Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.0118.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL January 18,2001 Mayor Morgan called the regular session of the Town Council to order at 5:30 p.m. Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED that the Council convene the executive session and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion, which carried unanimously. ITEM#1 PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §38-431.03.A.4, AND A.R.S. §38-431.03.A.3, 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); AND DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEYS FOR LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING THE LOS ARCOS MULTIPURPOSE FACILITIES DISTRICT. ITEM#2 RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION Mayor Morgan recessed the executive session of the Town Council at 6:16 p.m. and convened the regular session of the Town Council at 6:30 p.m. Following the pledge to the flag by the Lightning Patrol, Pack 243(Kreg Popowicz, Kurt Wagner, Peter Anderelli, Now Michael Stelle, Mark Shea), and the invocation by Pastor Dennis Daniel of the First Baptist Church, the roll call was taken. ROLL CALL - Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Sharon Morgan, Vice Mayor Sharon Hutcheson and Councilmembers Leesa Fraverd,John Wyman,John McNeill, John Kavanagh, and Susan Ralphe. Also present were Town Manager Paul Nordin, Town Attorney Bill Farrell, Director of Administration/Town Clerk Cassie Hansen, Interim Town Engineer Tom Ward, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Bryan Hughes, and Director of Community Development Jeff Valder. AGENDA ITEM#1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 2,4 AND 9,2001. AGENDA ITEM#2- CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENT REQUEST SUBMITTED BY KENNY KRELL FOR THE FOUNTAIN HILLS HIGH SCHOOL 5K WALK/RUN SCHEDULED FOR SUNDAY, MARCH 4, 2001. THE RACE, THAT BEGINS AND ENDS AT THE HIGH SCHOOL, IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN AT 8:00 A.M. AND CONCLUDE BY 11:00 A.M. ALTHOUGH TRAFFIC MAY BE TEMPORARILY INTERRUPTED,NO STREET CLOSURES ARE REQUIRED. AGENDA ITEM#3- CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-03 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 603- B,BLOCK 1, LOT 39 (15510 E. CHICORY DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 161 OF MAPS, PAGE 41 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. (JON V.BRADY) EA00-34 AGENDA ITEM#4- CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-04 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 1 of 16 DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 212, BLK 4, LOT 17 (16703 OXFORD DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 141 OF MAPS, PAGE 17 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. (CHRIS GIERSZEWSKI) EA00-35 PORTIONT OL zi AAG T (T A BE7 ED AS PROPOSEDD TRACTrD 1) OF E CDOSSRO A DS AGENDA ITEM#6- CONSIDERATION OF RENEWING THE SLURRY SEAL ANNUAL CONTRACT. AGENDA ITEM#7 - 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 AT IRONWOOD DRIVE NORTHWARD TO PALISADES BOULEVARD, FROM 45 MPH TO 35 MPH. AGENDA ITEM#8- CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE DESERT SAGE CONDOMINIUMS,A 42-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED ON A 84,900 SQUARE FOOT LOT AT 16631 E.EL LAGO BOULEVARD, CASE NUMBER S2000-048. AGENDA ITEM#9- CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE BRUNSWICK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS, A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED ON A 10,193±SQUARE FOOT LOT AT 16424 E.ASHBROOK DRIVE, CASE NUMBER S2000-049. AGENDA ITEM#10- CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE FAIRFAX CONDOMINIUMS,A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED ON A 10,324±SQUARE FOOT LOT AT 16641 E.FAIRFAX DRIVE, CASE NUMBER S2000-050. AGENDA ITEM#11 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-06 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN A PORTION OF THE CERTAIN HILLSIDE PROTECTION EASEMENT, AND THE ACCEPTING OF A NEW HILLSIDE PROTECTION EASEMENT FOR CUESTA ACRES, LOT 4 RECORDED IN BOOK 460 OF MAPS, PAGE 29 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,AKA 16141 E. THISTLE DRIVE, CASE NUMBER HPE2000-02.EA AGENDA ITEM#12- CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING THE BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF 36 COMPUTERS APPROVED IN THE 2000/2001 BUDGET TO TRANSOURCE COMPUTERS IN THE AMOUNT OF$25,077.60. Town Attorney Bill Farrell stated that staff was requesting the removal of consent item #5. 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 Wyman aye Councilman McNeill- aye Vice Mayor Hutcheson - aye Councilwoman Fraverd- aye Councilman Kavanagh - aye Councilwoman Ralphe— aye Mayor Morgan - aye The motion CARRIED unanimously with a roll call vote. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 2 of 16 AGENDA ITEM#13- CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MASTER PLAN FOR FOUR PEAKS NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PHASE II. ik Deputy Director Hughes discussed the proposed improvements for the park. He reminded the Council that staff 1110 was working to put together a letter of understanding with the School District regarding the land transfer to the Town for further development. Mr. Hughes stated that the estimated cost of the project was $1.7 million. He added that staff hoped to obtain grant money to help pay for the improvements. He explained that this was the Parks and Recreations Commission's first priority and he hoped to be able to plan this project for the next fiscal year. Parks and Recreation Commissioner Michael Fleck addressed the Council and reiterated that for over the past four plus years, Four Peaks Neighborhood Park had been the Commission's number one priority. He noted that with the addition of the new facilities, it should bring the rest of the facilities up to the caliber of Golden Eagle Park. The Commission believed that this plan would address the current lack of adequate facilities in this part of town, which had a dense population of families. For that reason, the Commission recommended that the Council approve this plan. Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve the master plan for Four Peaks Neighborhood Park as presented and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion. Councilwoman Fraverd asked for a visual of where the proposed land transfer was located. Mr. Hughes pointed out the location on the displayed map. Councilman McNeill offered his thanks to the Commission for their work in putting this plan together. He felt it was time that the Town brought the quality of this park up to that of Golden Eagle Park. Councilman Kavanagh asked that if the grant came through, what would be the anticipated completion time. Mr. Hughes responded that the earliest date that the Town could enter into a participation agreement to get the grant money would be early December. Therefore, if the Town were awarded the grant, the project could begin as early as January and completed in approximately 180 days (approximately next summer if fast tracked). The motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#14- CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-01 APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LOCAL, REGIONAL AND STATE PARKS FUNDING FOR FOUR PEAKS NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PHASE II. Mr. Hughes again addressed the Council. He stated that this was a standard resolution by the Council confirming to the Arizona State Parks that should the Town be awarded grant money that the Town was fiscally capable of matching or exceeding that amount in order to complete the presented project. He said that next year the maximum total was $560,000. Councilman Kavanagh MOVED to approve Resolution 2000-01 as presented and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#15- 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 that this item had been continued from the last Council meeting to allow the applicant to be present and he now was. She reiterated that this was a request for a temporary use permit to allow one of the existing units at Emerald Mesa Villas to be used as a sales model for the remaining units. She explained that use would begin immediately and end December 30, 2001, with the models open between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. She noted that there had been one letter of protest received. Senior Planner Jesse Drake acknowledged that party was also present. She pointed out that there were 23 units in this complex with 8 currently occupied and the sales model would be used to market the remaining units. \ow, Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve the temporary use permit as presented and Vice Mayor Hutcheson SECONDED the motion. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 3 of 16 Mayor Morgan stated she had discussions with the chairman of the NPOA and they were also dealing with this project. She stated that they had not received the necessary information from the applicant for them to approve the project contrary to what was stated previously. She proposed two stipulations for Council consideration: • The permit not become valid until the Emerald Mesa Villas obtain the necessary NPOA approvals with regard to architectural design and color. • The permit not be issued for longer than one year or until the last remaining sites sold, whichever occur first. Vice Mayor Hutcheson said that a decision had to be made one way or another for the NPOA. She felt that some of the issues previously discussed were not the Council's to address. Councilman Wyman asked if the Council was becoming the go between for the applicant and the Neighborhood Property Association. He noted that in the past, the Council had stayed away from doing that. Mr. Farrell replied that he agreed to the extent that the application must rise or fall on terms and conditions of the Town Code and the Town's authority to either grant or deny it. He felt the Mayor had been contemplating that if the temporary use permit were approved, that it not be issued until the other permits were obtained but would not be a refusal to go forward or be conditional upon NPOA approval. He stated that then the NPOA was in the position of retaining an attorney to exercise their rights as they so chose. He said that if the Council were to approve the temporary use permit tonight, and Director Valder was directed not to issue the building permit until they had heard from the NPOA, that would be fine. Councilman Wyman expressed concern that the Council could be put in a position of having to rule on similar situations. Mr. Farrell restated that it was his legal advice and staffs recommendation that the Council make their decision predicated on the Town's ordinances,rules and regulations and the Town's stated authorization. Councilman Kavanagh asked then where does not issuing a permit fall into what was just recommended. Mr. Farrell replied that this issue was about to go to the NPOA. Mr. Farrell pointed out that the Town had agreements with other organizations, such as the Sanitary District, where the Town would not deny the applicant permission but would also not issue the certificate of occupancy until the applicant secured sanitation on the premise. If it were just a matter of timing, which meeting occurred first or second, that would be fine. He pointed out that a delegation of the Council's legislative authority to the NPOA, the Sanitary District, the Chaparral City Water Company, or the State of Arizona could not be done. But the Town could coordinate their timing of permit issuance. Councilman Kavanagh asked if Mr. Farrell was suggesting the Council could approve the temporary use permit with these stipulations: • the sales model would exist for no longer than a year but would close sooner if all of the units were sold • the Town would not issue a permit to open the model until the NPOA approval was received. Mr. Farrell responded no. He stated the permit would issue when the decision of the NPOA was final, as that would be within the reason of the Council's discretion. Councilman Kavanagh restated he thought he had just heard, "nothing would be issued by the Town until the NPOA made their decision". Councilman Kavanagh said if the Council approved this use,the model would not open until the NPOA made their ruling. Mr. Farrell said he had thought the discussion had been about coordinating the timing, but he was not sure that if it was continued indefinitely by another organization that the Town would not just go ahead and issue what the Town had the authority to issue anyway. Councilman Kavanagh said that if the Council were to modify this motion it would have to be that no permits to open the model sales office would occur until the issues were resolved by the NPOA within a reasonable stipulated amount of time. Mr. Farrell thought that would happen within a week or two. Councilman Wyman asked if this situation was similar to the case of the recent lot split. That property owner's" problem had been that they could not get their neighborhood property association's approval for the split. Mr. Farrell recalled the lot split issue and he was not under the impression that the CC&R's called for an approval ,., process of that lot split. He had understood it to be a strict prohibition on the lot split. So in the lot split context Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 4 of 16 there wasn't any other body for the property owner to go before. It was a decision by those other owners of the covenant conditions and restrictions whether or not they wanted to seek some legal redress. %Or Mr. Farrell pointed out that regarding this use issue, the process was on a track to go to several organizations and the Council was ahead of the game. Councilman Wyman said that if the Council made a decision that decision wouldn't have any merit if the applicant couldn't get it past their own NPOA anyway. He felt that was the applicant's problem and not the Council's. Senior Planner Jesse Drake said that under the Town's Ordinance, Section 10.03, the Council was allowed to address issues which had neighborhood impact and the Council could rule however they chose. Mayor Morgan asked Councilwoman Fraverd if the NPOA special use permit was predicated on the Council's decision. Councilwoman Fraverd stated it was. She explained that if the Council turned this application down, it would not go to the Committee of Architecture. If the Council were to approve this application, it would go to the Committee of Architecture so the applicant would have a couple of hoops to go through. Councilwoman Fraverd pointed out the problem with the lot split case was that the applicant had not wanted to go through the NPOA's hearing process and was disappointed that he was required to do so. She noted that the Committee of Architecture met last Monday and discussed this issue. She stated they felt comfortable taking on the problem of the awnings and the color. She felt that if the Council were to get involved it would put the Council in a difficult position and perhaps set a precedent. She proposed that the Council put that issue aside and let the Committee of Architecture handle it with the owner as it was really their call anyway with regard to the color of the awnings. Councilwoman Fraverd felt that if the permit were to be issued with an expiration date of December 30, 2001, that would be a reasonable amount of time. Councilman Kavanagh asked for clarification of the discussion. If the Council was to approve the temporary use permit and two weeks from now the NPOA says that awning was no good, would the Town issue the permit for the model sales unit. Director Valder stated that the permit to construct the unit had already been issued. Councilman Kavanagh said he was talking about the permit to open the model. Director Valder said that if the Council were to approve the temporary use permit it would become effective immediately. The applicant could open it in the morning. Councilman Kavanagh asked if that unit could include any color awning on it. Director Valder said that hinged on any stipulations that the Council felt comfortable requiring. He said the awning color was the secondary issue. He explained that the main purpose of the temporary use permit was to permit the model home, but the Council could stipulate that turquoise awnings were not acceptable. Councilman Kavanagh interjected that it would be a NPOA approved color. He said the impression he had gotten from Mr. Farrell was that if the Council mentioned NPOA approval as a stipulation, and if NPOA acted within a reasonable amount of time, then the Council's decision could be binding. Mr. Farrell said it had not been his intention to leave him with that impression. The legal issue was whether or not the legislative body could delegate its authority to legislate someone else. He said the answer to that issue was uniformly no. Mr. Farrell had thought the issue was one of timing. Councilman Kavanagh asked him to explain how the council could use timing to help facilitate a reasonable ending to this dispute. Mr. Farrell responded that he did not think that the Council could facilitate a reasonable ending. He said that if the Council did not want to give either the committee or the applicant an unfair advantage, then the Council could approve the permit and have it issued for a determined date or sooner if the applicant obtained the approval of the Committee of Architecture. He agreed that Director Valder correctly stated the issue before the Council and that was to consider approval of using this condo as a temporary sales office. He pointed out that he and the Town staff disagreed to some moderate extent as to how much the Council could get involved in the color issue. He said the Council should make their decision independently, but if it would facilitate not being used as a lever, the Council could certainly say that the permit could begin January 31 and end December 31, 2001. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the applicant intended to go to the NPOA expeditiously. Councilwoman Fraverd explained that the applicant also had to apply to the Committee of Architecture for a use permit for a Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 5 of 16 model home office. They would not open the office in the morning as mentioned before. The applicant would have to go through the process. 441.•' Councilman Wyman said the Council was being solely asked to move on the temporary use permit and there was nothing in the documentation that said the Council was looking at the issue of the awnings. Councilman Kavanagh asked the applicant if he would be contacting the Committee of Architecture and dealing with any issues that were under their jurisdiction with respect to this project. Ed Oliva, representing Coldwell Banker- Desert Sunrise Realty, responded yes. He alluded to a conversation he had with a member of the NPOA. He said they had come to an understanding. After they had gone through the Council approval process they, the applicant, had agreed they would be in their office the following day to address issues that were not in compliance. Mr. Oliva said they understood and acknowledged that the existing awning color was not in the color pallet of the NPOA. He agreed that they would comply. He also explained that the awnings had been in place for as long as three years. He said that somehow, over the development of the project, and there had been a series of inspections at the property, the awning color had been overlooked. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the stipulation had been included in the motion that the permit would be issued for one year or less or until the last unit sold. Director Valder responded that the Council did not need to put that motion in, because when the last unit was sold, the applicant would not be allowed to operate it, as there weren't any other units to sell. The motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#16- CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-02 AMENDING THE TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 7, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 7-10-8, TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A TOWN MARSHAL DEVELOPMENT FEE ON ALL NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PAYABLE AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT %taw ISSUANCE TO PROVIDE FOR NECESSARY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND PATROL AND OTHER VEHICLES TO SERVE PROJECTED DEMAND RESULTING FROM NEW NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OVER THE PERIOD 2000 TO 2020 AT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD CURRENTLY BEING PROVIDED IN THE TOWN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Director Valder asked the Council's permission to include in this presentation three agenda items, #16, #17, and #18, because they were so closely related. The Council agreed. Director Valder stated that these three ordinances would adopt non-residential development fees for the Town of Fountain Hills. Ordinance 01-02 was for a Town Marshal fee, Ordinance 01-03 was for a General Government fee, and Ordinance 01-04 was for a Street fee. He also referred to Ordinance 01-05, which would come later in the agenda for Council consideration. He said Ordinance 01-05 had to do with procedural regulations and terms as to how the fee would apply. Director Valder reviewed that at the last meeting, the Council held the required public hearing on the non- residential fees and took testimony from the public. It was staff's general understanding that the Council had been fairly comfortable with the Town Marshal and the General Government fee rates. The Council was interested in the Street fee as it could be applied to new commercial and industrial development. He stated that the prepared ordinance reflected the maximum fee that the consultant had recommended. He acknowledged that the consultant, Rich Giardina, was present to answer any questions. Director Valder stressed the fact that the Street fee listed was the maximum legal amount that could be implemented. He said that was just a cap and that the Council was free to adopt any street, marshal, or general government fee up to consultant's maximum recommendation. The Council could just not go over that amount. He reminded the Council that they were not obligated to approve any fee. Director Valder anticipated that the Council would make an adjustment on the Street fee. He explained that if the Council wanted to make a motion to modify the fee, they should feel free to do so and staff would reprint the ordinance to reflect whatever that new fee was. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 6 of 16 Director Valder said he had also provided an updated table which reflects the current fees charged by all of the other towns and cities in Maricopa County. The only change that he had made to the table had to do with a sewer fee that the Town of Paradise Valley charges. Mayor Morgan asked the Town Attorney if the Council could enter into discussions before motions to adopt fees were made. Mr. Farrell said yes, because there had been a previously held scheduled hearing. He had no objection to the Council continuing their discussion. Councilman McNeill said there hadn't been wide spread objection to the Police fee ($.02) or to the Government fee ($.30) as they were relatively small. He said it was in the area of the Street fee where the controversy had come about as to what the impact might be on desirable downtown development. He said the Town hoped to have retail businesses that would generate substantial sales tax revenues to the Town. He did not think it was appropriate that the commercial and industrial development pay nothing into the street fund. He pointed out that there were some definite needs that had been identified in Director Valder's memo (such as the proposed$4 million in street improvements). He suggested that the commercial development pay at least a token contribution at this time at a level of 10% of the maximum legally allowed charge of $1.93 proposed by the consultant. He suggested that the commercial and industrial development pay a Street fee of$.19, which would bring the total commercial and development fees to $.51. He asked Mr. Farrell if approving these fees could be done in one motion. Mr. Farrell said yes. Councilman McNeill MOVED to approve Ordinance 01-02 (Marshals fee at a rate of $.02), Ordinance 01-03 (General Government fee at a rate of $.30), and Ordinance 01-04 (Street fee at a rate of $.19) and Mayor Morgan SECONDED the motion. Councilman Wyman asked the consultant, Rich Giardina, how the Town would finance any required improvements, for example street improvements. Since the fees could only be used for the specific purpose for which they had been collected, was it possible to redeem the principal amount of bonds that had been issued in the event it was the only way the Town could afford to widen those streets. He felt that was essentially creating 1k1110, equity. Councilman Wyman also questioned could such fees collected for a specific purpose, for example streets,be used to service the debt of a MPC bond that might be issued, because it was redeeming debt. Mr. Farrell replied that the inability of the Town to use other than equity in calculating was what the amount of a fee could be rather than a restriction on the downstream use of the fee. He could envision situations where the Town would be in total conformance if a portion of a project were to redeem some existing bonds and/or to be used in part of a capital project that had been envisioned by this fee. If it were merely going to pay off existing debt on the theory that the Town had to catch up with those residents who had been here for a while,then he felt that type of expenditure would be subject to legal question. If the Town Manager's recommendation to the Council was to go forward with a new project, a component of it which was to pay off an existing refinance at a better rate and for improvements, the Town could certainly use accumulated funds in that project. Councilwoman Ralphe rebutted the fact that the Town's development fees could likely cause businesses not to locate here. She said it was widely known in the business development community that development fee expenses were not paid solely by commercial establishments. On the average, 80% of a development fee was paid by the landowner through a reduction in price of land simply in reaction to those development fees. She said that a commercial establishment paid 10% and another 10% was passed on by that commercial establishment to the consumers. She said the point was it was important to take this information into consideration and not develop an atmosphere in which the Council or Town thought that development fees were going to make or break business in the Town. She felt it was a more complex issue than that. Mr. Nordin stated that while it was fine to use development fees to pay off debt, often instruments of indebtedness revenue streams were talked about being pledged to pay them off. He asked Mr. Farrell if it was proper for staff to convey to the Council that development fee revenue stream could be used as a sole guarantor , of a bond issue. He was not suggesting that for as a sole pledge on any upcoming bond issue. He suggested it could be included as one of the revenue streams that could be tapped. Mr. Nordin did not know if a bond Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 7 of 16 counsel would allow bonds to be issued on just that revenue stream alone. He asked Mr. Farrell if his understanding was correct. Mr. Farrell said that Mr. Nordin was correct. He explained that the issue had to have a steady revenue stream (i.e. sales or property tax). However, staff always put in the bond covenants that they could be paid by any available source. Very often, because of a specific sales tax pledge and/or revenue streams coming in from the utility, the manager would come to the Council and state he was going to pay the indebtedness from encumbered funds. That would give the Council and citizens unencumbered funds to spend in other areas. He agreed Mr. Nordin was correct that no one would ever lend the Town money on the comment that there would be a lot of building going on that would create a revenue stream. He pointed out that the fee was only a small component of the entire Town budget. It was not designed to be the only way the Town spent money. It was only another tool available to the Council. By reducing the fee from the full amount of the consultant's recommendation, the Council was implying that the Council would bring other funds in to the final equation when the Town Manager made his recommendation that there was enough money accumulated to complete whatever the project might be. Councilman Wyman was aware that there wouldn't be sufficient funds coming in with the commercial fee that Councilman McNeill had proposed for the street fee. He had only wanted to know that since that fee was collected for only one purpose,could it then be used to reduce the debt of that particular purpose. Councilman Wyman pointed out that Fountain Hills had reached a point in build out where the Town was attractive as a bedroom community. He reviewed that the Town needed commercial businesses for the convenience of all residents and for the sales tax revenue that they generated. He expressed that for over twenty years the existing residents had paid the costs of infrastructure out of the revenue stream collected(sales tax and state shared revenues). He did not want to miss an opportunity, which had been presented for generating revenue. Councilman Kavanagh stated he was glad that the conceptually high fee had gone out the window. He still felt there was a problem with imposing the fee even at the lower rate. He said that by imposing commercial impact fees it would hurt the Town. He stated that commercial business generated money in terms of sales tax and construction tax. He pointed out that commercial properties pay 21/2 times that of what was paid by residential properties. He noted that commercial properties were already way over taxed in Fountain Hills. He did not see the purpose of further taxing them when the Town was looking for income. Councilman Kavanagh thought it was ironic that the largest fees would be imposed for roads and that the commercial businesses would be penalized for the increased traffic that they were going to bring in. He did not think the fees, at the proposed levels, would create devastation on businesses. He noted that what the Town would gain in the small amount collected for development fees could result in a loss of revenue for the Town. He stated that for this reason he felt imposing commercial development fees was a mistake. The Town should encourage business growth. Since he did not think there was anything to be gained he would not support these fees. Vice Mayor Hutcheson had also been concerned at the amount of the initial fee proposed. However, she felt that the $.51 total seemed to be reasonable. She had been concerned about the impact that any fee would have on commercial development if it were too high or too soon. Vice Mayor Hutcheson cited the importance of focusing on the fact that the Town could not just look at fees when trying to determine what brought businesses in. She pointed out that the Town had not had development fees in the past other than the normal fees and the Town now had a lot of empty commercial space that was not filling up. She said that obviously the problem had not been impact fees, as those spaces were not being filled. While she did not want to add to the problem, at some point everyone would have to take a long hard look at what else could be done to attract businesses to fill these vacancies. Vice Mayor Hutcheson concluded that there were other reasons that were adding to the vacancy problem and although she wanted to be careful not to increase the problem, she did not see any reason why the Town could not have a small impact fee. tkbr Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 8 of 16 Councilman McNeill pointed out that the total fee proposed by the consultant as the maximum permissible fee had been $2.25 per sq. ft. At his proposed level, that would remove $1.74 from that total leaving just $.51 per sq. ft. He felt that was a major reduction. He said that while the downtown was being developed and the Town was trying to attract retail businesses, it was appropriate to set the fees at a lower level. As the Town saw development proceed over time, the Town would have an opportunity to revisit the issue to see if the retail businesses had been adversely impacted. If so, the Council could set them lower at that time. If the fees did not seem to be deterring business growth in any way, the Town could then set the fees at a level that would reimburse the Town for the expenses associated with that development in a more complete manner. Councilman McNeill asked the consultant if in the future they could look at distinguishing between types of businesses. For example, perhaps charge a lesser fee on those retail businesses in the commercial category, which were known to bring in sales tax revenue; as opposed to office space, which might bring in property tax revenues but would have very little impact on the Town's coffers. Mr. Rich Giardina agreed that could be looked at in the future, if there was available data regarding the types of commercial development coming in. He felt that Councilman McNeill had made a valid point about the economic benefit to the community derived from different types of commercial development. He addressed using impact fees to repay debt. He agreed with everything that had been said by Mr. Farrell. When they look at issuing debt for the purpose of funding gross related facilities, he said that debt in many communities was secured not by the revenue stream of the fees but by the taxing authority of the community. He cautioned the Council that often they had to make an adjustment, because those new customers that came into the system would be paying property taxes that would be used to retire that debt in the event that impact fees were not sufficient. So they needed to be sure that they were not double hitting new development. Mr. Giardina said he did not want to get into a technical discussion, but he cautioned the Council that was not as clean as just making a decision that debt would be repaid with impact fees. He pointed out that the ledger must be balanced and new development could not be double hit when it came to retiring debt. Mayor Morgan asked if the Council determined the impact fees were keeping businesses out of Fountain Hills, could this issue could be revisited and restructured. Mr. Giardina said that a decision made by the Council today could be reversed in the future if consequences were seen that weren't intended. Mr. Farrell reminded the Council that it was not a short process. Mayor Morgan said she understood that. She agreed that commercial and industrial must pay something and felt that the proposed fee was an improvement over the suggested fee. Mayor Morgan suggested that the Town needed to increase the sales pitch to fill up some of the empty space and get businesses in. She thought that perhaps the Town did not have the right sales force promoting Fountain Hills to businesses. Councilman Wyman noted that the impact fee table indicated that Scottsdale, Avondale, and Paradise Valley had no impact fees for commercial businesses. He rhetorically questioned if they knew it was important to do nothing to inhibit commercial development within these towns to serve their citizens as well as to take on the task of paying the towns' overheads. Or, did they take the commercial fees out, because their growth restrictions were so great that they had no commercial development and wanted none. Mr. Farrell said that each of the towns mentioned had a different reason. He said that Scottsdale had elected only water and sewer fees because their sales tax income did not the warrant the collection of a development fee. With regard to Paradise Valley, they did not encourage or allow commercial development as it was zoned R1-43 entirely. Avondale designed their fee schedule to attract businesses that might make the decision to locate in Avondale versus Glendale or Peoria since Avondale had no fees. Councilman Wyman asked how Paradise Valley paid their bills. Mr. Farrell said they had $33 million dollars in reserve and they had just had their citizens authorize a budget override to allow them to use the money. He said they also received state-shared revenues and a limited amount of sales tax. Mr. Nordin said that in the case of Paradise Valley, they attained a huge sales tax income from their resorts. Mr. Farrell agreed that they do now, but there was a time when the resorts weren't within the corporate limits. Councilman Wyman asked if that was considered commercial business. Mr. Farrell said no. It was considered a special use within a residential district. He pointed out that the sales tax income on the size of the homes being constructed there was also rather substantial. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 9 of 16 Councilman Kavanagh said that the lack of commercial fees in surrounding towns was the major reason why he was opposed to them. He said Scottsdale did not have commercial fees and asked why. Mr. Farrell repeated his previous answer. Councilman Kavanagh said that did not explain why Scottsdale, with their larger thirst for preservation land than Fountain Hills, did not even have preservation impact fees. Mr. Farrell explained that Scottsdale had $200 million in preservation funds from sales tax income and another$200 million from general obligation bonds, so they had the ability to go into debt for approximately $400 million, therefore there wasn't the need for preservation development fees. Mr. Nordin said that Mr. Farrell had been part of the Scottsdale administration, that in its day, was famously aggressive, both statewide and nationally, in terms of their desire and ability to attract commercial sales tax dollars. He explained that Scottsdale's situation was markedly different from a whole host of communities, Fountain Hills included, in that they had developed that ability. He stated that in the Town Manager circles, there was still a good deal of jealousy of Scottsdale's ability to mine sales tax dollars away from other large cities and into Scottsdale. He suggested that the Council base their decision upon how they viewed the Town's existing circumstances and in the Town's best interest. Councilwoman Fraverd said it was a shame that the downtown consultants were not on board yet as they could give the Council some guidance on this issue. She felt the Council was struggling. Councilwoman Fraverd said that by starting at the lower level, she hoped they could look at this in a year or so and make a decision whether it needed to be revisited. She agreed the Town needed to encourage downtown development but there was a ton of vacant commercial space. She noted that the Council was not imposing impact fees for the commercial properties because they wanted to attract them. On the other hand there was a lot of commercial space which was vacant. Councilwoman Ralphe said she was prepared to vote for the proposed moderate impact fee. On the other hand, she was not going into this blind and pointed out that there was about $4.3 million in proposed street projects slated over the next twenty years. She noted that these were projects that could be paid for by impact fees. Councilwoman Ralphe said that if the town only collected a tenth of that revenue ($430,000) there would be a shortfall. She pointed out that government expenses would not stop and the Town's street needs would not stop. She felt that if development fees were not implemented then the dreaded "t" word (taxation) would come into play. Mr. Frank Fererra,Director of the Chamber of Commerce He reiterated that the Chamber had presented a plan to the Council for reduced impact fees in the amount of $.56 sq. ft. and he thanked the Council for doing better at $51 per sq. ft. He understood that the six-year phase in that they had presented was not legal. He suggested that the proposed $.51 be lower and he asked that the costs be spread over this Council's lifetime. He shared a conversation he had from a potential business owner Bob Lyons, President of Digital Engineering. Recent articles in the Tribune discussing commercial impact fees at $2.25 sq. ft had disturbed Mr. Lyons. Digital Engineering was proposing to build a 20,000sq. ft. industrial type building on Saguaro (land was in escrow). He would employ approximately 60 engineers and/or technical people to staff the building. Mr. Fererra stated that this was the type of business that Fountain Hills has been wanting for years. Mr. Fererra relayed Mr. Lyons' concern that the Town was considering implementing impact fees at this particular time when the Town was trying to bring business into Town. He felt that Fountain Hills would be punishing commercial and industrial developers who were trying to locate or bring businesses in during the Town's infancy. Mr. Fererra stated that he understood there was a current commercial glut. He distributed data to the Council and reviewed the information, which discussed projected costs and revenues for the Town for the next ten years. Councilman Kavanagh asked for clarification that the Chamber's position was that if the Town had to impose a development fee on commercial property, don't impose more than $.56 per sq. ft. Mr. Fererra said that was a fair statement. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 10 of 16 Councilman Wyman agreed with encouraging development. He pointed out that while Mr. Fererra's figures were correct and encouraging, 40% of the current revenue was from current construction. He said that when L. that construction went away, the Town would be left to find some way to replace that revenue. He noted that Ikw was not the only construction related revenue collected by the Town. He reminded everyone that the building permit fees would also go away when there was no more construction. He felt the Town needed to pick up between a $4 to $5 million revenue stream in the next decade, which needed to be in place producing income before the end of the construction revenue. He explained that was the Council's concern about the Barclay Group's project and doing nothing to discourage developing the downtown and that kind of thing. He reiterated that this revenue must be replaced. Councilman Wyman pointed out that the Council that would take the blame for this, if not taken care of now, would be the Council that was in office at the time. Sara Cleeman, Coldwell Banker(commercial) She said that she lived in Fountain Hills, though her office was in Phoenix. She felt the Council was on track, although there might be a dilemma in communicating to the investors in the Phoenix area that Fountain Hills was friendly to them. There was some concern that developers would have to put in additional effort to get their projects through Fountain Hills. She felt that if there were an architectural model of what the vision was, it would be helpful to the public and get development ideas across. Mark Van Boeckel, Cabrillo Drive He felt that development fees were subjective. He expressed that the public felt burdened with current taxes and asked the Council to consider that when making their decision. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilman McNeill - aye Vice Mayor Hutcheson- aye Mayor Morgan - aye Councilman Kavanagh - nay Councilwoman Ralphe— aye Councilman Wyman aye Councilwoman Fraverd- aye The motion CARRIED on a 6— 1 vote with Councilman Kavanagh casting the nay vote. Councilman McNeill invited the public to the Public Meeting with the Council and the downtown consultant, which was scheduled for Monday evening at 7 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#17 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-03 AMENDING THE TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 7,BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 7-10-12,TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT FEE ON ALL NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PAYABLE AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE TO PROVIDE FOR NECESSARY LAND PURCHASES, BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING TOWN-OWNED BUILDINGS TO SERVE PROJECTED DEMAND RESULTING FROM NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OVER THE PERIOD 2000 TO 2020 AT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD CURRENTLY BEING PROVIDED IN THE TOWN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Approved, see agenda item#16. AGENDA ITEM#18- CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-04 AMENDING THE TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 7, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 7-10-9, TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A STREET DEVELOPMENT FEE ON ALL NEW NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PAYABLE AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE TO PROVIDE FOR NECESSARY ARTERIAL STREET WIDENING, STREET BUILDINGS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREET VEHICLES TO SERVE PROJECTED DEMAND Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 11 of 16 RESULTING FROM NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OVER THE PERIOD 2000 TO 2020 AT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD CURRENTLY BEING PROVIDED IN THE TOWN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Approved, see agenda item#16. AGENDA ITEM#19- PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 01-07 AMENDING THE "R-3 R.U.P.D." ZONING DESIGNATION FOR CLUB MIRAGE TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT MIRAGE HEALTH, 14815 N. FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD., AKA CLUB MIRAGE, CASE NUMBER Z2000-16. Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Senior Planner Dana Burkhardt reviewed the situation. He explained that Club Mirage was a quasi-commercial type of use in a multi-family area that had been adopted by the County in 1974 to allow the tennis court and swimming facilities. This was done under special County zoning, R-3 Planned Development. He stated that the previous owners had also applied and received a special use permit from the County to allow a kitchen and dining lounge facility on site. Although this area had gone unused for the last few years, the Town has now received this proposal from the applicant. Staff was entertaining an amendment to relocate the restaurant facilities at Club Mirage. Mr. Burkhardt displayed and discussed the diagram of the kitchen and the lounge facility. He stated that the applicant was proposing to reinstate the kitchen and serve primarily patrons of the club on the exterior as indicated on the diagram. He said that the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff s primary concern was to maintain adequate on-site parking at the facility. Staff was aware of club members parking on Fountain Hills Blvd. and not in the designated on-site parking areas. He noted that the property currently provided 64 on-site parking spaces. Mr. Burkhardt pointed out that the Town's parking ordinance required that private swimming/tennis clubs provide a minimum of one space for every five family members or individuals. Mr. Burkhardt stated that the club currently had 714 households as registered members. With those calculations, the owner/applicant would need to provide 79 additional parking spaces on site. That parking iklaw calculation did not take into account additional future members. On January 11, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this re-zone but they did share staffs concern that the Town did not want to aggravate the existing parking issue at this site. He stated the owner explained that the existing-parking ordinance required an excessive number of on-site parking as the actual member attendance was actually 40% during peak season. Mr. Burkhardt stated that the owner also discussed providing additional parking, which he pointed to, on the diagram. He agreed that area had the ability to be developed into twenty more parking for the facility. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had explained that if the applicant striped the Fountain Hills Boulevard curbs red and posted this right-of-way section a "No Parking" area to take care of the negative parking issue, and if the applicant provided the additional parking, they would recommend approval. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission believed that the food service was an appropriate use for this area. Mr. Burkhardt said he was aware of one letter of complaint, which the Council had been provided. He acknowledged that there had been one individual at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting who had expressed an objection to this application and the Club Mirage project. He summarized the recommendation based upon the following stipulations: • The property owner paint the Fountain Hills Blvd. curbs adjacent to the property red and post this section of the right of way "No Parking" in a manner suitable to the Town Engineer • The Property owner submits plans to the Town to construct the maximum additional on-site parking to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Staff had added one verbal stipulation: • The applicant provides approval from the Sanitary District regarding the installation of a grease interceptor in the kitchen. He noted that the ordinance provided was in draft form as staff needed to come up with a legal and graphic exhibit as he had been unable to find one in the County's records. He stated he would make that available to the Council as soon as possible. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 12 of 16 Mayor Morgan expressed concern over the number of required parking spaces. She asked if this approval would come back to haunt the Town in future. Director Valder said the problem was the nature of swimming and tennis clubs. The parking rate was calculated by how many memberships the club had. When the club was constructed they had provided the required number of spaces that according to the Town's parking regulations to have a maximum membership of x number. He said there wasn't any control that the Town had on how many memberships they sell. He explained that the rezoning request would intensify the commercial uses of the property. At this time, staff looked at how many memberships the club had and how many parking spaces they had. He said the club was not in conformance with the Town's current parking regulations. While staff felt that it was hard to regulate a parking rate that was calculated from something that the Town could not control, staff had tempered the recommendation with the understanding that only a small percentage of the total membership typically used the club at any one time. Staffs primary concern was the on-street parking that he had observed at any time of the day because the member's tendency was to park in the south parking lot. Even if spaces were available in the north parking lot the members would rather park on the street. Director Valder explained that by having this stipulation members would be forced to use the north parking lot. He said that staff understood that the majority of those eating at this restaurant would be people who were already club members and already parking there. With the additional parking, coupled with the parking restrictions on Fountain Hills Boulevard, that there shouldn't be a parking problem. He said it had been staffs intent to make the Council aware that the club was not in conformance with the Town's parking regulations. Director Valder responded to Mayor Morgan's question. He said that swim and tennis clubs were the only type of use that had its parking rate generated from something that the Town couldn't control. Every other commercial use had its parking rate calculated from the size of the building or the size of the restaurant or something that was fixed and couldn't be adjusted without some other type of Town approval. Councilman Kavanagh asked if this would be an exclusive member's only restaurant. Director Valder replied no. Councilman Kavanagh said in reading the material he was concerned with the vagueness of the requirement to build additional parking by the existing sports courts. He said that issue had been addressed in the letter of complaint that the Council had received tonight. He asked for clarification that staffs suggestion was the Council approve this with the stipulation that the Fountain Hills Boulevard curb be striped and posted No Parking in addition to the club having to build the additional parking at the sport club. Director Valder said yes, that was staffs recommendation. Councilman Wyman noted that he has been a member of this club for quite sometime. He said the people who live in the condominiums close by and walk to the club were also a substantial percentage of the membership. He agreed that a very modest number of members used the club at one particular time. Councilman McNeill said the striping would introduce some members to the north parking lot. He said that he did not know that it existed and he admitted that he had been one who had parked in front of the club occasionally. Mayor Morgan acknowledged that she too had a family member who had parked in the front and did not know of the availability of parking in the north parking lot. Director Valder stated he had a conversation with Interim Town Engineer Tom Ward. What would happen would be that No Parking signage would be posted. Painting the curb red would be a last resort if the Town Engineer found there overwhelming parking problems. He took the liberty of changing that stipulation so that the curb would not actually be painted but the signage would occur. It would then be left up to the Town Engineer to determine if additional measures were necessary. Councilwoman Ralphe also admitted to parking in front. It had taken many weeks to discover that north parking lot. She felt the signage would help a lot. Mayor Morgan suggested that the owner provide members with an announcement stating that there was additional parking in their north lot. She believed that many did not know of the existence of that north parking lot. She thought that by educating the members perhaps the Town could get by with signs and not have to go to red curbs. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 13 of 16 Mark Van Boeckel, Cabrillo Dr. He favored Council approval. Doug Campbell, 14645 N. Fountain Hills Blvd. He said he lived next door and walked to the club, as do many of the other condo owners in the vicinity, which would be approximately 180 people. He favored approval. Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 8:33 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#20- CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-07 AMENDING THE "R-3 R.U.P.D." ZONING DESIGNATION FOR CLUB MIRAGE TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT MIRAGE HEALTH, 14815 N. FOUNTAIN HILLS BLVD., AKA CLUB MIRAGE, CASE NUMBER Z2000-16. Vice Mayor Hutcheson MOVED to approve Ordinance 01-07 with the stipulations as discussed and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion. Mark Van Boeckel He asked if the Town's stipulation of the required grease interceptor could be adjusted if the restaurant's menu was shown not to include any fried foods served. This had been agreed to as a possibility by an inspector who had been in earlier. Senior Planner Burkhardt said that they would defer to the Sanitary District to make that decision and the Town would enforce that decision. Director Valder responded that the kitchen must meet code, and staff would have to talk with Ron Huber and the plan reviewers. If the code required that there were a grease inceptor, they would have to put one in. If the code provides for some exemption clause, depending upon the type of food served,then they could take advantage of that. Mr. Nordin asked then if that stipulation was necessary. Director Valder responded that he had not seen the Now grease interceptor requirement in the staff report. Senior Planner Burkhardt clarified that stipulation had been added since the Planning and Zoning Commissions had requested that. Mr. Nordin noted that stipulation might not be needed given the statements just made by the Director Valder. Director Valder said that one issue would work itself out. Vice Mayor Hutcheson AMENDED the motion to remove the third stipulation with that issue to be resolved by the Community Development Director and/or the Sanitation District and to approve Ordinance 01-07 with the remaining two stipulations as discussed and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the amendment. The motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#21 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-05 AMENDING THE TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 7, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 7-10-13. PERMIT ISSUANCE, TO PROVIDE CONSISTENT PERMIT ISSUANCE REGULATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS. Director Valder said that when the Town adopted the residential fees in November the Council approved Ordinance 00-27, which put forth this section permit issuance. The reason for that was to provide procedures having to do with when, if, and how someone would have to pay the fees. That Ordinance 00-27 had a clear set of procedures for residential. He felt that the procedures for all projects, regardless if they were commercial, multi-family, and industrial or residential projects, should be identical. That would make it simple in everyone's mind and everyone could understand it. That was the reason for Ordinance 01-05. Councilman Wyman MOVED to approve Ordinance 01-05as presented and Vice Mayor Hutcheson Le SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 14 of 16 AGENDA ITEM#22 - PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 01-06 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 1.12, TO MODIFY ititie THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING, HEIGHT OF, SO THAT THE BUILDING HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS WITH BASEMENTS OR WITH ONE-SIDED WALK-OUTS IS MEASURED FROM PRE-EXISTING ABUTTING GRADE AND NOT FROM THE PAD GRADE OF THE BASEMENT FLOOR OR WALK-OUT FLOOR,CASE NUMBER Z2000-17. Mayor Morgan recessed the regular session of the Town Council and opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Director Valder explained how the Town measured the heights of buildings as currently written. Staff would measure the height of the structure at any point from the pre-existing or the proposed grade whichever was lower. He explained that his predecessor, Gary Jeppson had made an interpretation that had been sporadically enforced over the past few years. He called it the "Jepson Interpretation" for short. That interpretation said that when there was a building with a basement where all of the sides of the basement get refilled back in, it did not make sense to calculate the height of the structure from the basement floor because you can't see any of it. He said a true cut would have a back fill to the preexisting grade. He explained that part of Mr. Jepson's interpretation was for walkout homes as well. If the lower floor of the walkout was cut into the existing grade, such that there was only ingress and egress out of one side of the walkout, and all of the other sides were back filled to pre-existing grades so that it appeared as if the house were just slide into the hillside, then the building height would be calculated from pre-existing grade and not from the cut grade. That was treated as a basement also. Director Valder noted that was not what the Town's regulations stated on how staff should calculate height of a building or a house. He said he was always uneasy about enforcing regulations with possible different interpretations. At Councilwoman Fraverd's request, the Planning Commission initiated this Ordinance to codify the "Jeppson Interpretation". What this would do was have staff calculate the height of a building where it had a walkout or a basement from the pre-existing grade and not from the cut grade if several conditions were met. Staff recommended approval. Mayor Morgan reconvened the regular session at 8.47 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#23 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 01-06 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 1.12, TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING, HEIGHT OF, SO THAT THE BUILDING HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS WITH BASEMENTS OR WITH ONE-SIDED WALK-OUTS IS MEASURED FROM PRE-EXISTING ABUTTING GRADE AND NOT FROM THE PAD GRADE OF THE BASEMENT FLOOR OR WALK-OUT FLOOR, CASE NUMBER Z2000-17. Director Valder stated there was one small change to be made to the new language in the Ordinance on page 2 of 3, beginning with the sentence "If the structure is proposed as a walkout". He wanted to strike the words "ell e€-tie". That portion of the sentence would then read "where the walkout or lower floor pad grade". He recommended approval as changed. Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve Ordinance 01-06 as presented and Councilwoman Ralphe SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM#24- CALL TO THE PUBLIC. No one came forward. AGENDA ITEM#25 - ADJOURNMENT. Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to adjourn and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. L Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 15 of 16 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS r� B C? Y Sharon Morgan,Mayor ATTEST: c(1}44-A-,&15 )42-0-1A-4--1 assie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk ,I 7) PREPARED BY: f6 P.) 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 18th day of January 2001. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 15t day of February 2001. Cassie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk L Town Council Minutes Regular and Executive Session 1/18/01 Page 16 of 16