Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.0420.TCRM.MinutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL April 20, 2006 Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. INVOCATION — Pastor Don Lawrence, Christ's Church ROLL CALL — Present for roll call Councilmember Archambault, Mayo Councilmember Kehe, Councilmember McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering, MAYOR'S REPORT were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: r Nichols, Vice Mayor Schlum, Councilmember Kavanagh, Dickey and Councilmember McMahan. Town Attorney Andrew Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. The Mayor will acknowledge Ginny Dickey as a new Councilmember. Mayor Nichols welcomed newly appointed Councilmember Ginny Dickey as the newest member of the Council and thanked her for her past and future service to the community. The Mayor will recognize outgoing McDowell Mountain Preservation Commissioners Roy Kinsey and Karen Holloway. Mayor Nichols expressed appreciation to Roy Kinsey and Karen Holloway and presented Karen Holloway with a plaque of service and pin in recognition of her service. Roy Kinsey was not present. The Mayor will recognize outgoing Community Center Advisory Commissioner Grace Jakubs. Mayor Nichols commended Ms. Jakubs for her willingness to serve the Town on the Community Center Advisory Commission and noted that she would now serve in the capacity of a member of the McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission. The Mayor presented her with a Fountain pin. The Mayor will recognize the Goyenas — MCO Realty for their sponsorship of the Eggstravaganza. Mayor Nichols thanked the members of the Goyenas family for their continuing sponsorship of the successful Eggstravaganza event where over 1,000 youths participated in this exciting celebration. He presented the family with Seal of the Town pin as a token of appreciation as well as a plaque in recognition of their extraordinary community spirit. The Mayor will read a proclamation declaring April 30, 2006 as Fountain Hills Children's Day Mayor Nichols read a proclamation declaring April 30, 2006, "Children's Day" in the Town of Fountain Hills. Mayor Nichols announced that today's issue of Phoenix Magazine rated 22 cities on home prices, property taxes, crime rates and more and said that it noted that among cities with the best schools, lowest crime rates and most valuable houses, Fountain Hills was rated No. 1. He stressed that this acknowledgment was the result of a community -wide effort and commended everyone on his or her community spirit. He said he hoped they would erect a sign in Town saying that Fountain Hills is "the number one place to live". ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 1 of 12 CALL TO THE PUBLIC Jim Hamblin, 16843 N. Stoneridge Court, addressed the Council and advised that, he sat in on a public forum hosted by Senator McCain last night in Chandler. He noted that the subject of air quality came up and that Senator McCain commented, "He heard it was getting better". Mr. Hamblin said that he sent a note to the Senator's staff this morning requesting that they remind the Senator that the Valley violated Federal standards for particle exhaust pollution 47 times in 29 days between October and mid -February. He added that similar violations occurred on 19 days during the previous 5 years combined. He stated the opinion that they were on the outer periphery of a slow moving environmental train wreck and stressed the importance of ensuring that an ozone reader would be installed in Fountain Hills in order to be better aware of the readings in the area. He added that this would arm them with information to go back to sources of power with which they deal on a regular basis in the Valley and urge them to take action. He stated that the Town had three representatives in the State Legislature and reported that Senator Carolyn Allen (Chairman of Environment Committee at the Senate) authored a bill that was defeated to lower the emissions standards on toxic emissions and Colette Rosati authored a bill to kill photo radar in Scottsdale. Mr. Hamblin stated that the Town had a good working relationship with its representatives and must go back to them to make sure that the Town's interests were well understood and pursued. He added that Councilmember Kavanagh was headed in that direction and urged the Council to arduously pursue this important issue. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Hamblin for his input. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nichols advised that Councilmember Kehe requested that Agenda Item #4 be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda. AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 6, 2006. AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR "DESERT VIEW CONDOMINIUMS," A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOCATED AT 12212 DESERT SAGE DRIVE,• AKA PLAT 206 BLOCK 8 LOT 26 CASE #S2006-04 AGENDA ITEM #3 — CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR "VISTOSO AT MOUNTAINSIDE CONDOMINIUMS," A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT, LOCATED AT 13204 N. MOUNTAINSIDE DRIVE, AKA PLAT 601A. BLOCK 3, LOT 1. CASE #S2006-05. AGENDA ITEM #4 — MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. AGENDA ITEM #5 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH TOT TURF, ROBINSON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED (MOHAVE EDUCATION SERVICES COOPERATIVE, INC.) TO INSTALL ADA COMPLIANT PLAYGROUND IMPACT SURFACES AT BOTH FOUR PEAKS AND GOLDEN EAGLE PARKS. AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A TWO -UNIT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE "PRIMROSE DUPLEX II CONDOMINIUMS." LOCATED AT 16025 E. PRIMROSE DRIVE, AKA PLAT 601A, BLOCK 1, LOT 46. CASE #S2006-07. AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF "SHERIDAN PLAZA" LOCATED AT 16600 AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, INTO TWO LOTS. CASE #S206-06. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 2 of 12 AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A TWO -UNIT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE "ASHBROOK VIEW ESTATE CONDOMINIUMS," LOCATED AT 16707 E. ASHBROOK DRIVE, AKA PLAT 111, BLOCK 7, LOT 14. CASE #S2006-09. r AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH ROAD MARKINGS INCORPORATED FOR THERMOPLASTIC ROAD MARKINGS IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,400.00. Councilmember Kehe requested that Agenda Item #4 be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda. Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and amended (to place Agenda Item #4 on the Regular Agenda) and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilmember Dickey Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilmember Kavanagh Aye Vice Mayor Schlum Aye Councilmember Kehe Aye Councilmember McMahan Aye Councilmember Archambault Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). ACTION AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-15, APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AND MARICOPA COUNTY FOR OPERATING AND ADMINISTERING A SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND PUBLIC SHUTTLE SERVICE FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2005 AND JULY 30, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,287.52. Finance Director Julie Ghetti advised that for the past several years, the Town had received grant funding for a transit program within the community and had entered into a special agreement with Maricopa County's Special Transportation Services. The agreement provides two programs — one program is a special services transportation for qualified citizens (senior citizens and/or disabled/lower income citizens) and a free shuttle program, which is available to anyone in the community and travels within Fountain Hills and also goes to Mayo Clinic. The contract price is $74,000 and the revenue source is the lottery. Ms. Ghetti explained that this year the lottery revenues were down and therefore the Town's share of this funding source had decreased. The Town usually receives approximately $50,000 for this program, which helped to subsidize a substantial portion, but this year the Town received approximately $20,000, which meant that the Town would have to contribute the additional $50,000 in order for the program to continue. Councilmember Kehe requested data relative to the ridership for both programs and Ms. Ghetti responded that over the past four years, based on the information that the County provided, around six people per day rode on the shuttle and on the special transportation medical program, between six and ten people per day rode. Councilmember Kavanagh asked Ms. Ghetti to provide a cost breakdown and Ms. Ghetti reported that for the current fiscal year, the shuttle program cost was $42,000 and the special transportation medical program was at $31,000. She confirmed that the services operated five days a week. Vice Mayor Schlum questioned whether the two programs were "tied together" as part of the agreement with the County and Ms. Ghetti reported that they were within the same contract but not "tied together" — the Town had the option of choosing one or the other, or both. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 3 of 12 Councilmember Archambault asked whether two separate vehicles were used for the programs and Ms. Ghetti advised that two different vehicles were used. The special transportation medical vehicle was equipped for handicapped riders and would take people to and from medical appointments and the other van was a shuttle that was also ADA compliant but did not have all of the special medical equipment. She said that the medical shuttle had a published route and made various stops within the community. She noted that they were somewhat flexible when time and demands permitted. Mr. Pickering informed the Council that the Town did not control the schedules or the operation of the programs. Ms. Ghetti, responding to a question from the Mayor, advised that the Council was being asked to approve funding for the current Fiscal Year (05-06) and noted that the County had been providing the service. She said that the Town was not aware of any changes to the schedule and reiterated that the County controls the programs and schedules. Mr. Pickering noted that the County intended to cut back on a couple of hours but said no major changes were being made, as far as staff knew, to the overall schedule. Councilmember Kehe commented that there appeared to be a cut back in service and referred to a letter to the editor he read this week in the newspaper regarding that issue. He added that if there was going to be a decrease in service, he believed the Council should be made aware of this fact so that they could make their decision based on all of the current, relevant information. He further stated that in the middle of a budget year it would be very difficult to "cut back" and discussed impacts on citizens who had come to depend upon that service. Ms. Ghetti noted that the Town's Transit Manager, John Morast, had been working with the County because they talked about cutting back some of the hours and the County advised the Town that because of the increased cost and the fact that the Town was only contributing $74,000 based on the agreement, hours might have to be cut. She added that she did not know whether the resolution had been finalized yet but emphasized that Mr. Morast continued to work with the Transit Department in an effort to reach an agreement to continue with the current schedule through June 1". She said that they could then discuss what would happen for the upcoming fiscal year. Councilmember Kehe asked what they could do to ensure that the services remained status quo. Ms. Ghetti responded that they would most likely have to negotiate this matter with the County. She added that it would likely cost the Town more money and explained that the fees were based on what the County called a "trip charge" and every time they stopped, they considered that a "trip charge." She noted that more trips would add up to more costs. She also stated that the program had been grant funded and the funding had been drastically reduced so the general fund would have to pick up that balance. Mayor Nichols noted that this resolution had nothing to do with next year's program and Councilmember Kehe responded that his concerns had to do with the balance of this fiscal year. Councilmember Kavanagh stated that they obviously had to pay the contract amount since the contract was almost up but said he did not understand how services could be reduced in view of the fact that they did have a contract in place. He asked whether the contract outlined a specific level of service. Ms. Ghetti explained that the contract did not specify the number of hours or stops, merely that the County would provide the service for both programs. In response to a question from Councilmember Dickey, Ms. Ghetti advised that staff had been working with the County to bring this IGA forward and had been waiting for some information (particularly ridership information and cost breakdowns). She noted that the original contract contained a lump sum amount and staff requested the breakdown information to provide the Council more in-depth information upon which to base their decision. Councilmember Dickey said that the information provided indicated that the County anticipated that the number of rides would increase as of April. Ms. Ghetti reported that ridership levels averaged approximately 250 trips per month and said she was not sure why the County was predicting that this number would increase. She added, however, that the County discussed the fact that the programs were costing them more money, likely because of fuel costs. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 4 of 12 Vice Mayor Schlum stated that they had an obligation to pay the amount that was due for the current fiscal year but said that they might have to consider this issue in more depth for the upcoming fiscal year. Ms. Ghetti clarified for the Council the cost of the programs, budgeted amounts, and reduced grant funding. Ms. Ghetti stated that she would have to study the issue further to determine whether the Town was paying for the full cost of the program or was some other funding being applied. Ms. Ghetti, responding to a question from Councilmember Kehe, said that she would have to contact the County to determine how much more funding would be required in order to continue the programs at the current service levels (above the $74,000). She reiterated that staff was continuing to work with the County on this very issue but added that the Town did have an obligation to pay the County what they were owed to date. She added that hopefully that would take them through June 30`h. Councilman Kehe requested that the Council approve payment of the $74,000 and that staff negotiate with the County relative to maintaining the same level of service through the current fiscal year. Councilmember Kavanagh agreed that the Town should pay the monies owed through the current fiscal year and recommended that the Town Manager personally contact the County in an effort to ensure that the level of service remain unchanged through the current fiscal year based on the significant amount of funding the Town was paying for the services provided. He stated the opinion that the Town might be able to operate the same type of service for less money by organizing its own telephone pick up and delivery service and asked that staff explore alternatives. Councilmember Dickey commented on the fact that funding levels could increase for the upcoming fiscal years and said that the information was not yet available. She said that she assumed the Town made the decision on how to use the LTAF funds and Ms. Ghetti confirmed this fact and noted that this was the only transit program the Town had and every year up until now, the funds had paid the full amount. Ms. Ghetti added that she spoke with the County today about the Powerball money in order to get some kind of feeling about what they anticipated next year and reported that both ADOT and the League felt that the level would not change for next fiscal year. Ms. Ghetti added that the lottery projections for the Joint Legislative Budget Committee were anticipating a lower amount. Mayor Nichols stated the opinion that the Council should approve payment of the funding with the caveat that current service levels remain unchanged through the current fiscal year. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire said that the Council could certainly proceed in that manner but noted that the current IGA did not address service levels despite continuing efforts to get the County to agree to a specific level. He added that he did not believe they could force the County to agree to something that was not already in writing. Mayor Nichols reiterated that the Town Manager should work with the County to reach an agreement that service levels remain unchanged through the current fiscal year. Councilmember McMahan MOVED to approve Resolution No. 2006-15 and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion. Janelle Groh, 14002 N. Kendall Drive, stated that she had used the shuttle for five years locally and to Mayo Clinic where she was employed. She said that the shuttle driver gave her a paper to show the Council, which indicated that she picked up between 25 and 30 passengers a day, not 6 to 10. She added that two weeks ago, she was handed the paper that said that the service was going to be discontinued without any explanation at all. She said they tried to call Mr. John Morast but did not receive a call back until today. During the ensuing two - week period of time, she got 35 people to sign a petition and a number of them also called Mr. Morast who finally advised that it was the Town not the County that was responsible for the change. She added that the schedule for the shuttle was also being changed and provided the Council with a document outlining the hours of operation. She stated that speaking on behalf of the residents who consistently use the shuttle, she would request that the Council work with the County to ensure that this needed services remains in place and unchanged. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 5 of 12 Steve Hughes, 17438 San Marcos, said that he was speaking on behalf of the 146 shuttle riders who signed a petition within the last four days. He also thanked the members of the Council who responded to his e-mail messages. He said that a majority of the petition signers had concerns regarding the cutting of service hours and added that they relied on the programs to get to their early morning lab and doctor appointments at Mayo Clinic. He offered to provide the Council with a copy of the current and proposed schedule and noted that the County was proposing to cancel both the early and late afternoon runs. He added that three weeks ago they were notified that the service was going to be cancelled altogether after June. Mr. Hughes said that phone calls to Mr. Morast were not returned and the telephone number listed on the sheet reflecting the revised hours of operation was not even a working number. He said advised that he called Valley Metro and asked how senior citizens could get to the Mayor Clinic at 8 in the morning and leave by 5 in the afternoon and was told that they would have to catch a 6:18 a.m. bus and a 5 p.m. bus at the Clinic in order to return to Fountain Hills at 6:23 p.m. He noted that there was a Super Shuttle that stopped at 136`h Street yet he would not like his mother or any other senior citizen to have to walk a mile to the Clinic from that stop. He requested the Council's assistance in helping to maintain the current level of service that was depended upon by an important and significant segment of the community. Mayor Nichols thanked the speakers for their input. Councilmember Kehe MOVED to approve the payment of funds owed for the current Fiscal Year with the caveat that service levels remain unchanged for the balance of the current Fiscal Year. Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the amendment. The amended motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Councilmember Kavanagh commented on the importance of obtaining necessary ridership and cost information regarding this issue for use in the upcoming budget preparation process and urged staff to pursue this matter. Mr. Pickering responded that staff had attempted to obtain this data from the County over the last four years and would continue their efforts in this regard. Councilmember Kavanagh emphasized that the program was primarily put into place to assist the Town's elderly and citizens with medical problems and was not supposed to serve as a healthy person's transportation system. He said he would like to know what the elderly/patient service requirements were and urged staff to look into alternative transportation methods should efforts to negotiate with the Council in this regard fail (perhaps in conjunction with the School District). He emphasized the importance of ensuring that the Town's elderly and infirmed citizens receive priority service. Mayor Nichols suggested that a letter be drafted to County Supervisor Stapley for his signature and said that he would be happy to then follow up on that letter. AGENDA ITEM #10 — CONSIDERATION OF A REPLAT AT 16440 N. ASPEN DRIVE, AKA PLAT 506B BLOCK 3 LOT 8 INTO TWO LOTS 8A AND 8B AND A UTILITY DISTURBANCE PERMIT FOR LOT 8A, BLOCK 3, PLAT 506B. CASE #S2006-03. Planner Kate Zanon provided an overview of this agenda item and said that there were two requests before the Council this evening, the first to amend the final plat, 506B, Block 3, Lot 8. The amended plat would split Lot 8A into Lot 8A and Lot 8B. Both lots met the minimum lot size and lot width requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance (5.03B) on redividing of Recorded Lots. Ms. Zanon referred to slides depicting the lot as it exists today and noted that the lot was twice the size of other lots in the same zoning designation. She noted that both lots would be greater than one acre each and Lot 8B was current built on and access to the lot would continue to be from Aspen Drive. Lot 8A would be a new lot, which would take access from Boxcar Drive. The second request was to exempt the sewer lateral from the disturbance calculation for Lot 8A and grant a Utility Disturbance Permit. Ms. Zanon advised that the request met all of the criteria laid out in the Subdivision Ordinance (506.J.1.2) on Utility Disturbance Permits. Ms. Zanon advised that staff recommended approval of both requests subject to stipulations. In response to a question from Mayor Nichols, Mr. McGuire advised that the Council could make one motion to cover both requests. Councilmember Kavanagh MOVED to approve Case S2006-03 as recommended by staff and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 6 of 12 Ms. Zanon responded to a question from the Vice Mayor and explained that there was a requirement that this issue come before the Council for replatting. Councilmember Kehe asked whether staff had any idea where a house would potentially be placed on Lot 8A and Ms. Zanon referred to the markings on the screen that reflected a proposed (but not required) footprint of a house. Ms. Zanon explained that the Utility Disturbance Process could happen at any time and said that the reason it was before the Council this evening was because the applicant, in splitting off the lot, would like to fully disclose to a future buyer of the property exactly what his/her rights would be. She added that the future owner of the property would have to access from Boxcar and considering the minimal amount of disturbance, it would make sense to place the house as close to the road as possible, which was the highest point and would also provide optimum view corridors. She emphasized that the disturbance permit would go with the land and added that in this unique situation, there was no sewer on Boxcar, and the only option for this lot was to come down to Golden Eagle. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item Mayor Nichols called for the vote on the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #11— CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR "APPIAN LOFTS," TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS IN THE C-C ZONING DISTRICT, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11022 N. SAGUARO BOULEVARD, PLAT 202A, BLOCK 1, LOTS 24 AND 25. CASE #SU2005-07. Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item. Mr. Rodgers explained that the applicant was requesting a Special Use Permit to allow a residential use within the C-C Zoning District for the "Appian Lofts" mixed -use project. He noted that the project consisted of two lots that would be combined and backed up to R-3 condominium that were currently under construction. He referred to photographs depicting the site plan and said that there would be zero lot lines on the sides. He reported that the project would contain 7,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space in two suites and 12,186 square feet of second floor residential space in eight units. The total gross area of the building equaled 24,802 square. Commercial units range was size from 3,616 square feet to 3,884 square feet and parking for the commercial units would be provided within the existing shopping center parking areas. Mr. Rodgers added that eight residential units with balconies would range in size from 968 square feet to 1,580 square feet and parking for those units would be provided within the existing shopping center parking areas as well as by eight garage spaces, which would face the rear alley. Mr. Rodgers advised that staff recommended that the Special Use Permit be approved due to the proposal's general compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. He added that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the Special Use Permit for residential condominiums on the second floor of the development due to concerns regarding parking access and the desire to protect the integrity of commercially zoned properties in the area. Councilmember McMahan MOVED to approve Case #SU2005-07 and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion. In response to questions and comments from the Vice Mayor and Councilman Kehe, Mr. Rodgers explained the shared parking concept and proposed spaces. Councilmember McMahan said that he visited the site today and believed that this project would be a nice addition to the area. Councilmember Archambault expressed concerns regarding long-term parking, the possible lack of adequate spaces and questioned whether spot zoning would take place. David Gray, 11873 Saguaro Boulevard, owner of La Costa Construction, addressed the Council regarding parking concerns and said that a two-story commercial development on the two sites would have a more negative impact on the common area parking to the extent that it would require approximately 82 spaces versus ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 7 of 12 40 spaces impacted by the residential application (offset by the 8 spaces being provided on site). He requested that the Council consider the fact that the proposal was unique and said that the residential application for the most part was only used in the evening and during the night. He said that they assumed a majority of the loft purchases would be by working professionals who would share offices on the lower level or winter visitors (second homes, condos, lofts, etc.). The impact of the parking if the residents were full time and worked off site would most likely be at night and added that parking in that area after 9:00 p.m. was virtually non-existent in the common areas. If owners were to have a guest, since they did have their own parking garage, the most impact would be eight spaces and during the day they would be gone, out working or shopping. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that although the Planning and Zoning Commission initially disapproved the Special Use recommendation to the Council, the project was redesigned/revamped to their satisfaction and upon a second concept plan submittal the Commission did in fact approve the concept plan in nature. Councilmember Dickey stated that she was somewhat confused over the fact that the Commission approved the concept but wanted to deny the Special Use Permit and asked whether there were any members of the Commission present to address this issue. Mr. Rodgers explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission heard the concept plan application twice and denied it the first time based upon pedestrian access to the upstairs having to all go through the back. He said they wanted the project redesigned to go through the front and visitors would not have to park in the rear. Many of their concerns centered around access to the second floor residential and they felt it had not been laid out adequately. He added that even though they made a recommendation for denial for the Special Use Permit, they did not feel that they should approve the concept plan showing that poor layout anyway but once the plan was redesigned, the Commission felt they were obligated to approve the concept plan but still not recommend that the upstairs be residential, they still wanted it to be office. Councilmember Dickey commented on the long-term effects on commercial property and asked whether they thought there was a scarce amount of commercial property that would be impacted. Mr. Rodgers responded that he believed they did not want to see more pressure for condominiums or other residential uses taking away the commercial tax base. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilmember Dickey Nay Mayor Nichols Aye Councilmember Kavanagh Aye Vice Mayor Schlum Aye Councilmember Kehe Aye Councilmember McMahan Aye Councilmember Archambault Nay The motion CARRIED by majority vote (5-2). AGENDA ITEM #12 — CONSIDERATION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR CAROL GREGORY TO OPERATE A BED AND BREAKFAST AT 15868 ASPEN DRIVE PLAT 506A BLOCK 1, LOT 23. CASE #TU2006-04. Mr. Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and explained that in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, property owners in residential districts could apply for a Temporary Use Permit to operate a bed and breakfast. He said that the applicants were applying to operate a bed and breakfast in an existing casita at their home in the Aspen Drive neighborhood, which consisted of single-family homes on secondary residential streets. He displayed an aerial photograph of the actual lot and noted that the business would operate 25 weeks per year and only two guests at a time would occupy the casita with only one guest car at a time being allowed to park in the casita driveway. He said that under the Zoning Ordinance, a Temporary Use Permit could only be issued for a period of two years and was then subject to renewal or cancellation. He referred to the circular driveway and parking area as well as the house, swimming pool, basketball court and casita. He ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 8 of 12 noted that the casita was located approximately 65 feet behind the house and measured approximately 20 feet by 50 feet (1,000 square feet in size). In making a decision on the permit, the Council needed to determine whether this operation would be detrimental to the neighborhood and/or the Town. He explained that staff's %r✓ recommendation to deny the permit was based on their belief that the use would be incompatible with the existing single-family residential nature of the neighborhood and the areas separation from any main roads. He added that the applicants were present to respond to any questions. Councilmember Kehe commented that several years ago there was considerable debate and concern about additions/detached additions on homes in residential areas because residents were worried that those would be rented out. An ordinance was adopted that limited services in the particular additions, i.e. there could not be any full kitchens. He stated the opinion that the proposal was in direct violation of that ordinance. Mr. Rodgers explained that this was an existing casita that did meet the building code and did not contain a full kitchen. It was not a self-supporting, living structure, it was merely a casita. Councilmember Kehe stated that the casita could be rented out over night or an extended rental for winter visitors and questioned how they would obtain the needed services. Mr. Rodgers replied that people rented bed and breakfast facilities to sleep there and they were fed a breakfast and could most likely use the main house. He added that the applicants could respond in more depth to Councilmember Kehe's concerns. Carol Gregory, 15868 N. Aspen Drive, the applicant in this case, said that as the owner of the bed and breakfast she would be responsible for cooking and supplying guests with breakfasts in the morning in her home. She added that they would only sleep in the casita and no cooking facility was provided other than a coffee pot. Ms. Gregory advised that she operated a bed and breakfast in another community for 20 years and knew how to deal with neighbors, remain compatible, keep noise levels down, and monitor the guests. She said that she pre-screened potential guests and there would be no swimming, basketball playing or noise. David Stratman, 15856 N. Aspen Drive, said that his home was located in close proximity to the proposed bed and breakfast and stated that he learned of this case when the Town posted a sign on the property. He referred to a wash in the immediate area and advised that approximately a dozen children play in that area every evening (basketball, football, etc.) ranging in age from 8 to 16 years old. He advised that there was a lot of traffic in that area and said that adding even one more car was a potential safety hazard. He added that he did not believe that there was any way over the phone that tenant pre-screening could be effective and cautioned against exposing children to another possible endangerment. He urged the Council to deny the request and protect the children's safety and the quality of life of the area. Mayor Nichols thanked Ms. Gregory and Mr. Stratman for their comments. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to deny the issuance of the Temporary Use Permit (Case # TU2006-04 and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #13 — PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON ANNEXATION #AN2006- 01 EXTENDING AND INCREASING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES §9471, ANNEXING THERETO CERTAIN STATE TRUST LAND LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF THE EXISTING TOWN LIMITS, SOUTH OF MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN REGI.ONAL PARK AND WEST OF THE FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Pickering advised that Mr. Mark Reddie, representing LVA Urban Design, the consultant who had been working with staff to bring this matter forward would address the Council on this agenda item. Mr. Pickering noted that staff had been working on this issue since 2003, when a Committee was formed to look at the State Trust Land and come up with a recommendation, which was in support of annexation. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 9 of 12 Mr. Reddie provided the Council with an overview of the annexation portion of the project and discussed the site location, size, and description. He noted that the property was owned by the State of Arizona and managed by the Arizona State Land Department and was currently located within unincorporated Maricopa County and within the Town's planning area. He said that in 1998, the State declared this land suitable for conservation as part of the Arizona Preserve initiative and three years later; the State accepted the Town's withdrawal to purchase the land for lack of funds. That same year the Town voted to annex the property as a result of a citizen committee recommendation. In 2004, the State Land Department listed the property for future sale and in 2005, SunCor, the developer of Sunridge Canyon in Fountain Hills, filed a request with the State Land Department to purchase the property. That same year the State Land Commissioner classified the land suitable for development and announced their intent to sell before June 30, 2006. Mr. Reddie advised that on January 27, 2006, the Commissioner signed a pre -annexation development agreement with the Town regarding the land and in this agreement; the Town agrees to rezone the land consistent with the General Plan Amendment. Applications to amend the Town's General Plan and to rezone the property were being processed and public hearings on these applications were scheduled for the May 4, 2006, Town Council meeting. The State Selection Board, composed of the Governor, the Attorney General, and the Treasurer, met on March 27, 2006 and voted their approval of the annexation of the State Trust Land by the Town. A few days later, the Land Commissioner reaffirmed his approval of the annexation. With these approvals, the Town filed a "blank" annexation petition with the county on March 30, 2006. He noted that this was a key step in the annexation process. Mr. Reddie explained that the Town was in the process of securing the necessary signatures on an annexation petition and, in addition to the approval of the landowner, the State of Arizona, the Town was also required to obtain signatures of the owners of half or more of the personal property. He noted that there were 27 owners of personal property that staff had identified and most of these were utility or communications companies. He said that staff intended to obtain the required number of signatures by May 4, 2006, the date the Town Council was scheduled to act on the annexation ordinance. Mr. Reddy also outlined the contents of the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement and reported that it established a 1,750 dwelling unit cap that might be built on the property. He added, however, that there were other development influences that could work to further limit the number of dwelling units that would ultimately be built on the property. He advised that the regulations that would be used to develop the property would be the same regulations that currently applied to property within the Town and said that this assured a high level of consistency and a seamless transition in development between the two areas. He emphasized that the Town's Hillside Disturbance Ordinance would apply to the future subdivisions of the property and this regulation would provide additional areas of open space. In addition, the Town's cut and fill regulations would also apply to development of the site. Mr. Reddie also discussed a proposed 42-acre park proposed for the northeast portion of the land; discussed the fact that the Fire Department anticipated that it would be able to serve this property without additional resources; stated that the Public Works Department would be responsible for maintaining the streets and washes; noted that law enforcement services would be provided by the Sheriff's Office, advised that the school system had sufficient capacity to accommodate the expected increase in school -age children and discussed proposed utilities for the property. In summary, Mr. Reddy advised that annexation of the land by the Town would be beneficial to the entire community and particularly nearby residents and said that within the next two weeks staff would actively seek signatures from the owners of personal property on the State Trust Land for the annexation petition. In addition to the approval of the owner of the real estate, State annexation law required that the Town obtain signatures representing the owners of 51 % or more of the value of the personal property of the land. The Town Council was scheduled to consider adoption of the ordinance annexing the State Trust Land on May 4, 2006. The General Plan Amendment would also appear on the May 4`h agenda as well as the rezoning application for the ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 10 of 12 property. If approved on May 4`h, the annexation would be final 30 days later on June 4, 2006. The sale of the and by the State of Arizona was expected to occur at the end of June. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Reddie for the overview and said that at this time the Council would like to hear comment from the public regarding this issue and the Council would discuss and consider the issue at their May 4`" meeting. Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that three speaker cards were submitted and added that Evelyn Munn was unable to attend but wanted to provide the Council with another copy of a letter she submitted earlier to become part of the record. She advised that Ms. Munn supports the annexation but does have some concerns. John McNeill, 14508 N. Creosote Court, presented the Council with a copy of letter he sent to the Editor of the local newspaper this past week. He said that annexation was something they would like to achieve with this land but said he believed there were some problems associated with the process. He stated that although the Town said that the development of the land would "look like existing Fountain Hills" they were also emphasizing an average density of 1.37 units per acre. He added that in fact there was nothing like it in Fountain Hills. Large portions would be zoned R1-6 and R1-8 — the highest single-family zoning densities permitted in Fountain Hills with much of this to be gathered around the middle school. He also discussed the Hillside Protection Ordinance and said that the R1-6 property was 10% or less in grade and under the ordinance, 100% of the property that met that grade level could be mass graded. If the developer chose the hillside transfer option, virtually all of the home sites could be mass graded as long as some of the land was preserved elsewhere. Mr. McNeill also discussed the so called "maximum" of 1,750 homes and the Town's ability to enforce its ordinances. He noted that the pre -annexation agreement granted the developer "vested rights" to develop the property in accordance with the agreement and the rezoning. He said that this gave the developer legal entitlements to the 1,750 number, likely resulting in insistence on variances and waivers from strict application of the Town's normal requirements if they kept the developer from getting all the lots it was entitled to under the agreement. He stated the opinion that there had not been any effective public participation and strongly urged the Council to take these important points into consideration. Bob Deppe, 16247 N. Boulder Drive, expressed concerns regarding traffic on Boulder Drive from the stubs, on Boulder and Richwood Avenue that were planned to provide egress from the State Trust Land. He said that the studies originally showed 3,000 cars on Boulder north of Richwood and 3,000 below it and stated that in three years the numbers had increased to 4,500 and 7,000, doubling the traffic. He said that the new counts represented a 1,000% increase and encouraged the members of the Council to go out to Boulder and witness firsthand the traffic problems that already existed. He stated that one way to resolve the problem was to put in some north and south streets on the map/annexation agreements or cul-de-sacs on the stubs at Boulder and Richwood. He added that Fountain Hills should send a strong message to whomever buys the land that this was what Fountain Hills wanted and said they had to take steps to remove some of the traffic from Boulder. Anders Lundin, 17131 E. Oro Grande, said that he wrote a letter several months ago in support of the annexation for the reasons outlined by Mr. Reddie. He stated that based on the clear mandate from the people and the overwhelming input from the Council, he saw no way they could not proceed with the annexation. He commented on the importance of the needs of the residents and said that finances alone were not the reason to develop the land. The residents wanted a consistent quality of life in Fountain Hills and it was up to the Council to make sure that this was what occurred and "greed" could not get in the way. Mayor Nichols thanked all of the speakers for their input. There being no additional speakers, Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #14 - COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF (i) PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page I 1 of 12 A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR (ii) DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL: NONE. AGENDA ITEM #16 — SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER. Mr. Pickering stated that he would work with the County on maintaining the current level of transportation/shuttle service at the current rate. He added that staff would obtain additional information for distribution to the Council at a future date for consideration during the budget process. AGENDA ITEM #17 — ADJOURNMENT. Vice Mayor Schlum MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilmember McMahan motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS By v - . Wally N ATTEST .l D ZzmA PREPARED BY: CERTIFICATION the 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 20th day of April 2006. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 4``' day of May, 2006. Bevelyn J. Ben n Clerk ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-4-06\4-20-06 Minutes.doc Page 12 of 12