Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.0804.TCRM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE err► FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL AUGUST 4,2005 Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. INVOCATION—The invocation was led by Mayor Nichols. Mayor Nichols welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the City Council held in the new Town Hall. He said that on behalf of the Council,he hoped that the citizens would take pride in the new building as they had with the Community Center, the Museum, and the Library. He noted that the overall reaction to the new building had been very positive and stated that the objective was to provide "one-stop shopping" for residents at a significantly lower cost and expressed the opinion that the goal had been accomplished. He thanked those, both past and present, who played a major role in the success of the project and said that they would be recognized at the official Town Hall opening celebration on Saturday, November 5, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers. He encouraged the citizens to attend the dedication ceremonies and asked that the members of the audience take with them when they leave the meeting one of the bags located at the back of the Chambers that contained a memento for them to remember the first meeting held by the Council in the new Town Hall. He said that on behalf of staff and the Council, he would like to state that they are extremely proud to conduct the first Council meeting in the new building. ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Councilman Archambault, Mayor Nichols, Councilman Kehe Councilman Kavanagh, Councilman Schlum, Councilman McMahan. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering, Planning & Zoning Administrator Richard Turner, Economic Development Specialist Megan Grego, Intern for Public Administration Jay Chilton,Town Engineer Randy Harrel,and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS: (i) Mayor Nichols presented a "Certificate of Achievement" to Christopher Carillo, Brian Nagel, Christopher Meyers, Robert Wineman, and Michael Tilrico on their achievement of attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. He expressed pride in their accomplishments and congratulated them on their success in achieving this difficult task. Vice Mayor Schlum also presented each of the youths with the symbol of Fountain Hills,the Fountain Pin. (ii) Mayor Nichols read a proclamation declaring August 2005 "Drowning Impact Awareness Month" and noted that keeping children healthy and safe was the goal of Water Watchers at Phoenix Children's Hospital, Fire Departments and other prevention institutions in Arizona. He said that raising awareness would increase understanding and education of effective ways to prevent drownings. (iii) Economic Development Specialist Megan Griego introduced John Lange, Trisha Biglar, and Michael Byrne, representatives of the WLB Group, and advised that they would provide an overview of the status of the proposed improvements on Avenue of the Fountains (between La Montana and Saguaro Boulevards). She noted that the proposed improvements on the Avenue of the Fountains would turn the area into an exciting and vital destination point. She noted that the Town sought the professional expertise of the WLB Group in carrying out this significant project and commented on the Group's expertise in the areas of urban planning, landscape architecture, land planning, civil engineering, public involvement and construction administration. She stated that various entities had been working on this project over the last two years. E:\BBender\Docurnents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 1 of 19 Mr. Lange, Ms. Biglar, and Mr. Byrne addressed the Council and stated that they were proud to be a part of the first Council meeting in the new Town Hall. Mr. Byrne commended staff on their expertise and thanked them for their insight and support. Mr. Lange, who served as the Project Manager on this project,discussed his firm's efforts to develop a vibrant area within the community. He reviewed the overall details of the site itself, by use of a slide presentation, and discussed a number of the approaches his firm had decided to take. He noted that they had created very unique and interesting entries into the project at both ends (the east and west blocks) and created a "piazza" type of feel at the core of the project. He added that mid-point blocks were important in the project as well and said that they had some very specific ideas and design considerations they would discuss for those areas. He reported that the project would be built in three phases, with Phase I being the north side streetscape and discussed lighting, shading and improving the hardscape (benches, etc.) He said that his firm was approximately 75% finished with the design at this time and added that construction should begin in March 2006. Mr. Lange reviewed the various slides and stated the opinion that the project would represent a "signature project" and destination point. He noted the various ponds, gathering areas, shade structures/medians, water features, including mirrored fountains and an interactive fountain, the creation of a picnic area, seating/landscaped areas and mid-point cross walks,and emphasized that almost all of the existing trees had been saved. Ms. Bigler discussed some of the specific design issues associated with the project and commented on plans to define pedestrian crossings mid-block using a specialty paving application and a slightly raised table, and discussed shade structures (with benches), lighting, picnic tables, trash receptacles, entry features that were still being worked on, the specialty sidewalk treatment to create an indoor/outdoor environment, lush landscaping and trees that would provide visibility while providing shade, and the project's proposed color scheme. Mr. Lange thanked the Council for the opportunity to address them and said that he believed his group would develop a world-class facility for the Town of Fountain Hills. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Lange, Ms. Bigler, and Mr. Byrne for their presentation and said he felt that it was important to provide the citizens of Fountain Hills with an idea of what the project would look like. In response to a question from the Mayor, Town Manager Tim Pickering advised that final adjustments would be made to the drawings and the next action to be taken by the Council would be the actual awarding of the bid for the construction (Phase I). He said that the Council would be provided the opportunity to review the final drawings and share them with the citizens prior to proceeding. (iv) Mr. Pickering advised that Jay Chilton, the Town's Administrative Intern, a Public Administration student at Arizona State University, was placed in charge of documenting the Town's move into the New Town Hall. Mr. Chilton highlighted a brief slide presentation depicting the recent move and noted that the new building was constructed over a nine-month period and completed within 10% of the original budget. He reported that the new building would result in an annual General Fund savings of$650,000. Mr. Chilton discussed the various departments located in the new facility and reported that it was 34,306 square feet in size. He discussed staff's efforts to ensure an efficient move and expressed special appreciation to IT and Facilities staff members for their outstanding hard work. Mayor Nichols thanked staff for all of their efforts to ensure that the move was seamless and that contractors/builders were provided a continuous high level of service. L E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 2 of 19 CALL TO THE PUBLIC Randolph Haines, Secretary of the Goldfield Concerned Citizens' Association and Vice President of the Goldfield Homeowners' Association, addressed the Council and noted that Goldfield Ranch was the Town's neighbor located across the Verde River. He advised that at the request of the Goldfield Homeowners' Association, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department initiated the process of updating the land use plan for their community. He said that as part of that process, a public hearing would be scheduled (probably in late September in Fountain Hills). He requested that the Town formulate its views on appropriate land use in Goldfield Ranch and authorize the Mayor or other representative of the Town to appear at the public hearing and express those views. He stated the opinion that their interests were aligned and noted that the goal of the Goldfield Concerned Citizens' Association was to preserve the existing R1-90 zoning for all of Goldfield Ranch. Mr. Haines stated that one of the goals in the plan update process was to develop a land-use plan that would clearly state that all of the zoning should remain R 1-90 and added the opinion that it was in the best interest of the Town that Goldfield Ranch maintain its minimum density,purely residential character for a number of reasons. He referred to a letter addressed to the Mayor and Town Manager that outlined the Association's various goals and requests. He emphasized that the residents of Goldfield Ranch would continue to rely on the Town for virtually all of their shopping, schools, and fire and ambulance services. He said that the demands would only increase if higher density development were allowed. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr.Haines for his comments. John McNeill, 14508 N. Creosote, indicated his intention to speak on the issue of the current Council vacancy, and said that it was his understanding that at the last Council meeting there was discussion, but no formal vote and/or decision, regarding the vacancy. He said that recent newspaper articles had reported that the Council did not intend to take any action and would allow the seat to remain open until a new 411.110 Councilmember was elected,possibly not until next May. Mr. McNeill expressed the opinion that the failure to appoint a new Councilmember was contrary to both Town ordinance and State law. He said that he had passed out a small packet containing the relevant ordinances and laws and briefly reviewed Town Code Section 2-1-4, Vacancies in Council, which states that the Council shall fill by appointment for the next unexpired term any vacancy that may occur for whatever reason. He emphasized that the wording was "shall" rather than "may" and noted that the word "shall" (according to the Town Code) was mandatory while"may" was permissive. Mr. McNeill added that the Town Code also stated that any person found guilty of violating any provisions of the Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $2500 or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. He also referred to State law and noted that ARS9-235, Vacancies in Council, states that the Council shall fill a vacancy that may occur by either filling an appointment for the unexpired term or appointing someone until the next regularly scheduled Council election if the vacancy occurred more than thirty days before the nomination petition deadline. Mr.McNeill urged the Council to comply with the Town Code and State law regarding an appointment to fill the current vacant seat. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr.McNeill for his input. Councilmember Kavanagh requested that staff be directed to review the matter presented to the Council regarding Goldfield Ranch. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nichols read the following consent agenda items: E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 3 of 19 AGENDA ITEM #1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 7,2005. err,. AGENDA ITEM #2 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH TRUGREEN LAND CARE FOR THE WASH CLEAN-UP PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF$129,094. AGENDA ITEM #3 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE RELEASE OF FUNDS TO FOUNTAIN HILL VETERAN'S MEMORIAL,INC.IN THE AMOUNT OF$40,000. AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE RELEASE OF FUNDS TO THE FOUNTAIN HILLS COMMUNITY THEATER IN THE AMOUNT OF$50,000. AGENDA ITEM # 5 - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-41, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 204,BLOCK 5,LOT 1 (16937 E.MALTA DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 142 OF MAPS,PAGE 10,RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. EA05-14(HAMANN). AGENDA ITEM#6-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-43,ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 604B, BLOCK 2, LOT 10 (15136 E. MUSTANGE DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 142 OF MAPS, PAGE 10,RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA.EA-05-16(VITERBO). AGENDA ITEM#7-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-45 ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF MIRAGE CONDOMINIUMS #30 (FORMERLY PLAT 111, BLOCK 7, LOT 10) (16631 E. ASHBROOK DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 375 OF MAPS, PAGE 35, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA,WITH STIPULATION. EA05-15(MLECZKO). AGENDA ITEM #8- CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE "GREATVIEW CONDOMINIUM, A CONDOMINIUM," A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 11420 SAGUARO BLVD., AKA LOT 6, BLOCK 2, FINAL PLAT 201. CASE #52005-13. AGENDA ITEM #9 - CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR "TWIN HAWK CONDOMINIUMS," A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 16811 E.HAWK DRIVE,AKA LOT 2,BLOCK 1,FINAL PLAT 201-A. CASE#S2005-08. AGENDA ITEM #10 - CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR "IVORY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, A CONDOMINIUM," A 4-UNIT COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 15024 IVORY DRIVE, AKA LOT 24, BLOCK 1, FINAL PLAT 106. ASE#52004-30. AGENDA ITEM#11 -CONSIDERATION OF TERMINATING THE TOWN'S LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JORDEN BISHOFF MCGUIRE & HISER, P.L.C. AND AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH GUST ROSENFELD,P.L.C. Le AGENDA ITEM #12 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH J2 ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, L.L.C., IN THE E:\BBender\Documents\Cuncnt Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 4 of 19 AMOUNT OF$92,000,FOR THE DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THE CENTRAL TRAILHEAD PROJECT. Councilman Archambault MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilman McMahan SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilman Kehe Aye Councilman Schlum Aye Councilman Kavanagh Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilman McMahan Aye Councilman Archambault Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6 to 0). ACTION AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #13 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A $2,500 DONATION TO THE 911 MEMORIAL FUND. Mr. Pickering explained that the Arizona 9/11 Memorial Commission was a public State body charged with the task of constructing a memorial to the victims of the 9/1 I attacks. He noted that the Commission's goal was to construct a memorial by September I I, 2006, with donations and monies obtained from fundraising activities. He said that Councilmember Kavanagh brought this matter to his attention and requested that he provide additional information. Councilmember Kavanagh stated that the memorial to the victims of 9/11 would cost$500,000 and would be located on State capital grounds at Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza in Phoenix. He advised that the memorial had not yet been designed but as donations were received, a Committee would be appointed to design it. He added, however, that fundraising efforts had fallen below expectations and to date only $80,000 had been raised. He said he thought it would be a nice gesture, on the part of the Town, to make a $2,500 donation and, concurrent with that,to send a letter to all of the other cities and towns in Arizona stating that the Town had made this donation and was urging them to make similar donations proportionate to their population in an effort to get this worthy project off the ground. Councilmember Kavanagh MOVED and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED a motion to approve a $2,500 donation to the 9/11 Memorial Fund as outlined above. Councilmember Archambault asked whether Councilmember Kavanagh would entertain a suggestion that the Council conduct a fundraiser, such as a carwash, and said that he had some concerns regarding spending Town monies outside of Town. He stated that having worked on the Veteran's Memorial, he had learned that there was a lot more vested pride in something that was earned. He added that he would like to come up with something that the Town itself could do to generate funds and then challenge other cities and towns to do the same. He agreed that the memorial fund was a worthy cause but reiterated concerns regarding spending Town funds outside of the Town itself and said that other worthy causes and funding avenues existed. Councilmember Kavanagh advised that the Commission was engaged in volunteer fundraising and noted that their latest project involved collecting cell phones and selling pins but reported that their efforts were not achieving the type of results they originally anticipated. He stated that the residents of the Town could participate in the volunteer activities but said that since the group was so far away from its goal, he believed E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 5 of 19 that it would be beneficial to get the various cities and towns to "kick in" a portion of the money. He added that he did not believe that offering fundraising suggestions would generate the necessary response and noted that the donations could be allocated much more quickly by the various entities. He noted that the Town had begun its own effort to build a 9/11 Memorial, which unfortunately did not get off the ground. He said that for the small amount of money involved, he would like to see this move forward and, at the same time, would encourage groups in Town to also participate in the cell phone and pin drives. Councilmember Archambault commented that it was not the$2,500 that he was concerned about, rather that if the Town donated the money a precedent may be set. He asked whether the Town received a letter from the Commission officially requesting a donation and was told that it had not. Councilmember Kavanagh said that he thought this would be an excellent "seed activity" for Fountain Hills. Councilmember Archambault advised that he believed in the project but did not want to use Town funds. He stated that he would be willing to volunteer to participate in any activity that the Council believed would generate funds (such as "Dunk A Councilmember Day") and added that he would also be willing to match whatever funds the Council was willing to put up. Councilmember Kehe commented that he used to live approximately thirty miles north of New York City and had the privilege, on various occasions, of viewing the Manhattan skyline. He added that a very good friend of his narrowly escaped from the Towers and he therefore was sensitive to this issue both from the standpoint of the sacrifices that occurred and from a national concern. He said that it was his understanding that the intent was to raise funds privately through individuals and corporations. He added that Councilmember Kavanagh was suggesting that the Town "jump start" other communities throughout the State to contribute as well. He agreed that this might not represent the proper use of public funds and said that if$2,500 was available, he believed that the money should go towards local needs, such as a donation to the local Food Bank, which during July served 450 people who met government poverty guidelines. He reported that 150 of the families live in Fountain Hills. He stated that he had problems with this particular proposal. Councilmember Kavanagh clarified that the issues was not whether to give$2,500 to the local Food Bank or to the 9/1l Memorial, since the Town could clearly afford to do both. He said that this was a nominal amount of money that he believed would multiply as it went across the State and make the memorial a reality. He added that had voluntary fundraising efforts been successful, he would not have brought the matter up but noted that they needed a half a million dollars and to date had only raised $80,000. He stated that the 9/11 Memorial was going nowhere and this was an unbelievable shame for the State of Arizona. He noted that the Town had given money to outside groups in the past and said that he believed the donation of this minimal token amount was appropriate and showed good intention. Councilmember Kehe asked whether Councilmember Kavanagh was suggesting that they do both (9/11 Memorial and donation to the Food Bank) and Councilmember Kavanagh responded that he would be more than happy to approve a donation to the Food Bank at a future meeting when such action could be placed upon an agenda should they approve the donation to the Memorial this evening. Councilmember Archambault reiterated his previous suggestion that the Council come up with a fundraising activity to generate money for this worthwhile project. He said that the danger they would run into was that when they were experiencing good times, everyone wanted to spend money and that was the time they should be putting it away. He stated that he was not unwilling to raise funds for the Memorial, and commended Councilmember Kavanagh for bringing the issue up, but again expressed the opinion that there were ways of generating monies without dipping into the Town's coffers. Councilmember McMahan said that he too had some reservations regarding spending the funds outside of Town. L E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 6 of 19 Councilmember Kavanagh stated that since there were not four votes in favor of his motion, in order to save the Town the embarrassment of voting down the motion to approve funding for the 9/11 Memorial, he would sadly withdraw his motion. Mayor Nichols MOVED that they, as a Town, develop a Proclamation supporting this project, that they publicize the matter, and distribute materials soliciting donations at the Town's own 9/11 Memorial service. The Mayor added that the Council should also take Councilmember Archambault's generous offer to match monies that were raised. Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0). AGENDA ITEM #14 - PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON ORDINANCE 05-06, WHICH IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFYING THE 200- FOOT BUILDING LENGTH LIMITATION IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS. CASE #Z2005-01. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Pickering noted that this issue previously came before the Council and staff was asked to conduct additional research and bring back a recommendation as to whether the Town Code should be modified. He explained that the Code was somewhat vague and said that Planning&Zoning Administrator Richard Turner would provide an overview of staff's findings. Mr. Turner addressed the Council and stated that the proposed text amendment would add a clarifying statement that the 200-foot maximum building length requirement in multi-family zoning districts applied only to multi-family buildings. He said that on a previous agenda in April there was an application for a Special Use Permit for a nursing home and added that the proposed building was too long, 250 feet in length. He stated that during the Call to the Public, which preceded the hearing on the Special Use Permit, a representative of the applicant requested that the Special Use application be continued and that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to apply the 200-foot building length limit only to multiple-family buildings. He noted that the case was continued by the Council and requested that staff bring back an analysis of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Mr. Turner further stated that on June 2"d, the Town Council reviewed staffs analysis and initiated the application to allow public hearings on the amendment. He added that a recommendation by the Planning& Zoning Commission to recommend denial of the proposed amendment failed by a three to three vote. He reported that several buildings in Town exceeded the 200-foot length limit, some of which were non multiple-family buildings in multiple family zoning districts. He said that staff checked with several other valley communities and did not find any limits on the length of buildings in their zoning ordinances. He advised that staff did not have any objections to the 200-foot limitation on the length of multi-family buildings in multi-family zoning districts and noted that such a regulation did serve to limit the bulk of these buildings and would seem to have real value in multiple building complexes. He added that shorter buildings made access easier and facilitated pedestrian circulation. He stated that in other types of buildings, such as museums, private schools, golf course club houses and nursing homes, the 200-foot building length limitation might not be appropriate. He pointed out that the internal functions of those types of uses might justify longer buildings. Mr.Turner informed the Council that staff recommended that the Zoning Ordinance be revised to clarify that the 200-foot maximum building length limitation only applied to multiple-family buildings. He noted that specific language was provided in the staff report. Mayor Nichols asked whether there were any citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item and Town Clerk cry Bev Bender announced the names of the following speakers who addressed the Council and presented the ensuing remarks. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 7 of 19 Robert Alonzo, representing the Plaza del Lago Homeowners' Association, voiced opposition to modifying the ordinance. He expressed the opinion that revising the ordinance at this time would basically satisfy one developer's needs and would give way to the construction of a proposed nursing home on El Lago Boulevard and Verde River Drive. He stated that such a building was not suitable or practical in the area of primarily residential homes. He requested that the Council consider the outpouring of e-mails, letters, and controversy generated because of this issue. He thanked the Council for the opportunity to voice his remarks. Rudolph Volteman, 14850 E. Grandview, also spoke in opposition to changing the ordinance. He stated that when he purchased his condominium one year ago, he was told that the neighborhood was zoned a multi- family zoning district and he never thought that a building larger than 200 feet in length would be built adjacent to his property. He expressed the opinion that changing the ordinance would invite large businesses, such as the nursing home, to be built and said that this would negatively impact the multi-family zoning district. Emmanuel Ursu, representing the nursing home project, advised that his group requested the zoning change. He noted that the Council would retain discretionary authority over zoning requests and said that use permits were required for non-residential buildings in residential districts. He added that there were few vacant parcels in Town to which the rule would apply and stated that there would not be a rash of requests coming in for buildings that were excessive in size. He referred to the proposed design, which was not on the agenda to discuss this evening, and said that once the neighbors they had spoken to saw the plans in detail and had an opportunity to sit down and voice their concerns, a significant amount of the perceived problems were alleviated. He added that with some additional time on their part when it came to the actual request for the development application, they would hopefully be able to address any remaining concerns raised by the residents. There were no additional speakers wishing to address the Council on this item and Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing closed at 7:46 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #15 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 05-06, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS' ZONING ORDINANCE, MODIFYING THE 200-FOOT BUILDING LENGTH LIMITATION IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS. CASE#Z2005-01. Councilmember Kehe MOVED to approve Ordinance 05-06 for purposes of discussion and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Kehe commented that in theory this was not supposed to be attached to any specific project but rather was an attempt to clarify what may or may not have been interpreted a couple of different ways in the past. He said that one of the things that concerned him about the case was that in reading the Planning& Zoning Commission's minutes, a statement was made that this was an example of"spot zoning" and they were just looking at one particular piece of property, which was always a bad idea. He asked Mr. Turner to respond to this statement in terms of whether this was the only piece of property in Town (or one of the only pieces) or whether the possibility existed in the future that there would be other properties available through redevelopment or annexation that could not be predicted at this time. Mr. Turner responded that at this point in time there were very few pieces of property that this could apply to but added that staff did not have the ability to look that far out into the future. He agreed that five, ten, or even fifteen years from now, Town zoning might be different and opportunities for redevelopment might exist. He added that the State land north of Town might be annexed and development opportunities might arise. He advised that at the present time a lot of properties would not qualify to take advantage of the change. cow E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 8 of 19 Councilmember Kehe commented that Mr. Turner's remarks attested to the fact that in the future the Town might be faced with the situation of clarifying the 200-foot length and Mr. Turner replied that the prospect was conceivable. Lie Councilmember Kehe stated the opinion that it should be made clear that two potential situations might arise. He said that he had heard people this evening express concerns regarding developing a project, other than a multi-family use, and added that two sequences might arise. He commented that if the Council rejected the ordinance amendment this evening, the developer would still have the opportunity to appeal his case before the Board of Adjustment. He added that if the Council approved the text amendment this evening, the developer would still have to appear before the Town Council to request a Special Use Permit (for a use other than permitted in the multi-residential zoning and for excessive height). He noted that the Council would not be "closing off avenues" but rather attempting to look at the zoning and clarify it as it related to the 200-foot length. He emphasized that the Council was not approving the development of a nursing home, they were simply looking at the zoning amendment and determining whether it was needed. Councilmember Archambault asked if the zoning was clarified this evening as read, and a church wanted to go into a multi-family area, would a Special Use Permit be required. Mr.Turner replied that churches were a "different ballgame"and said he would hesitate to respond to the question. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire commented that since the issue was not on the agenda and the subject was "a horse of a different color" he too would be hesitant to comment on a possible church application at this time. Councilmember Archambault clarified that he was basically thinking about a broader use, such as a charter school,and asked whether the applicants would have to come before the Council for a Special Use Permit. Mr. McGuire responded that anything other than multi-family would have to come before the Council for a Special Use Permit except for special areas, such as churches. He emphasized that the only thing the proposal would change was the length of the building allowed. Councilmember Kavanagh commented that it was his understanding that the way the law currently read, this would also not apply to a public school because that would be another governmental entity. He said that if the Council adopted the amendment, they would lose their power to review over-length buildings on a case- by-case basis. Mr. McGuire concurred that the Council would lose that component of the special use review. He said for example if a building was not out of category and was not over height, the building would not come before the Council. Councilmember Kavanagh said that at the current time the Council could review over length on a case-by-case basis to determine appropriateness but if they passed the amendment,they would no longer be able to review length. Mr. McGuire responded that this would only be with respect to commercial uses (nursing home types of uses). He said that they would still have the review capability with multi-family buildings, such as apartment complexes. Councilmember Kavanagh stated that he would like to know what would be allowed without Council review if the amendment were passed this evening. Mr. Turner responded that the Code currently limited all buildings to 200-feet in length in multi-family zoning districts. He noted that this proposal would retain the 200-foot limit for multi-family type buildings (apartment buildings, condominiums, etc.) but would remove the limit for other types of buildings in multi-family zones. Councilmember Kavanagh pointed out that the Council currently had the right to review length limitations on all buildings except for churches and public schools. He said that all they would be doing this evening, if the Council approved the proposal,would be curtailing their ability to review certain over-sized buildings. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 9 of 19 Councilmember Kehe expressed the opinion that the previous statement was incorrect and said if the Council did not approve the proposal this evening, the applicant for a project that was not a multi-family project would have to go before the Board of Adjustment for an ordinance change. He added that if they approved the measure, and the applicant built outside of multi-family, he would still have to apply for a Special Use Permit even though the project conformed in every respect. Councilmember Kavanagh stated that they would not have to go before the Board for height issues and Councilmember Kehe replied that he believed they would have to appear before the Board for both height and use issues. Mr. McGuire clarified that the use and the height variances allowed by special use were not going to change; the proposal would only change the times in which the Council would review buildings for over length. He said that the special use requirements were still going to be in place for the other items they had discussed. Councilmember Kavanagh commented that if the nursing home operator or anyone else had a building that was over 200 feet, and they complied with every other ordinance, if the Council adopted this amending this evening, they must still come before the Council for a special exemption in order to be over 200-feet in length. Mr. Turner replied that the ordinance was saying that if a nursing home use was being built in a multi-family district, the facility could be over 200-feet in length; however, if residential was being built in that same district, it could not exceed the 200 feet. He emphasized that other uses would require Special Use Permits in order to be located in the multi-family district. Mayor Nichols advised that he was not anxious to have commercial buildings beyond 200 feet in multi- family areas and expressed the opinion that this did not represent the character of Fountain Hills. He stated that he would not vote in support of the amendment. Councilmember Kavanagh summarized his statements by saying that zoning ordinances, in a sense, were promises to the residents that allowed them to know what to expect in their neighborhoods. He added that they were not "etched in stone"and many exceptions had been made for valid reasons, but the key point was that the applicants had to come before the Council and provide justification for the exception. He stated that passage of the amendment this evening would remove the Council's power of control over heights and although someday he might approve height exceptions, he was hesitant to give up his right to protect the residents against over-length buildings. Mayor Nichols called the question. The motion FAILED by unanimous vote(0-6). AGENDA ITEM #16 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2005-46, AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH HIGH NOB, L.L.C., FOR "HIGH NOB ACRES," A PROPOSED 27.5-ACRE, 11- LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON LOT 34. BLOCK 1, FINAL PLAT 506-C AND THE ABUTTING UNPLATTED PARCEL OF LAND TO THE WEST OF LOT 34. Mr. Pickering said that this item also appeared before the Council at a previous meeting and added that staff has been working diligently with the developer and the residents on this matter. Mr. Turner addressed the Council regarding this agenda item and reported that on July 7th the Council approved a Development Agreement for this project. He said that at that time the Council acknowledged that the disturbance calculations in Paragraph 4 of the agreement probably would change as a result of the relocation of the road north of the site, which was a change recommended by the Council. He referred to a picture of the preliminary plat and pointed out that the road had a bit of a curve to the south and Council Clay requested that the road be relocated to the north. He advised that the road had been moved to the north and the land disturbance calculation, in Paragraph 4 of the Development Agreement, had also changed. He said E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 10 of 19 that it was expected that the relocation of the road would result in the need for additional disturbed area in order to maintain a reasonable amount of disturbance considering the size of the homes likely to be built on the lots. He added, however, that the movement of the road had required additional grading that had coo extended into some of the building envelopes,reducing the need for additional disturbance. He reported that the applicant was requesting 13 fewer square feet of disturbance than was allowed. He noted that in Paragraph 4.4 of the Development Agreement should be omitted; it was inadvertently left in by mistake. Mr. Turner also briefly explained the change requested by staff and said that the Development Agreement referred to a private road to be maintained by private homeowners. He stated that as part of the Town's Strategic Planning process, the issue of private roads had been raised and concerns had been expressed regarding the isolation of private gated communities. He advised that staff had serious concerns regarding the long-term maintenance of the private road in this project, especially considering that there were only 11 lots in the subdivision. He said that staff recommended that the reference to the private street be deleted from the Development Agreement. He said that in summary, the Development Agreement for this project was approved on July 7`h and had been revised to reflect changes in the land disturbance calculations. He advised that staff recommended approval of the amended Development Agreement and Resolution 05-46, subject to the deletion of any reference to the private street and the removal of Paragraph 4.4. Councilmember Kavanagh MOVED to approve Resolution 05-46 subject to staffs stipulations as listed above and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. In response to a question from the Council, Mr.Turner clarified that staff was recommending that in terms of the Development Agreement staff would like the reference to the private road removed and added that when it came to the preliminary plat, staff had developed a stipulation that called for the road to be public. He added that he would need to consult with the engineer to see whether the gatehouse would remain in the public street. He stated that they might ask that it be removed. Councilmember Archambault commented that at the last meeting the Council reviewed the Development Agreement extensively and agreed to come back and open up the Agreement once again only for the purpose of addressing Paragraph 4. He said that he had made a list of all of the changes that had occurred and noted that the owner had been generous. He expressed concern regarding the fact that owner wanted to have the gate and cautioned the Council against reneging on their promises. Ms. Bender advised that the following citizens wished to speak on this item. Bon Sternfels, 16803, an attorney representing the developer, commented on the Development Agreement, and stated that the private road was crucial for the safety of the people who were going to be living there and for their marketing efforts. He added that this had been an integral part of the development since day one. He noted that the applicant had worked diligently with the neighbors in an effort to address each and every concern and believed that the gate should stay and the Development Agreement should be amended. He pointed out that the disturbance area would be less than indicated in the prior submittal and emphasized that the Agreement pointed out that they were to obtain the consent of the Council for any transfer of their rights under the Agreement. He stated that they would like that to be eliminated because it was simply not workable. He added that if the Council was to require their consent for the transfer of the property,they had no criteria as to how the Council would judge whether to grant approval. He said that this would allow the Council to become inextricably involved in the developer's business, which would have to be made public in order to determine the facts upon which they based their decision. He expressed the opinion that this got them into a quagmire of legal problems with respect to the basis upon which the Council would do that. He advised that for health and other reasons, the developer was going to have to transfer his interest and as a result, they would request that that be amended to be eliminated so that they did not have to make public the private facts upon which the transfer would be made. He added that should the Council determine who the transfer should go to. how much should be paid, when it should be paid, who the developer was, etc. all of these issues would be very difficult for the Council to deal with in a public hearing and there was no E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 11 of 19 precedent for it. He advised that other than that, they had worked hard on the Development Agreement and were ready to proceed. Mr. Sternfels referred to Paragraph 4.4 and noted that it has been "in and out". He stated that they thought it was in and counted on that fact. He added, however,that in the spirit of cooperation they would be willing to give up Paragraph 4.4 in exchange for a modification of Paragraph 7.5. Councilmember Kavanagh requested that staff comment on the consent to transfer clause and asked whether this was routine. Mr. McGuire replied that Paragraph 7.5 contained fairly standard language and had been utilized in all of the Town's Development Agreements with MCO and other entities. He advised that it was not unprecedented for the clause to be included in the document and said it was not the intent for that provision to prevent assignments along the way. He further stated that the provision stated that if there was going to be a complete assignment, whereby the developer stepped away all together, staff wanted to know who the new assignee was. He commented that if there were a developer that the Town did not want to assign these rights to, this would serve as protection. He added, however, that in this particular case it did not really matter and was not an issue that staff was adamant about leaving in the Agreement. In response to another question from Councilmember Kavanagh regarding the fact that the Council had approved a number of gated communities with private roads, Mr. Pickering noted that half of the street would be private and half would be public. He said that one of staffs issues is the long-term maintenance of the road and stated that only 11 lots were involved. He commented that when they would go to repave the street in 20 to 30 years, that would be an expensive endeavor (over $100,000) and each individual homeowner would be asked to share in this significant cost. He added that research had shown that when dealing with small private streets, individual homeowners would not come up with the money and when the time came they would be turning to the Town and asking that the road be taken over. He said that if this were a much larger development, such as Eagle Mountain or Fire Rock, there would not be such a significant problem. Councilmember Archambault asked whether theycould address this problem p oblem by requiring that when the CC&Rs were written that specific funds be set aside that could only be used on streets. Mr. Pickering responded that this would be difficult to enforce over time and the Town would have to become involved in the HOA, a separate body, to ensure that funds were being put aside. He added that although he understood the concept, due to enforcement issues that would arise over time he would not recommend proceeding in this manner. He noted that private streets were not any safer than public streets and said that the whole private street issue would come up when they get into the Strategic Plan. Larry Mallek, 14606 E. Golden Eagle, said that at the previous meeting he informed the Council that he was responsible for circulating a petition in opposition to the project, primarily due to the location of the road on the south ridgeline. He stated that after meeting with the developer and the engineer, a compromise agreement to move the road to the north side of the ridgeline was reached and the residents then agreed to support the project. He discussed attempts on his and his neighbors' part to determine where the road would actually be located and, with assistance from the engineer, made a sketch on the ridge line where they thought the ridge line was now located. He said that each member of the Council had been provided with a picture of what they determined and explained the content of his exhibits. He reported that the owners of Lots 56 and 57 had concerns and believed that their agreement as far as the location of the road had been breeched. In response to a request for clarification from Vice Mayor Schlum regarding the assignment language, Mr. McGuire explained that the language requested by the developer would allow free assignability from the time of the amendment on; it would simply have to be recorded. He added that the compromise position that had been discussed was for the Council to authorize an assignment this evening along with approval of the restated Agreement that would affect the first transfer. He said that from that point on, subsequent assignments would require Council approval. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 12 of 19 Vice Mayor Schlum said that it was his understanding that there was no public access to the private road beyond the end of the current cul-de-sac as far as access to State land or the park and beyond. He stated that in this case he did not have a problem with the road remaining private. Councilmember Kavanagh advised that he would like to hear from Mr. Montgomery regarding the road placement. David Montgomery, Montgomery Engineering, 16716 E. Parkview, said that the last time they met, they had a road that extended southerly toward the back of lots of Golden Eagle. He discussed neighbor protests and stated that in their attempt to address concerns, the road was moved to the north. He reported that some lots were located 40 to 50 feet north and moving the road "slid" some of the lots on the north side of the road from the edge of the ridge down towards the bottom of the ridge on the north side. He said that the lots were still buildable but they would not sit as high. He advised that the developer, in the interest of cooperation, agreed to do that. He added that they agreed to move the road as far north as possible and said that he remembered saying that in some areas they would not be able to get it exactly down the ridge, but their plan was to cut the road into some of that ridge (taking some of the ridge off) so that the edge of the road would be sitting basically on grade. He noted that if they tried to move the lots further north, they would have to push the homes farther down the hill making them more difficult to build on and at some point the homes would have to shift to the other side of the street (the lots would have to move to the south side of the street), a bigger negative in their opinion. He said that they placed the road in the best position they believed possible. He distributed a sketch of a cross section showing what the road looked like in the worst-case scenario Willie Hamilton, 14721 E. Cerro Alto, thanked the Council for their efforts in the residents' regard. He stated the opinion that the developer has made significant concessions and added that the residents counted on the road being private and would like the Council to keep it this way. He said that he and several of his neighbors would agree to abide by an assessment in order for the road to remain private. He commented that Niue both he and John support the gate and thanked everyone for their efforts to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution to concerns. Bill Varanese, the owner of Lot 56, which abuts the development, commented that he had previously addressed the Council regarding this issue. He said that he could appreciate some of the movement that had occurred on this particular development since the beginning but believed that the road had not been moved to the north side of the ridge line as discussed at the previous meeting. He reported that the road was actually 15 to 20-feet south of the ridgeline and,as just discussed, there were plans to cut the top of the ridgeline. He expressed the opinion that the road still could be moved more towards the north. He discussed the value of the lots in the development and said that if any of the lots and requested that the applicant move the road further to the north. He added that he did not see a problem with the gated community and believed that it would in fact reduce traffic. Mayor Nichols thanked all of the speakers for their input. The Mayor advised that they were talking about Resolution 2005-46 (the Development Agreement) and omitting Paragraph 4.4. Mr. McGuire added that the current motion included omitting Paragraph 4.4 and any reference to private streets. He added that the applicant was proposing modified language for Paragraph 7.5, which would require an amendment to the motion. Councilmember Archambault AMENDED the motion to reflect that the private road remain intact and that the language in Paragraph 7.5 be amended. Councilmember Kavanagh SECONDED the motion. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 13 of 19 Councilmember Kavanagh stated that he did not have a problem with the removal of the transfer clause or allowing the private road/gate. Mr. McGuire advised that staff had a copy of the language amending Paragraph 7.5 and would insert it into the document. Mayor Nichols requested that the Council vote on the amendment to the motion. The amendment CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0). The Mayor called for a vote on the main motion. The amended motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0). Mayor Nichols thanked the residents and the developer for their efforts to work together to reach a satisfactory compromise solution. AGENDA ITEM #17 — CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR "HIGH NOB ACRES", A PROPOSED 11-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON LOT 34, BLOCK 1, FINAL PLAT 506-C, AND THE ABUTTING UNPLATTED PARCEL OF LAND TO THE WEST OF LOT 34. CASE#S2004-22. Mr. Turner advised that staff's recommendation was the final paragraph in the staff report and, for consistency sake, recommended that Condition#11 be deleted(deals with the public/private road issue). Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED to approve the Preliminary Plat for "High Nob Acres" with the deletion of Condition#11 and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Kehe commented on the fact that a minimal difference existed in the amount of allowable disturbance area and asked whether this was because the road was moved only a minimal distance. Mr. Montgomery responded that technically they should have ended up with additional disturbance. He explained that when they looked at how the disturbance was calculated and when they switched from the gross method to the net method they did not change how they calculated the disturbance. He added that they actually penalized themselves and when they corrected the oversight they found that they were still within the 15,000 square foot range for a minimum envelope. Councilmember Kehe discussed the right-of-way and asked why 30-feet of width was being proposed. Mr. Montgomery explained that Engineering staff had requested that items 9 and 10 be added to the project and noted that the developer was not in favor of doing this but was willing to comply if the Council so desired. Town Engineer Randy Harrel explained the reasoning behind items 9 and 10 and noted that a 30-foot width was standard to allow emergency access. Mr.Pickering noted that the length of the street was much longer than those typically approved. In response to a request from Councilmember Kehe, Fire Chief La Greca advised that he was not the Chief when this issue first came forward. He added that he had reviewed the matter and said that although he understood the need for a piece of property such as this, in his opinion this would be the last consideration in such a small subdivision. He added that the Department could defend in place for the 11-lot scenario. He said that if it were not going to be a gradable road, the Fire Department would not have any objection to it but stated that in a subdivision this small in size they would not use it. L E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 14 of 19 Councilmember Kehe MOVED to amend the motion to remove the right-of-way (item#9, the 30-foot wide emergency ingress/egress but to keep the 10-foot graded trail) and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion. In response to a request for clarification from Councilmember Kavanagh, Chief La Greca stated that the Department would not use it as a tactical operation component. He added that if there were some residents who wanted to use the right-of-way to get out themselves that would be their choice. He stated that in this particular subdivision, with that steep a grade, they would not use that configuration. Councilmember Archambault pointed out that there was a 20-foot public utility easement on the property. Mr. Harrell said that one of the possible locations for the emergency access would be along the water line going up from Golden Eagle, a 20-foot wide public utility easement. He added that this easement would remain in place. Mayor Nichols called the question and requested that the Council vote on the amendment. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0). Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the amended motion (approval of the preliminary plat with the amendment). The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0). AGENDA ITEM #18—STAFF REPORT WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP AND TIMESHARES. Mr. Pickering advised that the Council had requested that staff look into the issue of fractional ownership and timeshares and said that Mr.Turner would present a brief overview of staff's findings. Mr. Turner advised that the issue at hand was whether the Town should amend its regulations to restrict or prohibit fractional ownerships and timeshares. He stated that having considered the information provided to staff, it was their recommendation that the Town's Zoning Ordinance be amended to limit fractional ownerships and timeshares to Lodging Zoning Districts. He said that recently the use of a single-family home in a Fountain Hills' neighborhood owned by a company that operates fractional ownerships was brought to the attention of the Town. He noted that other companies had expressed a similar interest in doing likewise in other parts of the Town. He noted that currently fractional ownerships and/or timeshares were not addressed in the zoning or subdivision ordinance. Mr. Turner informed the Council that the Town of Paradise Valley had some experience in this area and prohibited timeshares and a recent proposal to loosen up their regulations to allow fractional ownerships on a case-by-case basis had been put on hold indefinitely. He explained that in a fractional ownership scheme each of several owners had an equal ownership in a single-family home and each owner also owned part of another ownership (or another ownership share) in the same property. He said that the last share was commonly a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) and, through ownership in the LLC, the owners gained access to other properties managed by the company that operated the fractional ownership. He pointed out that revenue to the Town by way of taxation on fractional ownerships had been addressed in a memo from the Finance Director and a copy had been attached to the staff report. He said that each unit share would be taxed at the point of initial sale. Mr. Turner further stated that fractional ownerships of single-family homes were characterized by frequent changes in occupancy; multiple ownerships, and the use of housing by unrelated individuals and closely resembled that of a hotel or guest ranch type of use, closer to a commercial type of use. He expressed the opinion that this type of use was not appropriate in a single-family neighborhood. tOkier Mr.Turner noted that staff had developed three options for consideration: E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 15 of 19 1) The "do nothing" option. The number of fractional ownerships would likely increase and residents of subdivisions with deed restrictions that prohibit fractional ownerships would have the option of enforcing those restrictions through the court system. 2) Prohibit fractional ownerships and timeshares. Under this scenario, staff would prepare language amending the Town's regulations to prohibit these uses. A total prohibition would not seem to be necessary or appropriate since there were likely to be locations in the Town where this type of use would be acceptable. 3) Allow fractional ownerships and timeshares in Lodging Zoning Districts. With this option, staff would prepare ordinance revisions that would permit these uses in the three Lodging Zoning Districts. Mr. Turner advised that staff recommended that the Council approve Option 3, allowing fractional ownerships and timeshares in the three Lodging Zoning Districts. He noted that while these uses might not be appropriate in single-family neighborhoods, there were locations in Town where uses permitted by the Lodging Zoning Districts were suitable considering the surrounding development and zoning. Mr. Turner commented that should the Town Council select a course of action that involved a change to the Town's Zoning Ordinance, staff should be directed to prepare draft language for consideration at a future meeting. He added that at the meeting the Council might choose to initiate the proposed Ordinances changes. Councilmember Kavanagh asked whether the Lodging Zoning Districts were all located in commercial areas and Mr. Turner responded not necessarily, they were very much a commercial type of zoning. Councilmember Kavanagh stated that he just wanted to make sure that there was not a proliferation of Lodging Zoning Districts and Mr.Turner assured him that there were not. Councilmember Kehe requested that Mr. Turner describe the locations of the Lodging Zoning Districts and he responded that the only one that comes to mind was located at Palisades & Shea. He said that he would research the matter further and provide that information to the Council. Councilmember Kehe noted that the site referred to by Mr.Turner was developed with considerable strife since there were houses located in close proximity. Mr. Turner commented that in the Town's current Lodging Zoning District timeshares were available and pointed out that the Districts had not been in existence for a very long time; the District was created a few years ago to handle this type of use that differed from other commercial uses. He added that there might only be the one District at this time and said that Copperwynd was not in the Lodging Zoning category. Councilmember Kehe stated that he looked at the Town's General Plan dated 2002 and the District referred to by Mr. Turner was the only one identified in that plan. He added that there was some question about Copperwynd. He stressed the importance of being careful in this area and closely scrutinizing what would surround Lodging Zoning Districts. Mr. McGuire clarified that staff would look at impacts of both timeshares and fractional ownerships on surrounding areas if that was the desire of the Council. Ms.Bender advised that the following citizens wished to speak on this agenda item: Marianne Wiggishoff, a resident of Scottsdale,addressed the Council and advised that she was a Community Association Manager for Sunridge Canyon and Fire Rock. She thanked the Council for allowing discussion to occur regarding this issue and said that the matter had been extremely disruptive and divisive in one of their neighborhoods in Fountain Hills. She expressed the opinion that Homeowner Associations were ill equipped to handle this issue and that was why she brought it to the attention of the municipality. She noted that most of the communities' governing documents did not contain any language that addressed fractional ownerships and/or timeshares. She added that even when they did, the issue remained very difficult to handle. She pointed out that Sunridge Canyon's regulations contained language that addressed fractional E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 16 of 19 ownerships but the problem was that they found out about the uses too late in the game and it then became an extremely expensive and divisive problem to solve. She discussed the fact that amending communities' governing documents was an extremely difficult,almost impossible task. She informed the Council that the residents of Fire Rock recently voted overwhelmingly to prohibit the uses but because of the way the documents were written they were unable to meet the vote requirements to make the change. She urged the Council to assist the residents and protect their interests. J.C. Johns, 13445 N. Rockview Court, President of the Sunridge Canyon Community Association, spoke in support of staff's recommendation. He expressed the opinion that if fractional ownership and timeshares were not prohibited from the beginning, the problem would continue to rapidly increase. He explained that while this started out as a single issue in Shadow Canyon, the concept was gaining in popularity. He discussed residents who had been contacted by companies attempting to obtain their homes for these uses and noted that another resident had actually set up a website from his home and was offering his home on a short-term weekly rental basis. He noted that once these companies were allowed to establish in Town the situation would be difficult, if not impossible to monitor, for violations of existing CC&Rs. He commented on the negative impacts of transients in the various neighborhoods. Rob Lowery, 9650 Rock Ridge, Vice President of Fire Rock Homeowners' Association, advised that the Association recently attempted to amend their CC&Rs, as mentioned by a previous speaker. He commented that this issue had sparked a lot of interest and pointed out that while a significant minority of the home sites had actually been built and were occupied, they were able to gamer somewhere close to 200 responses from the community in written form based on their attempt to modify the CC&Rs. He agreed that this was an issue that could be better addressed by the municipality and thanked staff for their diligent work to date. He urged the Council to support staffs recommendation. Jim Scheller, 14520 N. Quartz Court, a resident of Shadow Canyon, commended staff on the development of their recommendation. He said that he was speaking on behalf of several other property owners as well as himself and expressed opposition to the fractional use of properties in single-family residential areas. He added that they believed that fractional uses were incompatible with the nature of single-family life. He asked the Council to picture having 96 next-door neighbors as opposed to two and said that some of the owners allowed members of their family to use their homes periodically so the number of people in the neighborhood could grow. He said that fractional ownerships were commercial type uses and should be treated as such. He added that it was almost impossible to develop a sense of community with these types of uses in place and requested that the Council prohibit such uses in the Town and protect the citizens' quality of life. Mayor Nichols thanked all of the speakers for their comments. Councilmember Kehe MOVED to direct staff to draft a Text Amendment to the Town's Zoning Ordinance to prohibit fractional ownerships and timeshares within the Town of Fountain Hills. Councilmember Kehe clarified that his motion was to support staffs Option 2 and said that his intent was to totally eliminate timeshares and fractional ownerships. Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Kavanagh commented that since they currently allowed timeshares in certain Lodging Zones in Town, he would like to know whether the exclusion of fractional ownership in the Lodging Zones would be considered illegally discriminatory. Mr. McGuire responded that a total ban on all timeshares in any zone would bring about a change in the Lodging Zoning category and amendments would have to be made to any areas that might allow timeshares. He stated that staff would research exactly which zoning categories would need to be amended if the Council voted to support Option 2. Councilmember Kavanagh said if the Council were to ban fractional ownership all over Town, he wanted to know if they would then have to also ban timeshares, even within the Lodging E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 17 of 19 areas. Mr. McGuire responded that the issue was a question of semantics and added that fractional ownerships and timeshares were simply different varieties of the same thing. He said that if the motion as it currently stood were approved, it would require staff to remove that use from any zone in Town,timeshare or rrr fractional ownership. Councilmember Kavanagh asked how many timeshares were in place in Town and where they were located and Mr. McGuire stated that staff could put together that information and provide it at a later time. He added that there was some in Town already and there are also some intended to be in Town as part of the Hilton project. Councilmember Kavanagh asked how this action would affect the Hilton project and Mr. Pickering advised that that was probably the most difficult aspect of this issue, because the project would definitely be severely impacted. He noted that the project was developed on the concept of having timeshares located in the Lodging area and renting them out. He added that staff believed that location to be an appropriate location for this type of use. He commented on diligent efforts expended to work with the neighbors and make sure that there would not be any adjoining uses that did not work well together. Councilmember Kehe said he thought that Hilton did not have any interest in doing that any more and Mr. Pickering clarified that the owners changed but the intent remained the same. He clarified that Hilton was never the owner, it was the franchise. Mr. McGuire commented that a key point was that they had an executed Development Agreement for the piece of property that involved hotel and timeshare uses at Palisades and Shea. He added that the Agreement would constrain them somewhat with respect to that piece of property. Mayor Nichols stated that he would not support the motion to ban all of it and said that Option 3 appeared to be more appropriate and reasonable and he would concur with that recommendation. Mayor Nichols MOVED to amend the motion to direct staff to work on their recommendation Option 3. Councilmember Kavanagh asked whether the amendment would also direct staff to the possibility of making some changes to the Lodging District to restrict it so that there was no an unnecessary infringement in residential areas of fractional ownership buildings. Mayor Nichols confirmed that the amendment would also cover this area. Councilmember Kavanagh SECONDED the amendment. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the amendment. The amendment CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0). Councilmember Archambault requested clarification on the amended motion and Mayor Nichols advised that it supported Option 3. Councilmember Kavanagh added that it was with the understanding that the Council might also direct staff to further restrict the Lodging Zones if they felt that they unnecessarily abut residential. The Mayor called for a vote on the main motion. The amended motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(6-0) AGENDA ITEM #19 - COUNCIL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW OF THE MEETING TO lkow IDENTIFY PROCEDURAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 18 of 19 There was no discussion relative to this agenda item. AGENDA ITEM #20 — COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF (i) PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR (ii) OR DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL: There was no discussion relative to this agenda item. AGENDA ITEM#13—SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER Mr. Pickering advised that he would follow up on the Goldfield Ranch issue and report his findings to the Council. AGENDA ITEM#14—ADJOURNMENT Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. TOWN OF FOt 4TAIN HILLS n By ' Wally chols,Mayor ATI'bST AND PREPARED BY: • Bevelyn J. Bender,.Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 4th day of August 2005. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 18th day of August 2005. •' ter:! Bevelyn J. Bender,Town Clerk L E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2005\08-04-05 Regular and Executive Session.doc Page 19 of 19