Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.0202.TCREM.MinutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL February 2, 2006 Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #1 — VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38- 431.03.A1, FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, SALARIES, DISCIPLINING OR RESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY BODY, EXCEPT THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SALARY DISCUSSIONS, AN OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE MAY DEMAND THAT THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. THE PUBLIC BODY SHALL PROVIDE THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AS IS APPROPRIATE BUT NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FOR THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION SHOULD OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. (SPECIFICALLY REVIEW OF M PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATIONS; 00 STRATEGIC PLAN ADVISORY COMMISSION APPLICATIONS; aii) ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATIONS; AND 00 STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION APPLICANTS INTERVIEWS — ONE INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED VIA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL); AND PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38-431-03A.4, DISCUSSION OR CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEYS OF THE PUBLIC BODY IN ORDER TO CONSIDER ITS POSITION AND INSTRUCT ITS ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE PUBLIC BODY'S POSITION REGARDING CONTRACTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS, IN PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR IN SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO AVOID OR RESOLVE LITIGATION. (SPECIFICALLY, TOWN OF CAREFREE V. GP PROPERTIES CAREFREE CAVE CREEK, L.L.C. LITIGATION.) Councilmember Archambault MOVED to convene the Executive Session and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). Mayor Nichols recessed the Executive Session at 6:10 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #2 — RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION Mayor Nichols reconvened the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m. INVOCATION — Pastor Steve Bergeson, Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Nichols, Vice Mayor Schlum, Councilmembers Archambault, Kehe, Kavanagh, and McMahan. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Assistant Town Manager Ellen Pence, and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nichols advised that Agenda Item #4 was removed from the Consent Agenda (Consideration of a Temporary Use Permit for Plaza Fountainside, LLC). ZACouncil Packets\2006\R2-16-06\02-02-06 minutes.doc Page 1 of 9 AGENDA ITEM #1 —CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 19, 2006. AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL BID AT SAGUARO BOULEVARD AND EL LAGO BOULEVARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $420,000 AND AWARDING THE CONTRACT TO UTILITY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. AGENDA ITEM #3 — APPROVING A PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH PHOENIX FENCE (MOHAVE EDUCATION SERVICES COOPERATIVE, INC.) TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCING BACKSTOPS DUGOUTS AND FOUL LINE FENCE AT THE TWO BALL FIELDS AT FOUR PEAKS NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AGENDA ITEM # 5 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY FOUNTAIN HILLS PARKS AND RECREATION FOR THE ST. PATRICK'S DAY CELEBRATION SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2006, FROM 11 A.M. TO 7 P.M. THE EVENT WILL REQUIRE THE CLOSURE OF SAGUARO BOULEVARD FROM PALISADES BOULEVARD TO PAUL NORDIN PARKWAY. AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS POST 7507, FOR A FUNDRAISER SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 17, 2006. AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF JOINING THE AMICUS BRIEF PREPARED BY THE LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS IN THE TOWN OF CAREFREE V. GP PROPERTIES CAREFREE CAVE CREEK, L.L.C. LITIGATION. Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilmember Kehe Aye Vice Mayor Schlum Aye Councilmember Kavanagh Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilmember McMahan Aye Councilmember Archambault Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). ACTION AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR PLAZA FOUNTAINSIDE LLC TO HOLD SPECIAL MONTHLY EVENTS AT 12645 N. SAGUARO BOULEVARD, AKA PLAZA FOUNTAINSIDE, LOT 1, CASE #TU2006-01. Councilmember McMahan declared a conflict of interest and left the dais. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to approve the temporary Use Permit for Plaza Fountainside LLC and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0) by those voting. AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING CITIZENS TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION. *40 ZACouncil Packets\2006\R2-16-06\02-02-06 minutes.doc Page 2 of 9 Mayor Nichols recommended that Jerry Butler, Ryan Guy, Rick Schultz, Paul Butler, Roger Riggert, Mike Tyler, and Curt Dunham be appointed to fill the vacancies on the Community Advisory Commission. Mayor Nichols MOVED to approve the appointments as recommended and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). Mayor Nichols stated that the entire Council was impressed with the caliber of citizens willing to serve on this Commission and asked the newly appointed members to stand and be recognized. AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-08, AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE CHAPTER 6, RELATING TO DOG LICENSING. Finance Director Julie Ghetti addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and stated that the Town had provided the residents of Fountain Hills with the ability to license their dogs locally since 1994. She stated that the service appeared to be quite popular based on the number of people who come into Town Hall to obtain/renew their dog licenses and added that approximately 3,000 dogs were licensed in Town. She noted that on average 40 to 50 residents visit Town Hall each week to pick up their licenses. She said that the Town's license was the only one required and pet owners were not required to obtain Maricopa County dog licenses. She added that the Town also contracts with Maricopa County Animal Care & Control and the County was responsible for field enforcement related to stray dogs, leash laws, and dog bites. She noted that the County also billed the Town for each day that a Fountain Hills dog or cat was impounded or euthanized at the County Shelter. Ms. Ghetti pointed out that local licensing provided the Town with the ability to reunite lost pets with their owners and said that animal license fees were not intended as a revenue producer. She added that they served to protect the public since dog owners must show proof of their animals' rabies vaccinations prior to issuance. Ms. Ghetti advised that Ordinance 06-08, if approved, would increase the fee for neutered dogs from $10 to $12 and for non -neutered dogs from $25 to $40. She noted that a discount was available for seniors over the age of 65 for a maximum of two dogs. The seniors' fee will be $6 for a neutered dog rather than $12. She pointed out that the proposed fees were the same fees enacted by Maricopa County that went into effect January 1, 2006. She said that staff recommended that the fees be increased to the same levels as the County with an effective date of April 1, 2006. Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED to approve Ordinance 06-08 and Councilmember Kavanagh SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #10 --CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING RESOLUTION 2006-11,_ REPEALING RESOLUTION 2003-39, ADOPTING THE MARICOPA COUNTY ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL FEE SCHEDULE, EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 1, 2006. Vie Mayor Schlum MOVED to approve Resolution 2006-11 and Councilmember Kavanagh SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #11 — PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ORDINANCE #06-05, PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT PERTAIN TO THE HILLSIDE DISTURBANCE REGULATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES. CASE #Z2005-07. Mayor Nichols convened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and advised that the Town �r received a request from the Sanitary District to explore the feasibility of allowing certain work to be exempted from the Hillside Protection Ordinance by administrative staff approval rather than the current method that ZACouncil Packets\2006\R2-16-06\02-02-06 minutes.doc Page 3 of 9 requires a waiver from the Town Council. He explained that this request related to those individual cases where two or more sewer connections were possible but the preferred connection would create hillside disturbance in excess of the allowable disturbance areas. He pointed out that the Sanitary District's preferred connection provided for gravity flow rather than requiring the installation of a pump. He added that the District had identified approximately 115 vacant lots in Town that had two sewer connection possibilities and might potentially require that the Hillside Protection Ordinance be waived in order to allow the new homes to use gravity flow rather than pumps. He noted that historically when these cases went before the Council, they had been approved. Mr. Rodgers referred to slides that depicted the location of a project and said that one of the sewer connections was located in the street and the other was down in a wash. He stated that the obvious short connection would have been to run it to the street, but that would have been "uphill" and would required a pump. He added that the Sanitary District requested that their proposed connection (down to the wash) be approved. He said that approving that request resulted in additional disturbance area and added that in these types of instances (to provide gravity flow) the Sanitary District had requested that the Council allow staff to give administrative approval rather than come before the Council each time. Mr. Rodgers informed the Council that staff revised the Ordinance to allow for administrative approval and pointed out that the revisions would also allow other utilities to request the same type of approvals under similar situations. He emphasized that all administrative approval would be subject to the eight (8) conditions outlined in the Ordinance. He stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Ordinance revisions at their January 26"' meeting and noted that staff also recommended approval. Ms. Bender advised that there were no citizens wishing to speak on the item. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing closed at 6:41 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #12 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE #06-05, PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT PERTAIN TO THE HILLSIDE DISTURBANCE REGULATIONS AS THEY RELATE TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES. CASE #Z2005-07. Councilmember Kavanagh MOVED to approve Ordinance #06-05 and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Kehe requested that Mr. Rodgers clarify the amount of additional hillside disturbance area that would occur as a result of the proposed revisions and Mr. Rodgers complied with this request. He emphasized that the revised Ordinance would only allow administrative approval in cases where waivers were required (because the shorter distance was not the preference of the Sanitary District; they wanted to go a different way). He said if they required a different way, the administrative approval would allow that based on the eight (8) criteria contained in the Ordinance. Councilmember Kehe asked if it was true that in most cases sewer lines may be placed under driveways and Mr. Rodgers responded that that was usually the case. He said that if they were talking about a serpentine, it would be placed under the driveway, which was already disturbance, so it would not be counted. He added that if there was a serpentine and it was impractical to put the sewer line under there, then the sewer line would be additional disturbance. Mr. Rodgers concurred that that would typically be the case. Councilmember Kehe asked whether that would factor into the net of the calculated disturbance area even under the new situation. Mr. Rodgers agreed that it would. Councilmember Kehe commented that his principle concern was that the Council has a legislative function and they were being asked to give that up and make it an administrative function. He said that the Council was elected by the people to represent them and, in particular, the Council knows their opinion via a survey on ordinances in general, on Hillside Protection ordinances, and added that he was very reluctant to give up that ZACouncil Packets\2006\R2-16-06\02-02-06 minutes.doc Page 4 of 9 legislative authority. He added that they should be extremely cautious about taking any such action. He stated that he looked at other representative areas and pointed out that the Council maintained legislative authority on cut and fills and right-of-way abandonments and commented that he was not ready to give up legislative control over situations such as this where considerable concern existed on the part of the citizens as far as maintenance of the environment. Councilmember Kehe added that if they could amend the Ordinance to require the final step to be Council approval, he would support the proposal. He indicated his intention to amend the motion to call for final approval by the Council. Councilmember Kavanagh said he agreed when it comes to issues such as cut and fills, roadways and houses, that the Council should maintain legislative discretion because there was much of leeway and input to be had. He added, however, that this particular case was pretty straightforward; they were talking about running a straight-line shot from a house to the nearest sewer line. He said that there was also a requirement for the area to be re -vegetated. He noted that engineering staff would determine the straight lines and because the disturbed area must be re -vegetated, down the road no one would know it was there. He pointed out that this was being done for public health reasons and commented on the problems associated with pumping sewage uphill. He said that because no discretion was involved, it was a simple engineering process and it would protect the public's health. Hw would support the proposal. Councilmember Archambault stated that when issues came before the Council and deal with giving up legislative power, he wanted to make sure that they were being proactive and it was not something that would reoccur. He asked of the 115 lots that were identified, how many had easements that might run down to the sewer lines. Mr. Rodgers responded that he did not know the answer to that question and suggested that representatives of the Sanitary District reply. Councilmember Archambault said that he did not want this situation created again and if all they were talking about was the 115 lots, he did not see why the Sanitary District couldn't send out letters to the owners encouraging them to obtain approval before starting construction to avoid delays. He added that he did not want to see them going into Adero Canyon or Eagle's Nest and creating the same situation or a situation where there was a house on top of a hill with a sewer line in both directions and the Sanitary District wanted to go one way and the Town the other. He said that they would both be gravity feed lines and he did not want to give up the Council's legislative authority in such a case. He stated that he also did not want to get into "self-inflicted" situations where a single level home that could be gravity feed and the shortest distance to the street but the owner decided to put in a basement that would require a pump so they decided to go in another direction. He said that it was imperative that they be careful of what they were giving up because he did not believe that the Council would approve "self-inflicted" cases. He questioned whether the same type of situation would arise with the State Trust Land. Mr. Rodgers expressed the opinion that situations might arise because they were talking about mountainous areas. Councilmember Archambault asked whether the Council approved the final plats and the locations of the sewer lines (with the developer) and Mr. Rodgers advised that they did. Ron Huber, representing the Sanitary District, stated the opinion that there would be a totally different situation in newly designed areas, such as Eagle's Nest. He noted that the 115 locations identified jointly by the Town Engineer and the District were situations that resulted from sewer designs from 1975. He commented that the way in which the newer subdivisions were being designed (sewers in roads with a minor amount of sewer line connecting an upper level road with a lower level road through an easement) would alleviate problems such as this. He added that in cases where the property was located below the sewer line in the streets in new subdivisions, pumps would be required and it would be the shortest distance to the sewer line. In response to a question from Councilmember Archambault, Mr. Rodgers stated that pumps were fine when they were the only option and sometimes there was no choice. Councilmember Archambault commented that pumps did break down but that did not mean they were a safety hazard. He spoke in support of the changes. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R2-16-06\02-02-06 minutes.doc Page 5 of 9 Mr. Huber noted that there were issues associated with the design of the on -site pumps and explained that the Sanitary District did not have any standards for that because they were on -site and most likely covered by the Building Code. He added that the Uniform Plumbing Code was very nondescript in what was required for the pumping systems so they could be put in very well or poorly. He advised that part of the problem had to do with design and the other involved the construction. He stated that there had been occasions when pumps had infected entire sewer lines and it took a great deal of labor and money to make them odor free. Councilmember McMahan said that he supported the way the District and staff were going about this but added that he too had concerns regarding giving up legislative authority over some of these issues. He stated that he was willing to support Councilmember Kehe's recommended amendment to give the Council final authority. Councilmember Kavanagh questioned whether a motion to allow the final authority to remain with the Council would render the entire issue "moot". Town Attorney Andrew McGuire advised that the issue would not be completely "moot", it would still establish a set of guidelines that the Community Development Director would have to follow in order to have a utility disturbance permit issued. He said that it would actually add an administrative burden to the current process rather than remove it. He explained that right now they had a paragraph and it would be a paragraph with eight (8) sub -parts if the amendment were adopted. He added that the Ordinance also called for cleanup (revegetation), which was also important. He stated that if the Council decided to go that route, they would probably want to make changes to the section but more process would be added. Councilmember Kavanagh asked if the proposed Ordinance remained unchanged and a Councilmember saw a plan that he was not comfortable with, could that Councilmember initiate a legislative review of the plan. Mr. McGuire replied that if the Ordinance remained as drafted, the members of the Council most likely would not be aware of the case. He further stated that on a typical residential lot, he did not believe that the Council would see the plans unless there was a sight plan review requirement with a specific type of lot or a specific issue with a lot. He added that the Council would be involved in cases requiring legislative action such as for cut and fills or, at the present time, exempting the sewer lines from the Hillside Protection Ordinance. Councilmember Kavanagh said it was his understanding that the example given where the Council would want to retain legislative review was when a lot had two gravity feed line options, one longer than the other, and the concern was that the administrative process would possibly grant the longer run and cause unnecessary disturbance. It was clarified that the concern was that one legislative body (Sanitary District) was giving direction to another (the Council) and problems associated with giving up authority. Councilmember Kavanagh stated the opinion that they might be worrying about a difficulty that did not exist because absent some weird engineering issue on the lot, the Council would always opt for the shorter run. He added that the issue did not appear to be a discretionary aesthetic judgment where legislative overview was needed; it appeared to be straight engineering where a right and a wrong would exist and therefore he did not have a problem giving staff legislative power over these types of issues. Mr. McGuire concurred. Mr. Huber pointed out that on new subdivisions that were designed the Town did have review through the Engineering Department on the location of the sewer laterals before the plans and specs were reviewed. He noted that the Town Engineer looked at the location of the laterals as well as the Sanitary District and there would be an opportunity during that review period for questions to be raised if a situation occurred that was different. Councilmember Kehe commented that the Council had already shown that they could deal with situations such as the one that arose on Tepee, where they approved a request for a waiver as the legislative body. He said that they were not talking about the merits of uphill or downhill, they were talking about the role of the Council, which was currently legislative. He expressed concern about giving up that legislative role. He added that it was his understanding that if the Council gave up that legislative role and made it administrative, at that point the Council would be excluded from the process and he believed there could be a challenge if they tried to get involved. He stated that those were his concerns. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R2-16-06\02-02-06 minutes.doc Page 6 of 9 Councilmember Archambault commented on easements and waivers and questioned whether the Ordinance could be "tweaked" to call for the Council's approval and eliminate the waiver issue. He stated that if the project met the criteria, it would then just have to go before the Council for approval. Mr. McGuire said that he IvaW believed that the Ordinance would take a potential legislative decision and make it into an administrative one, whether the Council or staff was the arbiter. He added that he did not believe that the distinction between legislative or administrative was applicable. He noted that the Ordinance would set up guidelines for under what conditions the Council would issue the permit (and only under such conditions). He stated the opinion that whether Richard or the Council made the final decision, he believed it was an administrative decision, not legislative. He said the issue at hand was whether the Council or a staff member made the administrative decision. He noted that Councilmember Kehe's suggestion was that the provision in the ordinance that stated that the administrative decision was made by the Community Development Manager be changed to say "by the Council". He said that the Community Development Manager would still be required to present all of the findings to the Council, and they would make the final decision. He stated that they had not discussed in detail the Council's right to require certain unique cases (not straightforward) to come before them. Councilmember Kavanagh commented on the numerous decisions made by staff on a daily basis due to the fact that the Council granted them the administrative authority to do so. He said that he sensed that the Council was interested in ensuring that excess disturbance did not occur because two route options existed and the people doing the construction chose the longer route. He asked whether the Ordinance could be amended to reflect that the Council retained the administrative authority over situations where in the case of a gravity feed, the path of least disturbance was chosen but would require Council approval for those cases where the longer route, requiring more disturbance, was chosen. Mr. McGuire stated that the Ordinance could be amended to that effect. Councilmember Kavanagh asked Mr. Huber, who previously stated that the District preferred straight-line shots and preferred the longest, whether the District could live with that as far as their administrative problems. Mr. Huber responded that if there were two gravity choices, the Sanitary District would not object to the Council wanting to select the shorter route for preservation purposes and would support that decision. Councilmember Kavanagh commented that he would support any amendment that allowed for administrative staff approval according to regulations as long as it was the course of least resistance and allowed the Council to retain legislative oversight in those cases where the person developing the lot wanted to take a more disturbing route. Vice Mayor Schlum questioned whether the Ordinance, as written would allow multiple utility half ways to be placed on a paved property or was limited to just one. He expressed the opinion that it should be limited to one and asked whether a specific width was being allocated for waivers. Mr. McGuire responded that he did not believe that the width had been even guessed at because the Community Development Director would know the proper width. He noted that as written, the regulations called for as minimal a disturbance as possible and the trenching method was supposed to incorporate the smaller footprint rather than the wider one. He expressed the opinion that the Council should not attempt to guess at a width or distance and added that most of the lots this would apply to already had public utility easements the edges of the property, almost on all three sides except for those places where they had been abandoned at the homeowner's request. He clarified that this would only address the public utility disturbance calculation. Councilmember Kehe MOVED that the provisions of Section B l.b of the proposed Ordinance be amended to state, "upon administrative review by the Community Development Director and approval of a "Utility Disturbance Permit" by the Town Council". Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Mr. McGuire explained that the proposed amendment would cause any of the disturbance requests to "run the gambit" of the additional requirements. He added that right now the procedure was not governed by any standards of how the cut would be preserved, the trench shored, etc. to minimize the width of the cut. Councilmember Kavanagh MOVED to amend the motion to add wording that would exempt Council approval but would retain staff approval in situations where the gravity feed chosen was the shorter route. The motion FAILED for lack of a second. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R2-16-06\02-02-06 minutes.doc Page 7 of 9 Vice Mayor Schlum stated that the waiver would still exist for the Hillside disturbance currently in the Ordinance but added that he believed that those cases should still have to come before Council and that would change the Ordinance. Mr. McGuire commented that the primary effect would be to take a somewhat discretionary (although arguably still administrative but possibly still legislative) decision and throw it into a category that was much more likely to be administrative even though the Council still made the decision. He said that it would be similar to the Town's subdivision ordinance, where it was more of a "check the box" situation and if all of the criteria boxes were checked, the item would most likely be a Consent Agenda item. There were no citizens present wishing to speak on this item. Mayor Nichols advised that there was a motion on the floor to approve Ordinance 06-05, amended to read that approval would be by the Town Council rather than the Community Development Director. Mr. McGuire stated that there was a different amendment (first and second) and therefore the Council would have to vote on the amendment separately and then go back to the main motion. He added that the first vote would be on the amendment as outlined, calling for administrative review by the Community Development Director and approval of the utility disturbance permit by the Town Council. The motion CARRIED BY MAJORITY VOTE (5-1) with Councilmember Kavanagh voting Nay. The Mayor said that the Council would now vote on the main motion. The motion to approve Ordinance 06-05 as amended CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #13 - COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF 0) PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR 00 OR DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL: A. REQUESTED BY COUNCILMAN KAVANAGH — PLACING THE ITEM OF DISCUSSING OUTDOOR SALES IN THE DOWNTOWN SHOPPING OVERLAY DISTRICT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Councilmember Kavanagh said that as a preliminary step, he would like to request that staff provide a short report or explanation of how the rules concerning outdoor sales differed within the downtown and other parts of the Town. He explained that several complaints had been received regarding unfair applications of the law and stated that he was curious about the actual rules and the rationale behind the rules if there were any differential restrictions. He requested that the report simply be sent to the Council for review and consideration. Councilmember Archambault asked whether discussion should occur prior to directing staff to prepare a report. He said that he would like to first understand what Councilmember Kavanagh was talking about. Councilmember Kavanagh explained that he was not clear on the rules and whether there was a difference between inside and outside the downtown area. He added that if there were differences, he would like to know the reasons behind the different decisions. It was the consensus of the Council that staff prepare and submit a report to the Council as requested by Councilmember Kavanagh. AGENDA ITEM #14 — SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER. None. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R2-16-06\02-02-06 minutes.doc Page 8 of 9 AGENDA ITEM #15 — ADJOURNMENT Councilmember McMahan MOVED that the Council motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The m TOWN OF E9 51 ATTEST AND PREPARED CERTIFICATION y and Councilman Archambault SECONDED the /adjourned at 7:10 p.m. HILLS _ 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 2°d day of February 2006. 1 further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 16`h day of February, 2006. "-�"96A Bevelyn J. B der, Town Clerk ZACouncil Packets\2006\R2-16-06\02-02-06 minutes.doc Page 9 of 9