies in excess of 500. Councilman Kavanagh said that it was not just that but also the golf courses,high school football games, Easter Egg Hunt, etc. He stated all of these events did not require public street closures but under this definition they would be major events. He expressed concern that if there were to be only ten major events a year, then there would be a lot of events that would no longer be held because the Council had inadvertently made them illegal. He said he knew that was not the intent. He proposed that a major event was an event, which involved a street closure. Mr. Farrell suggested adding the wording"and/or public safety service requirements"to the classification of a major event. Councilman Kavanagh agreed as long as the Council could adequately define public safety because that again became a subjective thing. Councilman McNeill agreed there were some problems with the definition of "major event". He said the basic focus was on the very large events, which brought in thousands of people with lots of streets closed off. He stated many people felt inconvenienced by that. He felt that as a Council and a community ten was probably the right number. But he did not know if the Council should be looking at any particular number people if there weren't any street closures required. He noted that if the event did not require street closures nor had 500 or more participants, but did required the services of any public safety services the event would still be classified a major event. Councilman McNeill brought up the Jingle Bell Run. He said there weren't quite 500 people attending and there weren't any street closures required, but he noted that there were services provided by the Town Marshal for momentary traffic stops on Saguaro to allow the runners to pass. Under this definition this run would be classified as a major event and would have to be one of the ten major events allowed per year. He did not think that was the type of event that should be put in this category. Director Hansen addressed the Jingle Bell Run event. She said this was a good example of an event that started small and was getting larger. The first year when they used the rolling blockade it was effective and the Marshal felt it was a safe event. The event sponsor agreed this year that it had become so successful and grown to the point that using the rolling blockade was no longer safe. The Marshal noted that this year there had been some near misses, traffic had increased on Saguaro, and the way of doing that event as in the past would just not work any longer. So that would be one event that would have to be looked at next year to accommodate the growth of the event and the town. Councilman McNeill said he agreed that would likely be required, but if a street closure were to be set up to accommodate this type of event it would not be for a five hours duration, so he would question if it should fall under the major event category. Mayor Morgan asked if it was the number amount that was the concern? She would hate to see a wedding with 600 attendees at the reception do away with some other event that would help the community. Mr. Farrell said he was beginning to see the difficulty. Councilman Kavanagh asked if there would be a clause that would allow the Council to grant an exception for a special situation. Director Hansen said there wasn't a blanket exemption included only defined exemptions. Councilman Kavanagh asked if there was a fee waiver for the Council to exercise. Mr. Farrell said no. The policy was intended to Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 11 of 14 establish that if the fee was a make or break issue for an event that perhaps the organization should not be having the event. Councilman Kavanagh said he was thinking more on the lines of a charity event. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the event fell into the minor event category, would that require only a permit? Mr. Farrell said yes along with a review of the activities to make sure that those secondary issues wouldn't make the event a major event were addressed. Councilman Kavanagh asked for examples of a minor event. Mr. Farrell responded anything that wasn't a major event. Councilman Kavanagh asked if garage sales were minor events. Director Hansen said that garage sales were specifically addressed in the policy. Mr. Farrell read from a listing in the policy of minor events. Director Hansen suggested that an event be classified a major event if an event had all three of those criteria: 500 people or more and Required street closures for five consecutive hours and Required public safety services Mayor Morgan said that could technically make someone's wedding a major event. Mr. Farrell said that he did not think a wedding would require street closures for five hours. Vice Mayor Hutcheson said there must be some sort of criteria established. There might be some exceptions but what the committee and staff were trying to do was to look at the broader picture and define certain categories as to their impact on the town. She agreed with Director Hansen that having all three elements just mention would make that event a major event. That would be a serious impact on the town if all three of those things were to happen at once. If the event were just a fund-raiser or a golf tournament, most likely all three of those criteria would not be met at one time and it would be held on private property. If the event couldn't be contained on private property, then that should be classified as a major event because of the impact on the town and those who organize such an event should be able to schedule that ahead. Councilman Kavanagh concurred with that definition of a major event. He felt that should resolve the problem for football games, the egg scramble,carnival,etc. Councilman McNeill asked staff to take another look at charging lower fees to all charitable organizations even thought they might not have the official 501c3 status. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the Council thought the fee waiver might give the Council the power to take those situations into account. Councilman McNeill said that would help,but there might be additional wording in the definition to look more at the charitable nature of the organization rather than limiting it to those qualified under the IRS regulations. Vice Mayor Hutcheson understood the Council's concern, but questioned if the Council was talking about waiving the fees for a large charitable event and asked who would make that judgment call. She asked what was a charitable event. Mr. Nordin said staff could look at whatever criteria would be presented along the lines of what the Vice Mayor described. He said that if the Council wanted to be the authoritative body that would waive that fee it could, but he certainly thought that staff could handle that if certain criteria were met. He felt it could be done under his authority or Director Hansen's or at some staff level. Director Hansen offered as a point of clarification that in the past staff had found that if there were small groups that wanted to do events and because of the Town's certificate of insurance requirement,often they would get a sponsor from a larger organization who had their 501c3 status. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if there would be a twenty-five day window between any major event requirement. Mr. Farrell said the policy as written would not allow the ten major events to be within twenty-five days of one another. Vice Mayor Hutcheson pointed out that was excluding the four holiday events: • Easter service • Thanksgiving Day Parade • Holiday Lighting activities • Fourth of July Councilman Kavanagh asked if the policy would provide the Council the power to waive that requirement on kokire special circumstances. Mr. Farrell questioned if he was referring to the twenty-five day limitation. Councilman Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 12 of 14 Kavanagh said yes. Mr. Farrell said the policy could be written to encourage every organization to appear before the Council for a fee and a date waiver. That way every organization would appear before the Council requesting a waiver of the fees and concession on the date. That would not be any good for the Council or the Town. He spoke from years of experience by saying that if all the public had to do was to appear before the Council to get it free and could be held on any day they wanted they would appear at every Council meeting. He said there was a point where the Council needed to be protected from that situation. He suggested that if the Council found this policy too harsh, it could be amended. He said that if such activity was encouraged,he guaranteed that activity would come. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if it was possible to close one street at a time because it becomes difficult to get around town when there are numerous streets closed at one time. Mr. Farrell could not envision a policy that could be written to limit closure to one street. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if there was no limit to the number of streets that a special event could close. Mr.Farrell said the Town was setting the limits through public safety by describing the pattern, the blockading, the parking, and so on as a condition of obtaining the permit, which would fall to the "public safety pros" to tell the event organizers how and where it would be done. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if they would then make the recommendation. Mr.Farrell said it would become a condition for issuance of the permit. Director Hansen added that sometimes staff works with event coordinators to help them to come up with a new route that staff felt was safer for the event. She also noted that to limit street closures to one street would preclude the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Councilwoman Fraverd said street closures of one day or limited hours were not so inconvenient,but when it was spread out over several days it became inconvenient for the community to get around. Mr. Farrell suggested that second draft could be ready for the Council review at the January 18th meeting with a possible February adoption. He asked if that would be agreeable with the Council. They agreed to those dates. Mayor Morgan commented that she had remained quiet during this discussion because she was closely connected to some of the major event. Therefore she had not been making comments with regard to major events. She announced that she would not be voting on this issue because she felt there was an implied conflict of interest. ITEM#10 CALL TO THE PUBLIC. No one came forward. ITEM#11 ADJOURNMENT. Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED to adjourn and Councilwoman Fraverd SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 13 of 14 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS B haron Morgan, ay ATTEST: 6 ) * . ; -' Cassie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk PREPARED BY: 7. 1 '/ ).;(, . 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 4th day of January 2001. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 18th day of January 2001. Cassie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/4/01 Page 14 of 14