Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.0920.TCRM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL September 20,2001 Mayor Morgan called the regular session of the Town Council to order at 6:30 p.m. Following the pledge to the flag and invocation by Councilman Kavanagh,roll call was taken. ROLL CALL - Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Sharon Morgan, Councilmembers Sharon Hutcheson, John McNeill, Leesa Fraverd, John Kavanagh, and Susan Ralphe. Vice Mayor John Wyman was absent. Also present were Acting Town Manager/Town Attorney Bill Farrell, Director of Administration Cassie Hansen, Community Development Director Jeff Valder, Town Engineer Randy Harrel, and Assistant Director of Public Works Tom Ward. Mayor Sharon Morgan gave an update on: • the medical condition of Town Manager Paul Nordin • McDowell Mountain Month and read the Proclamation declaring October"McDowell Mountain Month" • the fountain and how it operates • the grand opening of the Community Center and Library buildings on September 29, 2001 • the formation of a committee, chaired by Councilman Kavanagh and appointed to plan the Town's official memorial for the life changing events of September 11, 2001 • the formation of a task force comprised of Captain Scott Penrose of the Sheriffs office and Marshal Gendler to coordinate a special effort regarding the safety of the citizens of Fountain Hills AGENDA ITEM #1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, tolior 2001. AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF RENEWING THE ANNUAL WASH CLEANUP CONTRACT WITH FIVE STAR LANDSCAPING. AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING THE BID TO SAGE LANDSCAPING FOR THE ANNUAL LANDSCAPE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF$121,656.68. AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2001-43 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 31, OF PLAT 606-AMENDED, (15216 SUNBURST DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 428 OF MAPS, PAGE 50 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. (FIRST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT GROUP)EA01-19 Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as just read and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results. Councilman Kavanagh- aye Councilwoman Ralphe— aye Councilman McNeill- aye Councilwoman Hutcheson- aye Mayor Morgan- aye Councilwoman Fraverd- aye The motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #5 - PRESENTATION BY JOHN ROSENOUIST, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMUNITY Le CENTER CONTRIBUTION FUND, TO MAYOR MORGAN OF A CHECK IN THE APPROXIMATE Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 1 of 10 AMOUNT OF $174,000 TO BE USED FOR FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT IN THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER. THE PRESENTATION WILL INCLUDE RECOGNITION BY BOB YORDY AND MICHAEL FLECK ON BEHALF OF THE ARTS COUNCIL FOR THE GROUP'S EFFORTS IN RAISING FUNDS FOR PUBLIC ART. Chairman Rosenquist recognized the contribution made by the individual committee members: Judy Dragiewicz, Gail Appledorn, Sharon Bieker, Lee Robinson, Peg Tibbetts, Michael Fleck, Grace Jakubs, Frank Jakubs, as well as Evelyn Breting and Cassie Hansen. He gave a brief status report of activities and monies collected. He presented a check to Mayor Morgan in the amount of$174,000. Mr. Bob Yordy and Michael Fleck recognized the Community Center Fund Committee's efforts by presenting each member with a plaque. AGENDA ITEM #6 - INTRODUCTION OF MARK MAYER, THE NEW DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION. Acting Town Manager Mr. Farrell gave a brief introduction of the new Director of Parks and Recreation Mark Mayer. Director Mayor thanked the Council for their support and stated he would do his best to uphold the standards established by the Town of Fountain Hills. AGENDA ITEM #7 - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A GRANT OF EASEMENT FROM THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS TO THE FOUNTAIN HILLS SANITARY DISTRICT FOR A WELL SITE ADJACENT TO THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER. Mr. Farrell said that because of the cooperation between the Sanitary District and the Town, a well site would be facilitated on the same site. He displayed the architect's drawing of the building as well as a site map depicting the location of the well. He noted that the well site would eventually be transferred to Chaparral City Water Co. (CCWC) from the Sanitary District as part of an exchange program. The Sanitary District acquired a well from CCWC for the injection program, which allowed the building programs to continue in Town and a moratorium to be lifted. He stated that he had received a report that the injection system was progressing well. Mr. Farrell recommended that the Council L authorize the Mayor to approve the easement. He explained that the exact legal description would be forthcoming and Nor that the Town Engineer Randy Harrell and Tom Ward had approved the language in the grant of easement. He said the Town could look forward to this being completed after the grand opening. Councilwoman Ralphe MOVED to grant the easement as presented and Councilwoman Hutcheson SECONDED the motion. Councilwoman Ralphe felt the granting of this easement was reasonable and necessary. She mentioned that the Acting Town Manager had given the Council his assurance that the restoration items on the Ashbrook Wash punch list would be something that he would be looking for a status report on. Councilman McNeill asked if this was to be an exclusive easement within the control of the Sanitary District with transference to CCWC. He was looking for wording that described the access part of the easement. Mr. Farrell clarified that technically the well site not only required a pump and exclusivity to the user, but might require SRP and Qwest to bring services to the site. He agreed that the access to get to the site would be public so that any utility or the citizens could get there. The Sanitary District's obligation would be to restore only a small portion that would be exclusive, which was where the actual well site would be located. He explained that as the legal descriptions were drawn, they would be supplemented in the agreement. He noted that the language was the work of the Sanitary District's attorney, Mr. McGuire, with the absolute provision that when the exact legals, as well as SRP and Qwest issues were sorted out, the language would be corrected. The motion CARRIED unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #8 - UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLATS FOR EAGLE RIDGE NORTH AND EAGLES NEST, THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED IN THE MCDOWELL MOUNTAINS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001. DISCUSSION WILL COVER ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 2 of 10 INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, CUT AND FILL WAIVERS, PRELIMINARY PLATS AND A RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT IN EAGLE'S NEST. COUNCIL ACTION ON THE ITEMS RELATED TO THESE PROJECTS IS SCHEDULED FOR THE OCTOBER 4 MEETING. Mr. Farrell stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission had completed their review as of September 10, 2001, and Le, recommended on a vote of 6 — 1 that the Town Council approve preliminary plats with stipulations. He noted a lot of give and take on both sides had taken place. He felt that these plats had stipulations that for the most part were agreeable to both sides. Two issues had been isolated that were still of concern and that needed the Council's direction. He asked that the Council focus tonight on their questions to MCO Properties. Both parties had agreed to extend the deadline to October 4th because of Councilman Wyman's absence and the desire to have a full Council available to vote on these plats. Mr. Farrell pointed out that staff was working towards recommending favorable consideration of these plats with the stipulations. He reminded the Council that the stipulations would then form the basis of the settlement agreement, which would be signed in December, if the final plats were approved. At that point the money would exchange hands and the deed transferred to the Town for the preserve property. Mr. Farrell quoted Planning and Zoning Commission Chair Bob Howes summation that the lack of public attendance at their meetings was due to the fact that the public was in agreement. If they did not like it, a majority of the citizens would have attended the meetings and expressed their opinion. Mr. Farrell noted that this was the time for public participation. He asked that Director Valder focus on the areas of concern: parking opposite the gated entry to the community and the issue of are there 3 or 4 lots above 2400'. Director Valder expressed that he was happy to see that most of the Council had been able to attend the Planning Commission meetings because that provided everyone with a review of the plats and proposed stipulations. He noted one of the issues was the proposed 10 parking spaces on Mountain Parkway. The reason for the parking spaces was that in the settlement agreement both sides agreed to provide pedestrian access and connectivity from the public streets through the project in order to hike and mountain bike within McDowell Mountain Park. These parking spaces were where the public would park, as this was to be a gated community not open to public vehicular traffic. Although there were 10 parking spaces shown at this time, he noted that there hadn't been any stipulation or agreed upon number of spaces. He asked the Council for direction on how many spaces they wanted to see located there. Director Valder stated that the topography was steep in this area and retaining walls were needed to construct the parking spaces on both sides. He said he understood there was a desire by the Council to increase the number to 16 and he pointed out that was possible but it would take more grading and retaining walls. Director Valder displayed a map of the northwestern corner of Eagles Nest and discussed the elevation and take line with regard to Area 8. He explained that during negotiations there had been a six-lot cul-de-sac at the end of Eagle Ridge North that would have been located generally northwest of the trailhead location, which had been unacceptable to the Town. It had been his understanding that in order to eliminate that six-lot cul-de-sac, the Town had wanted to keep the lot yield number at 415. The Town had suggested that three lots be added in Eagles Ridge North and three lots be added higher than the 2400' level in Eagles Nest. Things became complicated because of a graphic used during the negotiations in the settlement agreement. Because the topography had not been shown on this graphic, staff could not tell exactly where the lots were or the envelopers. He stated that to him there appeared to be four lots within the take area of Area 8, which had resulted in an earlier stipulation that one of the lots needed to be removed. There had also been some confusion as to where that take line was, which has since been confirmed by the Town's cad operator. Mr. Farrell reiterated that when the Town decided to exercise the powers of eminent domain, the subdivision plat presented by MCO had been for 550 lots. Staff had then framed a take line around the edges of MCO's lots so that a lot would not be divided in half which would ruin their subdivision and cause the Town to pay more. During the subsequent year, while the lawsuits were on hold,MCO submitted a 482-lot plat and those lots (#49,#50,#51, and#52) changed slightly from the previous plat. He noted that staff had compared the two plats and adjusted the lot lines back and forth so there had been literally three take lines. Mr. Farrell confirmed that there had not been any guidance with regard to that graphic for staff. He explained the theory behind the Town giving three lots in the north and three lots in the south. Mr. Farrell pointed out that after the agreement was signed, staff, the MMPC, and members of the Council said there were 5.2 acres in the south that the Town did not want, requesting that MCO take it back at a cash reduction. Mr. Farrell met with MCO representatives and MCO had felt they a cash deal had been made. They could appreciate that the Town did not want the 5.2 acres, but it had been the Town who stated that they wanted 354 acres for $13.5 million. Mr. Farrell stated that after further discussions, he and Mr. Greg'Bielli struck an agreement. They would recommend that since this fourth lot was not visible from most of the Town, and since all of the lot was not above the L Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 3 of 10 take lines, the Town would return the 5.2 acres and Mr. Farrell would recommend the fourth lot. The Town would receive a $200,000 reduction. Staff and the MMPC again reassessed the issue. They decided to recommend that the Town give MCO back only 4 acres, keeping 1.2 acres, which was in the Town's best interests. It was at that point he said let's not renegotiate this a third time. He would recommend to the Council the fourth lot above 2400', give MCO back the 4 acres, and the Town would deduct a couple of hundred thousand dollars and do some trades with the beautification funds. He explained that the Council was being asked to approve leaving the lot where it currently was as a fourth lot above 2400'. Mr. Farrell restated that the lot area would be shielded from the public's view somewhat by a steeper grade in front. Staff did not feel the driveway configuration or building pad would be offensive to the eye or cause a silhouette to stick out. Director Valder pointed out all the modified stipulations were written out in his memo although he was asking for one other modification with regard to the first stipulation (area per lot). He requested that the wording "disturbance buffers" not be struck. Councilwoman Fraverd suggested that each stipulation be reviewed. She started with Stipulation #1 — Average disturbance for each lot. She stated the disturbance allowance had been increased by 200-square feet and she felt the compromise should be 22,600-square feet. Councilman McNeill observed that the settlement agreement had started at 21,000 square feet, which had been bumped up to 22,500 based upon averaging of allowable disturbance with neither number based on the 5-foot contours. He felt that the 22,500 had been a generous number. Although he agreed with the concept that a firm number was needed for easier administration, he was hesitant to continually bump up the number. Councilman McNeill requested that it be looked at closely. Councilwoman Ralphe asked why it would be beneficial to the Town to go further than what the settlement agreement called for. Director Valder explained that the agreement called for a minimum of 21,000-square feet or whatever the gross calculations provided for. He described the process used to produce these type of slope calculations as extremely time consuming. He clarified how the gross methodology intersected with the driveway grading next to the road and how the 22,500 square feet figure had been arrived at. He pointed out that staff recognized that the initial agreement had been to use the average between the two and ten-foot contours. Staff was actually approximately 80-square feet lower than the true mid point. He reminded the Council that the total amount of land that was being talked about throughout this 1280-acre subdivision was a shade less than 2 acres. He concluded that the benefits would be that MCO would receive their disturbance allowance and the Town and the public would acquire land preservation. By agreeing to the 22,700 square feet at a staff level, he had not been looking at it as a two hundred square foot concession but rather as 120 square feet and the removal of the hurdle. Director Valder noted that the compromise appeared to be acceptable to the Planning Commission by virtue of their recommendation. Staff was now asking if the Council found this stipulation acceptable. Councilman Kavanagh asked what the ultimate fate of the 200 square feet would be. Director Valder responded that most of it would be a paved driveway with a small area to be revegetated. Councilwoman Fraverd concluded that she would have been more open to the 22,700 figure if she had not looked at the plat maps and seen all of the long windy driveways. She requested that if there was a way to cut them back she would like to see that done, otherwise it allowed the developer another opportunity to place that house higher on the hill than she wanted. Mr. Farrell replied that he had urged the expansion to 22,700 over 22,500 and up from the 21,000 based upon some things that had occurred within the last 90 days. He explained that as insignificant as an average of 200 square feet may sound to the average person, there were designers, contractors, builders, and homeowners who purchase or work on these lots who were attempting to bring very large homes to these particular lots and were striving to meet those standards. He acknowledged that this had caused a good deal of frustration and friction between some builders and the Community Development Department. He had hoped that this recommendation would provide for more square footage of living space and not longer driveways. MCO had been asked to estimate where some of the driveways would go and he agreed some driveways were long. He felt that what he had learned during the past 90 days had led him to believe that shorter driveways and larger homes would be seen. He had wanted this Council and Director Valder not to have the fight over the last 200 square feet if at all possible. He pointed out that the reciprocal that the Town would receive on large lots was excellent as well as the preservation. He noted that the mechanism was in place to police run away disturbance through the fencing mechanism. He felt that if the Town could give the homeowners, the design engineers, professionals, and contractors a little bit more room to be creative, the Town would be pleased with the results. He had Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 4 of 10 been trying to squeeze more flexibility into it and not enable longer driveways. He reiterated that the driveways shown on the plats were hypothetical. Dr. Bill Larson responded that the initial disturbance allotment had been a minimum. Through very specific calculations on the entirety of both plats, MCO had been able to determine what the accurate count was. MCO did not view this as a negotiation tactic but rather they were looking at what the specific disturbance would be. MCO agreed that if they disturbed a natural environment, it should be calculated as such. MCO's concern had been that an area that was disturbed and exempted could be counted twice if a driveway was placed across that area. He clarified that the area was counted as exempted disturbed and counted for driveway, which they did not feel was an appropriate calculation. MCO was asking for the construction buffers and disturbance issues to be considered that had been included in the other stipulations. Councilman Kavanagh asked Director Valder if homes in this type of topography tended to use the maximum disturbance. Director Valder responded yes. Councilwoman Fraverd reminded the Council that the developer was not being cut off at the 22,500 figure and could go up to 35,000 square feet. She understood larger homes would need more disturbances. She expressed her concern at the proposed driveway lengths. She asked MCO if the submitted plats were tentative or would they be working on the driveway placements. Councilman McNeill commented that he also had some of the same driveway concerns. He said he would like to hear what MCO had in mind if the submitted plans did not represent what the final plan would look like. Dr. Larson discussed the displayed graphic. He explained that if it were decided not to have a long driveway and the home was built lower in the development envelope, the envelope could increase in size because it had not incorporated part of what had been previously been the driveway. If the Council was to look at how MCO had evolved to that location, they would find that it was based on a location that had the fewest development constraints placed on the lot. If that was all taken into consideration and the home could be moved further down the slope, it might not be as appropriate a location for that envelope. Dr. Larsen reviewed that Director Valder had requested in a stipulation requiring that MCO provide documentation on five questionable lots as to their developability prior to final plat. He stated that MCO had looked at all five lots and has provided that level of requested documentation sealed by an engineer to the Town. He noted that these five conceptual site plans had been provided early to the Town. One of the reasons that they had been able to do this was MCO had not hap hazardously gone in and delineated these envelopes. MCO was Ably intimately familiar with the environment with which they were working. He displayed two conceptual site plans and explained the reasoning for the placement of the driveway and the home on each. Dr. Larson pointed out that staff has not had an opportunity to review the design of these conceptual site plans as they had only had them for about 24 hours. Councilwoman Fraverd asked what the disturbance amount was on those lots. Dr. Larson estimated the disturbances to be 18,000 square feet on one and 23,000 square feet on the other. He explained that when the conceptual site plans were given to the Town,MCO had included a table that addressed all of the square footages, including the entire construction buffer disturbance. Councilwoman Fraverd asked if MCO was planning to list the disturbance on the lot so that the lot buyer knows what the disturbance would be. Dr. Larson said absolutely. Councilwoman Hutcheson addressed the issue of counting the disturbance twice. She did not agree with this practice and she did not understand the justification for counting it twice. Councilman McNeill acknowledged that the Planning and Zoning Commission's stipulations proposed a major concession from where the Town had started with regard to the disturbance boundaries around the house, next to wall, and along the driveway. He noted that the original stipulation had been for an 8 foot, 5 foot, and 3 foot disturbance boundary and now the Town was looking at a substantially reduced disturbance boundary (5-foot, 3-foot, and 1-foot). He felt a combination effect would be felt if the number were to be bumped from 22,500 to 22,700 square feet and the disturbance buffers cut back allowed. He said he saw the potential for more disturbance on smaller lots that were higher on the mountain, which could come in the form of long driveways. He found that objectionable because these driveways were visible from the rest of the Town. He didn't understand why the Town should allow a cut back of the disturbance buffers around the building. Mr. Farrell addressed Councilman McNeill's concerns. He said he had been an outspoken advocate in settling this issue and increasing those buffers. He had also struggled with the 8, 5, or 3 figures until he went through the Code to see where those numbers were found. He did not locate those figures in the Code. He pointed out that was not a bad Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 5 of 10 standard that had been established as policy but was not required by the Code. He stated that it was difficult to enforce non-existent code. He said that in talking with Director Valder and contractors, he became more comfortable with the fact that an 8-foot buffer was not necessary with single story construction. He reminded the Council that Dr. Larson had talked about utilizing 27 inches of disturbance when he was constructing his own building and other contractors say 4 to 5-feet on a single story works fine. He acknowledged that on a double story it became more practical to use the 8-foot boundary. He understood that the Town staff was not abandoning the 8, 5, 3 policy, but were allowing those buffers for building driveways and easements to be calculated on a lot-by-lot basis. Mr. Farrell pointed out that there was nothing in the agreement that was going to change where the outside parameters would be staked and he was comfortable recommending this. He stated that it was difficult to enforce non-existent code. He explained his philosophy in recommending this was to provide some flexibility and to show some of the good faith towards MCO that had been suggested in the settlement agreement. Director Valder clarified that staff had been administering the 8-5-3 for the past several years and that the reduced numbers were not a stipulation. He explained that he planned to come back to the Planning Commission within the next six weeks after staff evaluated how much land it actually took to construct a house. He pointed out that presently a single level family house was often as high as a two-story house. Director Valder explained that he intended to apply this standard to everyone, not just to MCO. He expressed that he would prefer to have that standard codified. He suggested that several members of the construction community be asked to come in for the purpose of making a presentation to the Council on how much land it takes to construct a house. He felt it was reasonable to ask the homebuilders as to what amount of they needed in order to work in a sensitive manner and not have an unnecessary conflict with the fencing parameters. Councilman McNeill asked if that course of action were followed, would the change be enforceable in the new subdivisions. Mr. Farrell, speaking as the Town Attorney, agreed that Director Valder could certainly craft the mechanical wording in the grading ordinance but he was wrestling with how he would assess the landowner a penalty for something that a subcontractor of the general contractor might do and was responsible for. Councilwoman Fraverd suggested that the "fine structure" be removed from page two of Director Valder's memo. She felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission should review and make their recommendation to the Council on what the appropriate disturbance numbers as well as the fine structure should be. Dr. Larson clarified that MCO wanted to be charged for the allowed actual disturbance, not the theoretical on a per lot basis. Councilwoman Fraverd continued with the discussion on Stipulation#6. She stated she did not have any comments on this stipulation. Councilman Kavanagh questioned the use of the word "reduce" in the last sentence. Director Valder responded that the parcel he was talking about was the parcel of land that would have to be created next to the street and he explained his rationale. Councilwoman Fraverd had a question on Stipulation #7. She asked for clarification as to when the conceptual site plans were normally required. Director Valder confirmed that the subdivision code requires these plans prior to final plat approval. He explained staff took that to literally mean they could require them anytime prior to the final plat approval, including prior to preliminary approval. Staff did not want the preliminary plat approved in a subdivision that had a large number of lots that were undevelopable without a variance or waiver. He pointed out that this was one of the concession items. Councilwoman Fraverd asked for a copy of the conceptual site plans. Councilman McNeill echoed the request. Dr. Larson acknowledged that the conceptual plans, which had already been submitted, conformed with the Town ordinance, did not exceed 18% driveway grade, did accommodate the Fire District's considerations, and did not have any cuts or fills in excess of 10-feet. All could be developed without variance. Councilwoman Fraverd stated that she had looked at the various grades. She was interested in knowing that if someone could not design a house for a lot could they go to the conceptual plans and then determine if it was a developable lot. She said it would be onerous to ask for a conceptual site plan for every lot or for those that had tricky long driveways with many grading changes. She was looking at these conceptual site plans as examples for others to use as a basis for developing these tougher lots. Director Valder noted that the lots for which he had requested the conceptual were varied. So regardless of what lot the Town might have a cut and fill application or variance application come in for, staff would have seen some uncharacteristic homes on those types of lots using different and unusual home plans. Staff L Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 6 of 10 would then be able to suggest alternatives to homebuilders. He said he could provide copies of the conceptual site plans to each Councilmember. Councilwoman Hutcheson reminded the Council that those types of reviews would not be coming to the Council. She L. felt it was important to realize that when talking about those extremely challenging lots that these people would have experienced architects to build the homes on these highly elevated and expensive lots. Although she felt it was good to have something on file showing that a house could be built on these lots, she did not view not having the designs on file a problem. She commented that these people would be willing to expend the money to have very uniquely designed homes built on these lots. Councilman McNeill was glad that MCO had prepared these plans early and he looked forward to reviewing them. He asked Director Valder if the five examples were enough to address the variety of issues faced when developing these types of lots. Director Valder replied yes. He said the Town was getting several examples of unique architecture. He explained that variance and cut and fill waiver applications come in when plan originality or sensitivity was lacking in their proposed plans. He pointed out that what the concept site plans did for staff, with the corresponding note on the plat as a warning, was to provide a discloser to the potential buyers. Councilman McNeill agreed that the Council did not want to see variance after variance. Director Valder responded that there would be an occasional variance application or cut and fill waiver made but staff wanted to get the word out that the builders should not expect to get a variance over the counter. Councilwoman Fraverd continued the discussion with Stipulation #9, which had to do with the fourth lot. She asked Mr. Farrell to speak on the SRP aesthetics fund as to how much money would be spent and where the line would run. Mr. Farrell reviewed that SRP, through a benevolent program, gives each community a certain amount of money for location,relocation, and where applicable, under grounding of utility poles for the beautification of the community. He did not know the formulas as to how the funds were accumulated. Mr. Farrell asked Engineering personnel to check on the amount available to the Town. Mr. Ward announced that there was approximately $1 million available to the Town in this particular area. He reiterated that the project must be related to the location, relocation, and under grounding of SRP lines. He described the location of these lines with the help of Director Valder pointing to the location of these lines on the displayed map. For beautification purposes the Town had agreed to spend the Town's funds to underground electric lines in those areas. He noted that anytime the Town beautifies an area, the adjacent property area or actual property owner benefits. There was no question that MCO would benefit indirectly and would get some benefit from these lots but so would the community as a whole. It was his opinion to under ground those lines with funds that were set aside specifically for that was a very reasonable thing to do. It reduced the Town's outlay by a couple of hundred thousand dollars on $13 million and was desirable. Although MCO would probably sell lot #49 for more than that amount of money, he pointed out that the Town was not in partnership with them but did regulate them. He hoped MCO would sell that lot quickly and a $2.5+ million dollar home was built so that the Town could collect the sales tax on it. Councilman McNeill asked if SRP had provided an estimate on the amount of money that would be required. Mr. Farrell said not at this time but would inform the Council as soon as he knew. Councilman McNeill said that the proposal with MCO would allow them to retain the fourth lot in Area 8 as opposed to three lots that were above 2400 feet with the Town getting some price reduction. He was suggesting that if the Town participated in the under grounding with SRP, that participation should be related in value so that a value wasn't created more than the Town had agreed to pay ($13.5 million). He thought perhaps there might be another 4-acres somewhere else in Town that the Town might want to acquire. Mr. Farrell did not necessarily disagree. He needed to get this to some degree of finality in terms of what he would be called upon to do in December. He again reviewed how this issue had developed. He felt this was a small amount of money in his estimation of the million dollars available to the Town and it would beautify the Town's entryway to the public roadway. He considered this a good peacemaker on the Town's part. He noted the tremendous cooperation with MCO in their efforts with the Fire District and the Water Company and other intangibles that were going on. He felt it was in the Town's best interests to extend good will to MCO during this process. Councilman McNeill said he was glad that Mr. Farrell had worked with MCO to come up with a solution that would work but he thought Mr. Farrell might be surprised when he saw how much it would cost to under ground the lines. Councilman Kavanagh felt both parties were getting something and although he did not mind giving MCO some of the SRP money to make it come out equal, he felt anything extra should come back to the Town. Mr. Farrell explained that Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 7 of 10 he was trying to trade some of the SRP dollars for some of the Town's dollars. He said he could get those considerations back from MCO that the Council wanted and that he would have had to maybe pay for. He said the Town was looking for MCO's contribution towards the development of the trailhead and other issues that would help the Town. itkikw Councilwoman Hutcheson noted that the SRP money had specific parameters that had to be met in order to get the funds. She pointed out that if it were not used for that purpose then it just sat there. She felt that if the money did help beautify the Town's road to the Town's trailhead then that was as good a use for that money as anything else and the Town would benefit. She hoped that it would not cost too much. Councilwoman Fraverd said that was the end of the stipulations but she had a small list to go over. Mayor Morgan called for a recess at 8:52 p.m. Mayor Morgan reconvened the meeting at 8:59 p.m. Councilwoman Fraverd questioned Town Engineer Randy Harrel and MCO's engineer as to if the steep and curvy roads were safe. Mr. Harrel said they would be safe once they got to the final plat stage. He stated that he did not have all of the information yet but that would be hashed out in the improvement plan stage. He intended to make them safe. MCO's engineer, Jonathan Stansel, responded yes, the roads would be safe. Mr. Stansel recommended that the design speed be as low as possible in the residential areas. Councilwoman Ralphe addressed the issue of flood damage by controlling the alteration of natural flood plains. The settlement agreement provided for bridges that were no longer than 40 feet and that had huge amounts of fill in order to span wash crossings. Her concern was that in the future there would be floodwater backing up at the bridges onto beautiful high mountain homes and home sites. She did not want to see a future need for flood control ditches low on the mountains or in North Heights. Councilwoman Ralphe asked both Mr. Harrel and MCO's engineer if they could generally explain why these 40-foot long bridges were good enough. She also asked that they provide to the Council, before the October 4th meeting, a detailed engineering report confirming the safety of the bridges and their use in successful flood control. Mr. Harrel responded the 40-foot number was an arbitrary number but in general the washes and contours were very deep but the floodplain area was relatively narrow. The water in narrow and fairly deep areas moves fairly fast. In many of the cases the 40-foot wide bridge would not obstruct the floodplain at all. Where it would obstruct the floodplain it would be within the normal design parameters for narrowing at a bridge. A bridge should be built in narrow channel configuration. He did not anticipate seeing any ditches because of the deep valleys and that was where the water would be. Staff could provide a report to the council regarding the flooding. Councilwoman Ralphe said the report would make her feel better. Mr. Harrel added that the houses would be high and the water would be down low and the bridges go over the water so there shouldn't be a problem. The ConArches were a bigger issue in that respect than the bridges were. Dr.Larson replied that MCO was able to provide a graphic to the Planning and Zoning Commission at their last meeting that identified two graphics: the settlement agreement which identified seven bridges and two ConArches as well as the new graphic which introduced an additional eleven ConArches. He said the bridges were an aesthetic introduction. Drainage components of these washes could have been accommodated safely and effectively for all criteria with box culverts. MCO also introduced ConArches for aesthetic purposes and for improved wildlife corridors. Mr. Harrel said Dr. Larson was correct. Aesthetic and wildlife functions were two of the reasons that bridges and ConArches had been introduced. Most of the place where bridges and ConArches were used could be accommodated by much smaller pipe in multiple pipe structures but would not have the same aesthetic and wildlife sensitivity values. Mr. Farrell added that the burden for demonstrating the historical flow of water fell upon the applicant and MCO would be required to submit a report to the Town Engineer for review that would be prepared by certified engineers. He suggested that the Council come into Town Hall before October 4th to get an idea of what was included in these types of engineering reports. Councilman Kavanagh questioned if the roadway that would be going past the parking spaces would be one or two lanes in each direction. Director Valder responded one lane. Councilman Kavanagh asked if there would be additional space for parking on the curb if the designated parking spaces filled up. Director Valder replied yes but the idea was not to have the public parking in front of the gatehouse. Councilman Kavanagh asked who was paying for these spots. Director Valder said that MCO was proposing to construct these ten spaces. Councilman Kavanagh suggested that MCO allow for twenty spaces but build ten spaces. Director Valder said that most of the costs for the parking lot construction would be for the retaining walls and the grading with the pavement being relatively cheap. Councilman Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 8 of 10 Kavanagh asked Dr. Larson if MCO would be able to initially put in ten spaces but have a provision that should that number prove inadequate MCO would then add the additional ten parking spaces. Mr. Farrell affirmed that the area was currently striped for one lane in each direction, but the Engineering staff had confirmed that there was sufficient width there to allow for two lanes in each direction. He felt relatively safe that on-site parking was available. Councilman Kavanagh said he was thinking of those residents who might persistently park along the curb, generating complaints from those residents that their entrance to their gated community looked like a parking lot. Dr. Larson reviewed that originally MCO had started out with six parking spaces, which evolved to eight and then ten. MCO said there were serious physical constraints adjacent to two elevations that frame that entrance. He commented that MCO would prefer not to see a sea of parking spaces at the entrance. He proposed that an easement be added in a specific area. If over time it was determined that there was an inadequacy, than additional parking spaces could be added. He highlighted that the reason MCO had put six on one side and four on the other was the landforms could accommodate those ten spaces in that configuration. Councilman Kavanagh stated that he was thinking that the easement land would belong to MCO and if the Town needed it then MCO would construct those new spaces at a later time. Dr. Larson clarified that the easement he had been proposing would be on MCO land. Councilman Kavanagh asked if MCO was agreeing to build the additional spaces. Dr. Larson responded he could not commit to that at this time and would have to take the suggestion back to MCO. Councilman McNeill said he was surprised to only see ten parking spaces. He referred to the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in August when there had been some discussion about the acceptability of the Engineering stipulations by MCO. MCO had provided their letter in response that took exception to certain stipulations and recommendations made. He said MCO's answer at that time had been they were acceptable except as noted in their letter or as stated at the meeting. He explained his reasoning for bringing this up. Both the Town engineer's and Willdan's recommendation with regard to the trailhead parking at Golden Eagle indicated that the parking area outside the gate was very small and they recommended that a right-of-way easement for future parking at ten additional spaces be added. Councilman McNeill noted that because of that recommendation he felt he should be seeing twenty spaces. He noted a couple of problem areas that he wanted to see addressed before Council took final action. He did not think that parking should be next to the existing home lots, as the parking appeared to be abutting the neighboring property. He suggested moving the gatehouse further to the west to provide for the additional parking. He stated he liked the number twenty when talking about parking spaces. Dr. Larson responded that the reason the parking spaces appeared where they did was it had the shallowest topography. As he now understood the Council's interest, he felt that before the next Council meeting MCO would have the opportunity to review this issue and come up with a new proposal. He clarified that the recommendation that Councilman McNeill had referenced said"area"instead of"spaces". Councilman McNeill also suggested that if the parking were to be placed on the north side just past the knoll, it would probably require less cutting. Dr. Larson stated MCO would reassess this area and add the component of the twenty parking spaces. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the outside truck roads were gated. Dr. Larson confirmed the roads were gated. Councilman Kavanagh asked if the entrance could be widened to allow for overflow parking. Dr. Larson said they would evaluate all the components. Councilman McNeill asked how MCO was proposing to address those large cut and fills at the bridge locations. Dr. Larson said that there were two, which exceeded twenty-feet as identified by staff. He explained that the fill in Eagles Nest had been reduced to twenty-three feet. He stated that the only other fill in excess of twenty feet was in Eagles Ridge North across Cloud Burst Wash. He noted that it was a challenging crossing and MCO was confident that they would be able to eliminate that which would leave only one fill that was three-feet over twenty-feet on the entire 911 acres. Councilman McNeill asked if it was very expensive to construct abutments. He suspected that the cost of bridge length verses abutment height was a tradeoff issue. He questioned if adding to the bridge length would really cost that much more. Dr. Larson said he did not have the expertise to answer that question. His concern was that when talking about structure he felt that it was inappropriate to use rigid structures in a very rural soft setting. If MCO could work topographically by integrating the roadway with the terrain versus the rigid structure of a bridge, it would clearly be the preferred alternative. MCO's engineer Mr. Stansel stated he was not a structural engineer. Councilman McNeill pointed out that the Town could not tell MCO to build a bridge more than forty-feet but he was questioning if it was a Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 9 of 10 reasonable and economical to look at this option to decrease the heavy fills in those areas. Dr. Larson said he would add to the economic component to the aesthetic component to reduce the structured fill of the project. Director Valder said he had a memo from the Town Engineer Randy Harrel, which gave a status of all of the resolved lokliw and unresolved engineering stipulations. He gave a brief overview of the phasing of the project. He explained that because of the huge improvement plan work that would need to be done on these two projects between now and the next couple of months,MCO had been talking with staff about doing it in phases. Dale Noss, 14603 N. Fairlyn He liked the questions and issues being raised by the Council. He commented that MCO had offered to transfer the washes to the Town. He asked that the Council favorably consider this request. AGENDA ITEM#9- CALL TO THE PUBLIC. Councilman Kavanagh asked the public to call Town Hall with volunteer offers or suggestion for the committee. No one came forward. AGENDA ITEM#10-ADJOURNMENT. Councilwoman Fraverd MOVED to adjourn and Councilman McNeill SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED unanimously. Mayor Morgan adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By: w Sharon Morgan, y ATTEST: _4 J Cassie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk PREPARED BY: 6, J Bev Bender,Executive Assistant CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 2011 day of September 2001. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 4th day of October 2001. rAf./IdAL-qa Cassie B. Hansen, Director of Administration/Town Clerk Town Council Minutes Regular Session 9/20/01 Page 10 of 10