Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.0207.TCWSM.MinutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORK STUDY SESSION BETWEEN THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL AND THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 7, 2005 AGENDA ITEM #1— CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Nichols, Councilmembers Archambault, Kehe, and McMahan. (Councilmember Kavanagh joined the meeting at 5:01 p.m. and Vice Mayor Schlum at 5:45 p.m.). Town Manager Tim Pickering, Town Clerk Bev Bender, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, and Mark Reddie, representing LVA Urban Design Studio, were also present. The following Planning and Zoning Commissioners were also present: Chairman Brown, Commissioners Forest, Downes, Ewald, Kasabuski, and Vice Chairman Caldwell. AGENDA ITEM #2 — PRESENTATION BY LVA URBAN DESIGN STUDIO L.L.C. AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED STATE TRUST LAND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PRE -ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. Mayor Nichols explained that the joint meeting between the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission was the first step in the long process of explaining to the public what was happening with the possible General Plan Amendment regarding the 1300 acres of State Trust Land located north of the Town near the middle school. He said that the process will include about seven meetings and this evening's meeting was going to be "informational only" and no public comment would be taken at this time. He added that on February 15`l', an Open House would be held at the Community Center from 4 to 8 p.m. and said that it will be open to the public and provide citizens an opportunity to provide input and ask questions. He stated that on February 23rd, a meeting will be held by the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the General Plan Amendment and initiate rezoning. Open Houses will also be held on March 6th (6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Community Center) and on April 6`b, the Council will conduct a public hearing on annexation. On April 13'h, the Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on rezoning and the General Plan Amendment and on April 20`t', if everything goes well, the Town Council will hold a public hearing and discuss possible approval of the General Plan Amendment, rezoning, the Pre -Annexation Agreement and annexation. Thirty days after that, May 20`h, the land may be annexed into the Town of Fountain Hills. He said that in the May -June time period, the State Land Department would hold a public auction to sell the property. The Mayor thanked the citizens for their attendance at the meeting and interest in this important issue. Town Manager Tim Pickering introduced Mr. Mark Reddie with the LVA Urban Design Studio, the consultant hired to assist the Town with the General Plan Amendment. He noted Mr. Reddie's extensive experience in the area of General Plan Amendments and said that Mr. Reddie has done much planning for the land under discussion and advised that over the last year meetings were held with representatives of the State Trust Land. He commented that the land would be sold before June 30`h of this year. Mr. Reddie addressed the Council and provided a brief overview of the background on the State Trust Land and the planning that has been done to date. He said that his firm has been working with the Town of Fountain Hills on the proposed General Plan Amendment. He referred to an aerial displayed in the Council Chambers and identified the location of the property (northeast corner of the Town) and explained that in 1991, the Town petitioned the State to annex the property. In 1993, the General Plan identified the land as suitable for Low Density Residential (LDR). In 1998, the State of Arizona classified the land suitable for conservation. In 2001, ZACouncil Packets\2006\R3-2-06\02-07-06 work study minutes.doc Page 1 of 7 the State accepted the Town's withdrawal to purchase land through the Arizona Preserves Initiative and in 2003, the Town voted to annex the land. Also in 2003, the Conservation classification expired and now in 2005-06, the State has initiated plan to sell the property at auction for development. Mr. Reddie discussed the existing conditions at the site and said that the property was owned by the State of Arizona and managed by the Arizona State Land Department. The land consists of approximately 1,276 acres (excluding the Middle School property), was in unincorporated Maricopa County, but was within the Town's Planning Area and was being proposed for annexation. The current Land Use designation, per the Town's General Plan, was Open Space and the current zoning, per Maricopa County, was Rural 43, which would allow for 43,560 square foot lots). Based on that zoning, approximately 1,200 units could be platted without any change to the existing zoning. Mr. Reddie provided a brief site analysis and stated that the site has dramatic topography, with lots of slopes, ridgelines and washes and consistent with much of the property within the Town. He referred to a graphic that showed a summary of the four different slope categories per the Town's Zoning Ordinance. He added that State commissioned a Geotechnical Report to look at the soils at the site that was prepared in December 2005. A highly elastic soils band exists along the eastern edge of the property and there would be limited development potential in this area. McDowell Mountain Road is currently the only existing road on the property and various adjacent roads stub out at the perimeter of the property. He said that natural land (topography) guided the proposed land use plan and road alignments and emphasized that the Plan was sensitive to the natural environment. Mr. Reddie advised that the six land use categories proposed for the property were as follows: Single Family Low 179 Acres 14% of the overall land in the area Single Family Medium 698 Acres 55% of the overall land in the area General Commercial/Retail 12 Acres 1 % of the overall land in the area Park 42 Acres 3% of the overall land in the area Open Space 345 Acres 27% of the overall land in the area He noted that a parcel of land has a Lodging designation on top of the Single Family Medium to give the perspective developer an opportunity if they choose to develop a small scale residential resort community as part of that (30 acres). He noted that the parcel was surrounded on four sides by the McDowell Mountain Regional Park, wash corridors, and the road. Mr. Reddie noted that the proposed roads responded to the topography and minimized wash crossings and steep slopes and recognized existing roadway connections. The open spaces responded to steep slopes, washes, perimeter buffer areas and linear connections to the McDowell Mountain Regional Park. He referred to the 345 acres of designated Open Space and added that the Town's Hillside Disturbance Ordinance would call for an additional 355 acres of Open Space, which would then account for over 50% of the total site. He said that they looked at locations for the various Residential densities and the lowest were within the steeper sloped areas. He added that the proposed 42-acre park would be located on one of the flattest pieces of property on the site and there were not many washes at that location. He added that because of the site's expansive soils band, this would be most difficult site upon which to building foundations and homes. Mr. Reddie further stated that staff and his firm worked very diligently with the State Land Department to come up with a Development Agreement for the property. He said that based on the signed Agreement between the Town and the State, there was a density cap of 1,750 total units on the property, which translates to a density of 1.37 dwelling units per acre. The General Plan range of densities, based solely on the land use categories, range from 969 to 2,149 but added that the number was capped at 1,750 total units, per the Development Agreement. He commented in comparison, Sunridge Canyon's designation is 1.2 dwelling units per acre, including a golf course. The surrounding four sections average out to approximately 2 dwelling units per acre. He reported that if the land was developed to the maximum (1,750 total units), the proposed population projection was 4,000 additional residents. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R3-2-06\02-07-06 work study minutes.doc Page 2 of 7 PE Mr. Reddie referred to the initial plan referred to the Town by the State and pointed out that it called for over 2,600 total units, contained higher densities, and parks were scattered with no ability to develop ball fields. He also discussed public utilities and said that Rural Metro would provide fire protection services; the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department would handle public safety; SRP would provide electrical service and power was adjacent and available; water would be provided by the Chaparral City Water Company, which received preliminary approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission on October 25, 2005 to serve the property. In addition, sewer service would be provided by the Fountain Hills Sanitary District, which has indicated that it currently has the capacity to service approximately 1,500 additional units. If more units were developed, they might be required to pay for additional expansion and improvements to the plan itself as well as additional lift stations, expansion of force mains and expansion of the treatment facility. He noted that a traffic study was conducted to look at impacts and no off -site roadway expansion was anticipated based on the anticipated population increase. Mr. Reddie said that the benefits associated with planning and annexing the property included the fact that residents would be provided with certainty regarding land use and zoning decisions prior to the sale of the property. If the land stayed within Maricopa County, the Plan would not be able to control the land and determine how it should be developed. If it were annexed, the property would develop per Town regulations and there would be a seamless transition to ensure that it was consistent with the goals and policies of the Town. The State Land Department identified this land as "disposable" in the Spring of 2006, and by planning and annexing the property prior to that, the citizens would know what to expect and potential bidders would also know exactly what they were bidding on. The State would be in a better position to get the highest and best value and no one would be misled. In addition, in 2005, a community survey indicated that over 60% of the Town's residents supported the annexation. He explained that the General Plan Amendment was also necessary prior to annexation in order for the State to agree to annex the property. He emphasized that the Town would be able to guide high -quality development through regulations and added that the property was a natural part of the Fountain Hills community. j Mr. Reddie reiterated the proposed schedule for the Open Houses, Planning and Zoning Commission reviews, �r and Town Council's public hearing on the annexation as previously outlined by the Mayor. He added that information would be available on the Town's website, www.fh.az.gov. Mr. Reddie thanked the Council for the opportunity to address them and said that he was willing to respond to any questions at this time. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Reddie for his presentation. Councilmember Archambault referred to the lodging overlay and asked whether the lodging, if developed, would reduce the number of residential dwelling units per acre. Mr. Reddie responded that the issue would have to be addressed during the zoning process when specific zoning regulations were determined for each of the parcels. He added the opinion that as it related to the General Plan Amendment, the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement indicates that 1,750 was the maximum number of units and he did not believe that if the resort went in that the number would automatically decrease. He added that they could potentially build something into the zoning that indicated if the resort was there then the units designated for the parcel would go away. He said that this would not occur during the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Downes noted that the site plan did not indicate any multi -family development, even low density multi -family (six units per acre) and asked whether such development could be located up against the park and/or school site. He added that they were calling for a 1,200-acre commercial zone along the curve, adjacent to the original commercial, and stated that the commercial that was currently there and approximately the same size, was not very prosperous and questioned what type of an anchor would go in there to draw business. He asked whether they could put in a small center, adjacent to the original one, and make the rest of it multiple - family. Mr. Reddie replied that the point made by Commissioner Downes was a good one and was discussed in detail. He said that the property was 12 acres in size but there were some slopes on the property, it was not flat, and only 6 acres was actually developable and the rest would be maintained as Open Space. He added the opinion ZACouncil Packets\2006\R3-2-06\02-07-06 work study minutes.doc Page 3 of 7 that the current commercial development was experiencing difficulties because it was located at the end of the road and was not visible. He noted that 4,000 new residents would be added and every one of them would pass by that commercial center every day. He stated that they believed that the center would eventually thrive and the opportunity to provide an anchor such as A.J.'s market would be much more likely as the property develops. He pointed out that people would be traveling to the school to drop off/pick up their children and this too would help the commercial businesses. Mr. Reddie also discussed the multi -family issue and said that multi -family was designated in one of the initial plans. He stated that because the parcel was only six acres in size, unless they did extremely high density there would not be enough units to justify that type of development. He said that they thought the property was more applicable as commercial. He added that the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance allowed multi -family in a commercial zone so when the developers would purchase the property, if they determined that instead of commercial multi -family was more appropriate, they could obtain a special permit and develop multi -family without going through a rezoning process. Councilmember Kavanagh asked whether the elastic soil would result in fissures and Mr. Reddie stated that when it rains, the water seeps into the soils, expands the soils and contracts when it dries. He added that it moves the dirt underneath and cracks foundations and footings. He said that he believes it differs from fissures but it does move underneath and so deep footings must be built or the clay must be removed. He noted that they drilled 25-feet deep and did not hit the end of the clay so it was fairly deep and would be difficult to mitigate. Councilmember Kavanagh asked if the studies proved that the parcel under discussion could not be built on, would there be an increase in units elsewhere or would the total number of homes be decreased. Mr. Reddie responded that most likely unit transfers would occur and confirmed that it was his understanding that the parcel would be appropriate for the proposed park. In response to a request from Councilmember Kavanagh, Mr. Reddie discussed the distinction between Open Space versus Open Space through the Hillside Preservation Ordinance. Councilmember Kavanagh asked whether the perimeter would be elastic based upon topography and need, or a straight strip. Mr. Reddie stated that there should be some movement to it and said that they had identified it as a 200-foot buffer because that was what they were hearing in some preliminary discussion. He added that there should be some flexibility to move that somewhat and create some flexibility, variety and diversity in the subdivision platting process. He said that through the General Plan process the lines would have some give but the intent was that until the platting process occurred, the best they could do was say "approximately 200 feet." Vice Chairman Caldwell commented on the width of the roads and the traffic they would carry and questioned what studies had been done on this. Mr. Reddie responded that the Town hired a transportation/engineering company to conduct a traffic study based on the proposed Plan and the study concluded that none of the off -site roads would need to be widened in order to accommodate the traffic generated from the property. It also demonstrated, based on the roadway network, and in every single case the maximum capacity of each road as presented and existing, would be less than capacity. He emphasized that undue strain would not be placed on the transportation system. He added that this information would be provided to prospective developers before the sale/bids. Councilmember Kavanagh advised that they had run into problems in Town because when certain roads were developed, they were designed for "super capacity" to manage future growth (El Lago, etc.) and said that the roads were now major speed problems. He asked what was being done to ensure that this problem did not occur in the annexed area. Mr. Reddie replied that the Traffic Analysis was conducted to look at the real needs. He stated that the developer who would purchase the property would not want to build infrastructure that exceeded capacity because of costs. He added that although he could not speak for future developers, he would expect that they would review the study and design and engineer their roads appropriately to accommodate the ultimate build -out of the property. He pointed out that the General Plan Amendment did not define specific roadway cross-sections/widths and the Zoning process did not do that either — it was through the planning and ZACouncil Packets\2006\R3-2-06\02-07-06 work study minutes.doc Page 4 of 7 development review process. He emphasized that the Town could regulate size, width, right-of-way, cross- section of the roads, based on what was appropriate for the anticipated intensity of development. In response to a question from Councilmember Kavanagh, Mr. Reddie stated that the possibility existed to put some curves in so that roads did not become speedways. He explained that they had not done detailed engineering on the property to date; they had basically identified the roadway alignments based on the existing topography, existing wash corridors, and tried to address the slope issues. He added that when developers do detailed engineering, there would be opportunities to modify roads and build traffic mitigations into the construction so they would not have to go in after the fact and make changes. Commissioner Ewald asked whether they had any developer input on the plan to date. Mr. Reddie advised that they had had some indirect input through the State Land Department, which had received a number of calls. He said that they were not directly involved in that but had met with the State Land Commissioners and State planners who indicated that they had shared the plan with a number of prospective bidders and homebuilders and that was part of the negotiation process they went through with them. He added that they wanted to make sure that the Town was not presenting a plan that was great for the Town but would not be acceptable to the builders. He advised that they reached out to the homebuilding development community and said "here is what the Town is thinking, what are your thoughts." He said that based on the feedback, the State Land Commissioner and planners came back and said they liked the plan and agreed to sign the Pre -Annexation Agreement. He expressed the opinion that the Plan was buildable and supported by the development community. Commissioner Ewald questioned whether there would be amendments to the Plan in the future before it was sold and Mr. Reddie stated that he would not say Plan Amendments, since the Plan was not approved yet, but noted that they had not received community input as yet and so the Plan would not be finalized until this occurred. He added that if issues arose as a result of the community's input, and revisions were needed, they would go through the process coordinating it with the State Land Department and negotiating with the citizens regarding the changes. He emphasized that at the current time, they were discussing a proposed Plan. He confirmed that any delays along the way would not delay the sale of the property. Commissioner Ewald also discussed the park site and asked whether the land would be donated to the Town's Park District once it had been purchased by a developer. Mr. Pickering advised that negotiations had not taken place regarding the donation of that land to the Town. He stated that a developer could keep it as a park amenity. He added that they would hope that a developer would not want to spend the additional monies to develop the land as a park. He added that during initial discussions, it was assumed that they would turn it over to the Town and the Town would pay for the development of the park. In response to a question from Commissioner Ewald relative to the 12 acres of commercial property, Mr. Reddie confirmed that approximately 6 acres of that land was actually buildable. He said that the slopes on the 14-acre parcel were fairly substantial and so switching to that site would be extremely difficult. He stated that the 14- acre site could potentially be developed as multi -family and added that it was currently designated Single - Family Medium, which went up to 4 units per acre. Commissioner Ewald asked whether the school site was part of Fountain Hills and was told it was not. Mr. Pickering noted that the General Plan did not affect that area but the annexation would include the school. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire explained that the school was not part of the General Plan Amendment because they typically did not assign a General Plan category to a school site such as this. He added that they had not yet determined what the land ownership of the school would be after the auction and pointed out that the school had a lease with the State Land Department and they were not concerned with that issue at this time. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R3-2-06\02-07-06 work study minutes.doc Page 5 of 7 Mr. Reddie referred to the Town's General Plan and noted that the school site had already been designated as a school site. He added the opinion that the site would be annexed in the future as part of the annexation agreement, but separate from the sale. Mr. McGuire noted that the General Plan Amendment was a pre -requisite to the sale and annexation. He added that the process was built upon a 90-day approval and any delay in approval along that process would result in the General Plan Amendment not being able to be considered in April. If it was not considered in April, no annexation would occur before the sale. He emphasized that there was no room for delays. Councilmember Kavanagh questioned what the consequences would be if there were a delay . Mr. McGuire responded that if the General Plan Amendment was not approved at the same meeting that the annexation ordinance and zoning ordinance were, the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement stated that they "unwind" all of the processes and the land goes forward for sale outside of the Town. He added that they had built "Plan B" into the Agreement, which they hoped never would happen, but the State Land Department or whoever purchased the land would have the opportunity to come back to the Town. He emphasized that annexation prior to sale was the preferred way to proceed. In response to a question from Councilmember Kavanagh as to whether the Town would lose its bargaining chip after the sale, Mr. Reddie explained that once the sale had been completed, there would be a new player in the game. He added that the State Land Department, depending upon the terms of the sale, would either be out of the equation right away or would be in the equation up to a year while the financing was paid. He stressed that a lot of public input would be solicited but the timeframe could not expand. Mayor Nichols asked whether a developer who bought the land could build less than the 1,750 units. Mr. Reddie responded that they could build less; the 1,750 was the absolute cap on the number according to the Pre - Annexation Agreement. He added that the capacity for the wastewater treatment facility was only 1500 units and if someone wanted to come in with more, a cost/benefit analysis would have to be conducted to look at expansion to accommodate up to 250 additional units. He stated that it was likely that the cost to expand the facility might exceed the benefit received from the additional units. Mayor Nichols commented on access from the property into McDowell Mountain Park and Mr. Reddie advised that although they had not done the detailed design at this point, they had identified opportunities to provide connections throughout the property into the park, including a trail system (already identified by the Town). He said that although the park had not actually been designed, they had discussed the site and he believed adequate parking would be provided. There were no further questions from the members of the Council and/or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Reddie and staff for the presentation. AGENDA ITEM #3 — ADJOURNMENT. Councilmember Archambault MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilmember Kavanagh SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R3-2-06\02-07-06 work study minutes.doc Page 6 of 7 TOWN OF FOUNTA ILLS By i Wally Nic ols, ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: Bevelyn J. P9nder n Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Joint Work Study Session between the Fountain Hills Town Council and the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission on the 7th day of February 2006. 1 further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 2nd day of March 2006. n ' r� Bevelyn e ` er, Town Clerk ZACouncil Packets\2006\R3-2-06\02-07-06 work study minutes.doc Page 7 of 7