Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.0504.TCRM.MinutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL May 4, 2006 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. INVOCATION — Deacon Smith, Church of the Ascension Catholic Church ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Councilmember Archambault, Mayor Nichols, Vice Mayor Schlum, Councilmember Kavanagh, Councilmember Kehe, Councilmember Dickey and Councilmember McMahan. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. CONSENT AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 20, 2006. AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING RESOLUTION 2006-26, ABANDONING W WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN THE CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 111, BLOCK 9, LOT 21 (16274 E. STANCREST DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 150 OF MAPS, PAGE 12, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, WITH STIPULATION. EA06-06 (CARLSON). Councilmember Kavanagh MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda as read and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Councilmember Kehe Aye Vice Mayor Schlum Aye Councilmember Kavanagh Aye Councilmember Dickey Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilmember McMahan Aye Councilmember Archambault Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). ACTION AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #3 — PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 06-10, FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO REVISE SECTION 5.16 PERTAINING TO RECURRING CARNIVALS, REVIVALS, RODEOS SWAP MEETS OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. CASE #Z2006-01. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 1 of 12 AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-10 A ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO REVISE SECTION 5.16 PERTAINNG TO RECURRING CARNIVALS, REVIVALS, RODEOS, SWAP MEETS, OUTDOOR RETAIL SALES AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. CASE #Z2006-01. Planner Kate Zanon addressed the Council and advised that staff was requesting that both agenda items be moved to the Council's June 1, 2006 meeting to allow sufficient time to re -notify the paper and adhere to posting requirements. Councilmember McMahan MOVED to continue Agenda Items #3 and #4 to the Council's June 1, 2006 meeting and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion There were no citizens present wishing to speak on this item. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #5 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-09, REPEALING ORDINANCE 98-28, AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE CHAPTER 7, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ARTICLE 7-8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING FEE SCHEDULE RELATING TO FEE SCHEDULES FOR THE PLANNING DIVISION AND THE ENGINEERING DIVISION. Planner Kate Zanon addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and agenda item #6. She advised that this was a "house -keeping item" for staff. She noted that staff was not proposing any changes to the fee schedule at this time and was merely requesting that the Council remove the fee schedule from the Town Code as printed and adopt it as its own document in the form of a resolution. She explained that this did not change the Council's legislative powers; it basically reduced the "paper trail" for staff and allowed them to change fees either through a resolution in the future or through the budget process. There were no questions from the Council and no citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. Councilmember Kavanagh MOVED to approve Ordinance No. 06-09 as recommended by staff and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-09, ADOPTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING FEE SCHEDULE. Councilmember Kavanagh moved to approve Resolution No. 2006-09 as recommended by staff and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion. Mr. Pickering confirmed that the resolution contained the current fee schedule and no changes were being made. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #7 — PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION 2006-25, WHICH, IF ADOPTED, WOULD AMEND THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS GENERAL PLAN 2002 TO DESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 1. 276 ACRES OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY STATE TRUST LAND NORTHEAST OF THE TOWN LIMITS FOR OPEN SPACE USES, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES (MEDIUM AND LOW DENSITY), A COMMUNITY PARK, AN AREA THAT MAY BE DEVELOPED WITH A LODGING USE AND AN AREA FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USE. CASE #GPA 2006-01. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 6:36 p.m. Mark Reddie, representing LVA Urban Design Studio, LLC, addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and highlighted a presentation on the General Plan Amendment, the Annexation and the Zoning of the State Trust Land property (copy of detailed presentation available in the Office of the Town Clerk): ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 2 of 12 Mr. Reddie provided a description of the property and outlined its location. He noted that the General Plan is 1, 276 acres, excludes the middle school property and said that the zoning is actually 1, 311 acres because it includes the middle school as part of the overall zoning. He said that the land is currently located within unincorporated Maricopa County but is within the Town's planning area. He stated that the current land use designation for the property is open space and the current zoning in Maricopa County is R-43, which allows one dwelling per acre. He provided an overview of the site and slope analysis, discussed the roadways and the property's background and outlined the history of this agenda item. He advised that if the annexation went through on June 4`t', the land would be annexed into the Town and in the summer of 2006, the State Land Department would auction the land off to the highest bidder. He explained that the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement requires that the Town process a General Plan Amendment and rezone the property consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Reddie discussed the "unit cap" on the property, which totals 1,750 units (1.37 dwelling units per acre), and stressed that that was the maximum number of units that could occur on the property. He added that the property might develop less than the 1,750 units but it could not develop more. He explained that there were other development influences that could impact the total unit count, such as a developer's vision, and said that they had met with any developers who said that if they were the successful bidder they very likely would not develop anywhere near the 1,750 cap. He added that market demands and the type of units/lot sizes in demand at the time of development could also influence the unit count as well as detailed site planning, development regulations and infrastructure capacity. He emphasized that these issues would have to be studied once the ultimate developer had been chosen. Mr. Reddie noted that there are six different land use categories designated on the plan and said that if the plan was built out to the maximum allowable extent, a population projection indicates that approximately 4,000 new residents would be added to the Town. He discussed the great strides the Town had made in negotiating density levels since the initial conversations with the State (2,600 units), commented on traffic circulation and said that based on the maximum development potential of the property no new Town street widening would be required. He pointed out that all of the roads shown on the land use map were conceptual; however, the connectivity to the existing roads was critical, both for public safety (particularly for fire and police), and also for the overall circulation and distribution of the property (even distribution throughout the community to negate impacts). He emphasized that the eventual developer would be required to provide a detailed traffic study based on their proposed plan. Mr. Reddie provided an overview of proposed community services, including a 42-acre community park, which is located near the northeast corner of the property. He said that this is one of the two areas with relatively flat land to accommodate ball fields, soccer fields, etc. and added that it is also an area that contains expansive soils that are very challenging to residential development. He noted that the State Land Department felt very strongly that the park should be located in that area. He advised that the Fire Department has the capacity to serve the property without any additional resources, the Public Works Department would maintain the roads and dedicated wash corridors, the Sheriff's Department would provide law enforcement services to the property, and the Fountain Hills' Unified School District had capacity within its existing schools to accommodate the projected student population generated by the project. He added that water would be provided by the Chaparral City Water Company for domestic water services and advised that on October 25, 2005, the company received preliminary approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission to serve the property. Sewer service would be provided by the Fountain Hills Sanitary District, which would require annexation of the property into their district boundaries. He said that a study would need to be conducted to determine whether additional capacity was available and/or could be created through system upgrades. Electricity would be provided by Salt River Project (power is available and located adjacent to the property). Mr. Reddie referred to the proposed zoning map and said that effort had been expended to provide a mixture of zoning districts that allow a variety of residential product types to accommodate various life-style choices with open spaces, neighborhood commercial, and a resort hotel. He said that they focused the lowest densities within the steepest sloped areas and the highest densities within the flat areas and added that they tried to be sensitive to the surrounding areas by creating buffers and compatible district designations. He also referred to a slide that provided ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 3 of 12 a breakdown of each zoning district, the number of acres, and the percentage of the total acreage for the total project. Mr. Reddie advised that the zoning is consistent with the General Plan, meets the requirements of the Development Agreement, and maximizes opportunities on the property while respecting the natural terrain and sensitive land - formed features (washes, slopes), provides a mix of residential product types to promote community diversity and is sensitive to surrounding properties by creating buffers and compatible district designations along the perimeter. Mr. Reddie noted that the State Land Department has targeted this land for disposal in the summer of 2006 and it will therefore be sold and developed regardless of whether it is in the County or annexed into the Town. He said that if it is annexed into the Town, the residents will be provided some certainty regarding the development potential prior to sale based on the proposed General Plan zoning and the Development Agreement between the Town and the State, and the property will be developed per Town regulations (a seamless transition between this property and the Town of Fountain Hills). The Town will be able to guide a quality development process through the site planning and platting regulations and the Town will receive development impact fees to assist with the increased infrastructure costs that will be borne by bringing additional population to the area. He emphasized that regardless of whether it is in the County or the Town, the people will be coming and they will be using the roads and parks, so if it is in the Town, the Town will receive impact fees to help supplement the costs. Mr. Reddie discussed complaints regarding the use of ATV's and the use of guns and motorcycles and said that although these activities are not allowed, the State Land Department has a difficult time enforcing the regulations. He stated that if the land comes into the Town, they would be in a much better position to aggressively enforce those issues and make sure that they no longer occur on the property. He emphasized that the annexation of this land was recently identified as a key priority on the recently completed Strategic Plan. Mr. Reddie said that if the Town does not annex the land, it would have little influence on the development of the land and would not be in a position of authority with regard to zoning, platting or development. He stated that the compatibility of adjacent land uses in the Town could not be assured, no impact fees would be collected by the Town, but future residents would tax the Town's infrastructure (roads, parks, etc.) without paying for them, and the property would develop per County rather than Town regulations. He noted that residents had indicated concerns regarding specific areas of the plan and expressed the opinion that they had done a really good job trying to address all of the issues they heard (perimeter buffers, compatible zoning districts, the amount of open space, lot sizes, etc.) He said that people have commented "there is too much RI-6." He added that they had to remember that the State Land Department owned the land and they would not support the plan if it did not meet their specific requirements. He noted that a lot of developers have stated that they have no intention of developing 1,750 units and they would like to see larger not smaller lots. He advised that the plan does not prohibit that from happening but if the land remains in the County, and whoever develops it decides they want to increase the density, the Town would have no ability to keep that from happening. Mr. Reddie summarized by stating that the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Plan provides a reasonable and appropriate blueprint for the development of this land. He added that the plan recognizes the limitations imposed by the characteristics of the site and the development needs of the State Land Department. The zoning is consistent with the General Plan land use designations and necessary urban services and utilities are available or can be at the time of development. He advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that the General Plan Amendment and zoning be approved and said that it is recommended today that the proposed General Plan Amendment, GPA2006-01, be approved and the proposed zoning, Z2006-02, also be approved. He added that it is also recommended that the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement and the annexation of the property into the Town of Fountain Hills be approved. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Reddie for his presentation. Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that there were citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 4 of 12 The following citizens spoke in support of this agenda item for the following reasons: 77% of the participants in the Strategic Plan Town Halls strongly supported the annexation and 16% agreed that it was a good idea (strong general support for annexing the land — thus equaling 93% for it); the overall benefits of Town versus County development regulations for the land; the far reaching positive impacts of annexation on the entire community; the extensive research and studies that have gone into the process to reach this critical point; the possibility of the County developing the parcel and bringing in 8,000 more residents and the negative impacts of that density level; the ability, through the public schools, to build positive character development for an additional 400 to 600 youths depending upon the build -out plan and the importance of changing the lives of those children in a cost effective manner and ultimately positively impacting the entire community; and the importance of maintaining control over the property; Mike Tyler Strategic Planning Advisory Commission Vice Chair Frank Ferrara Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce Dwight Johnson 13602 N. Sunset Drive Allen Siebel 15754 E. Centipede Roy Kinsey 17120 E. Fairway Court Bruce Tominello 16208 N. Sunridge Drive Garry Ritchie 15225 N. Wiley Drive The following citizens spoke in opposition to the approval of this agenda item for the following reasons: Concerns regarding the General Plan designation for single-family, low density housing at the top of the ridge that is surrounded by open space land except for a single access point at the northwest end and the fact that a developer would have to construct a cul-de-sac roadway 5,000 feet in length to accomplish the development; the fact that Town ordinances only allow a maximum of 1,500 feet in length for a cul-de-sac road (and the maximum number of homes allowed on a cul-de-sac is limited to no more than 25); too many entitlements are being given away in the Pre -Annexation Agreement and mass grading will take place; constructing 1,750 homes on less than 400 acres; developing a park that is not in close proximity to the school; the opinion that a better plan should be developed and public input has not been taken into consideration; traffic and safety impacts; the importance of maintaining the Town's character and quality of life; the "entitlement" of over 1,700 houses and the fact that the Sanitary District will not be able to accommodate the growth; the fact that approximately 500 houses are being proposed under R1-6 and R1-8 zoning classifications and negative impacts of that development on the entire community (track housing). John McNeill (Mr. McNeill submitted a letter and asked that it be part of the official record of this meeting. Copy on file in the office of the Town Clerk) Bruce Hansen 15716 E. Sunburst Evelyn Munn 16222 N. Boulder Drive (on behalf of the Ridgewood Boulder Neighborhood. On 4-20-06 she had previously submitted a letter containing residents' concerns and asked that the letter be part of the official record. Copy on file in the office of the Town Clerk). Sharon Hutcheson 16027 Tumbleweed Mayor Nichols thanked all of the speakers for their input and declared the public hearing closed at 7:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-25, WHICH, IF ADOPTED, _WOULD AMEND THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS GENERAL PLAN 2002 TO DESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 1,276 ACRES OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY STATE TRUST LAND NORTHEAST OF THE TOWN LIMITS FOR OPEN SPACE USES, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES (MEDIUM AND LOW DENSITY). A COMMUNITY PARK, AN AREA THAT MAY BE DEVELOPED WITH A LODGING USE AND AN AREA FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USE. CASE #GPA 2006-01. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to approve Resolution No. 2006-25 and Vice Mayor Schlum SECONDED the motion. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 5 of 12 Councilmember Kavanagh stated that numerous speakers expressed concerns regarding traffic and requested that staff discuss the measures that would be implemented by the Town should traffic problems arise in the future. Public Works Director, Tom Ward, who worked closely with the Town's Traffic Engineer regarding this matter, addressed the Council relative to the issue of traffic. He advised that staff would look at the potential of placing "No Parking" signs and limiting truck traffic (the Town has a Truck Traffic Policy that would be utilized). Mr. Pickering added that the very first thing that would occur when a developer comes forward with a plan would be to require them to conduct a traffic study, as they have done in the past. He said that oftentimes they negotiate with the developer to make improvements to the traffic situation. He added that north/south roads have been brought up and emphasized that until they get a detailed plan from the developer, they are not sure where the roads will go. Vice Mayor Schlum stated that it was nice to hear several of the speakers commend staff and Council for their efforts and said he too would like to thank everyone involved for their hard work. He agreed with a previous speaker's remark that "it is not a perfect plan" and added that perhaps a perfect plan would look different to anyone. He pointed out that the owner of the property is the State Land Department and said he believes that their mandate is to maximize the value and amount of monies that will go to the State schools. He commented that the State has apparently found value in the proposed plan and said that he believes they value Fountain Hills. He added that the plan to him looks like existing different areas of the Town and stated that there are areas with similar zoning in place. He noted that washes appear on the plan and expressed the opinion that they respected Fountain Hills and did not try to maximize everything they could. He advised that he is very comfortable with the plan and reiterated his appreciation to everyone involved. He stated that the State changed how they approached the sale of the land and he appreciates the efforts they expended and the dialogue that took place. Vice Mayor Schlum said that he looks forward to affirming annexation. Councilmember Archambault noted that he moved to Fountain Hills in 1972 when there was only one paved road. He stated that he looks back at the time he has spent in Fountain Hills and he has been through two monumentous occasions during that period — and approval of this plan will make the third. He advised that the first one was the Town actually surviving the major recession in the 1970's — the gas crisis. MCO at that time had to decide whether they were going to pour money into a development they had in Colorado, Pueblo West, or Fountain Hills. He said that he and Keith McMahan can attest to the fact that they "held their breaths" waiting for that decision to be made. He added that they struggled and they survived, and MCO invested in Fountain Hills and he is certainly glad that they did. He stated that the Town then went through the incorporation process and it took two tries but it finally happened, and again, he is glad that it did. He commented that as he looks back he might do a few things a little bit differently, but it certainly was the turning point for the Town of Fountain Hills. Councilmember Archambault said that what they have before them this evening would affect Fountain Hills for this millennium. He noted that they are venturing into the last track of land that can define Fountain Hills and for the last year and a half he has stood shoulder -to -shoulder with people he is proud to be standing with and despite all of the insults that may be thrown, he believes they are a proud team. Councilmember Dickey pointed out that in 1998 she was part of the group that wanted to preserve the land and added that she is convinced and confident that the interaction that the Town had with the State of Arizona resulted in the best compromise and represents the best way they could have proceeded. She added that she believes it is remarkable that the State spoke with them and sat down and listened to them — not because the State is anti - environmental or uncooperative, but because they are under a strict mandate and they must operate in a certain manner for the time being. She said that the land is going to happen, the plan is going to be approved, and now they must look forward. Councilmember Dickey discussed the hillside transfer and asked whether that was a unilateral decision on the part of the owner. Planning & Zoning Administrator Richard Turner addressed the Council and said that the hillside transfer is something that is available to an applicant. He added that it is required by the Town's regulations, ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 6 of 12 depending upon the slope of the property, and said there are provisions in the regulations to group the open space that is required into certain portions of the site. Mr. Turner and Mr. Pickering confirmed that the proposals would come before the Town Council and they would have the opportunity to review them and decide what course of action would occur. Councilmember Dickey stated that she believed there were some changes to the General Plan due to some of the input received from the public and, in view of previous comments from a member of the audience, she requested that this issue be addressed. Mr. Pickering responded that changes were made to the General Plan, specifically to the buffer — there is specific language in the General Plan that states there would not be any trails in the buffer areas for the protection of residents living in and around those areas. He added that other adjustments looked more at some of the connections along the buffer on the south, whether the streets should be connected or not, etc. They had also made some changes to the General Plan language (fairly generic in nature). Mr. Pickering informed the Council that there were really four areas of comments and traffic was by far the number one area. He said that the roads reflected on the plan were conceptual in nature, not set in stone, and would most likely change but connections kept. He emphasized that the traffic could not be determined until they know how many homes were going to be built, where they would be located, cul-de-sac issues, etc. He said that they had not shown every single road on the plan but stressed that the roads that are built would be in accordance with Town Codes, just like all of the other streets in Town. He further stated that there were changes having to do with open space areas and parks and added that some of the requests they received were to not change anything, for example multi -family. That was one of the concerns expressed by the residents who stated they did not want multi -family and so some parts of the General Plan Amendments did not change. Councilmember Dickey said that as far as wanting more revenue or being led by greed, the property was going to be developed, so now they were only talking about development fees. She added that down the line if they all decided they did want a pool or senior center, she believed they should share that with whomever was going to be living in that area because there would be people living there — they were beyond that choice at this point in time. She reiterated that she was initially inclined to have the land preserved but said that that was no longer an option. She added that she did not believe this had anything at all to do with greed — it had to do with being good stewards of the land and trying to be protective of the people who were residents right now. Councilmember Kehe said that he had repeatedly heard concerns regarding the 1,750 homes being an entitlement, a right, and that any buyer of that property would then, according to the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement, have the right, not withstanding any other hurdles, to develop 1,750 homes. He requested that Town Attorney Andrew McGuire comment on this issue. Mr. McGuire explained that the term that has been used is "vested rights" and cautioned that it was very dangerous to use that term in the broad sense that it had been used because in Arizona there was very specific meaning regarding what development rights were entitled to a person based upon an agreement or improvements to the land. He stated that Arizona has not gone away from the development backed expectation approach — vested rights were only as strong as how far development had occurred. For example, if a development has an entitlement to a R1-6 zoning category, they are only vested in that category to the extent that they go out and actually begin to use the land, develop it. He added that the term "vested rights" as it has been used this evening, indicates that if there were some way to get to 1,750 homes, even if that required abrogation of the rest of the Town's ordinances, it would be allowed. He emphasized that that was not the case and said that right now the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement is tied to the specific case in front of the Council at this time and those zoning categories are in no way different from any other zoning categories in the Town. All of the requirements of those zoning categories would have to be met in order to get the maximum number of allowed units in that group. He added that 1,750 units are based upon a pure book evaluation with the hillside preservation requirements and a general slope analysis applied to a zoning density with appropriate side yards and all setbacks. What are not included are the Town's cut and fill standards and a number of other things that cannot be evaluated at the 30,000-foot level. He said that until they have a study that has a preliminary plat attached to it, they have no idea how many lots will require a cut and fill ordinance. He explained that the cut and fill ordinance, under the Town's Zoning Ordinance, allows the Council to waive the requirements of the cut and fill standards on a case -by -case basis. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 7 of 12 Mr. McGuire said that discussions with the State Land Department have indicated that one of the parcels that is indicated for over 200 lots, is not buildable for that capacity because of the cut and fill requirement. He stated that there was a request made for a "blanket" cut and fill in that area and the Town resisted that request. He said that items like that have given them a little more clarity on what the numbers mean but to make a pretty broad IJ assumption that a 1,750 unit cap is in any way an entitlement to those units, despite the remaining Town regulations, is not accurate and he stressed the importance of clarifying that issue. He further stated that to the State Land Department the cap is a figure that represents a reasonable compromise for a number of units for the parcel. If in the future other plans are brought forward after the land is annexed into the Town and the Council is presented with a zoning case that shows very large lots on the perimeter and multi -family in the middle, and it was a favorable plan that everyone liked, they might get to the 1,750 units but under the 1,750 units on the single-family property, it is going to be a difficult cap to attain. He reiterated that the figure is merely a cap and not an entitlement and they are not granting an absolute right to 1,750 units. Councilmember Kavanagh agreed that the plan is not perfect but added that it is a compromise plan. A compromise between the Town, which originally wanted only conservation and the State Land Department, which has a Constitutional mandate to get the most houses in order to achieve the most profit for the schools. He said that quite frankly he is shocked that the State compromised this much because all along they thought they were talking in the 2,000's so to find themselves with a cap of 1,750, with what realistically, based upon the topography, is probably about 1,500 or 1,400 and which actually will probably be about 1,100 or 1,200 because that is all the Sanitary District can service, is a good compromise. He noted that some citizens want to say "no" and renegotiate and some have talked about gathering petitions and collecting signatures to force a vote but said if they did that this evening or if citizens did that and prevailed, he would question how much better it could get. He stated that he cannot see the State going below 1,000 units and said all they were really talking about is a gain of 100 to 200 less homes. He asked what they were willing to risk for 100 to 200 homes and asked what they were willing to lose. He expressed the opinion that if they say no or if the matter was referred and came back a no vote, he does not believe that the State Land Department would even negotiate with the Town; they would walk away and do it in the County. He added that in that case, the Town would lose the buffer that separates Town residences from possibly 2,000 homes; lose input on future development; possibly lose the park, lose the wash protection and lose $20+ , million in sales tax and impact fees. He asked what they would gain and stated that they would have a lot more traffic, because if they wind up putting 2,000 or 3,000 homes in there, there will be more traffic. He said that if the Town does not annex the property, the State Land Department will turn around and say, "Fountain Hills isn't cooperating, we have to build our own sewage plant anyway and it costs so much money to build a sewage plant, we can't spread that cost among just 1,400 homes, we have to spread that cost among 2,500 homes or 3,000 homes to make it profitable." He added that they will possibly wind up with 2,000 or 3,000 homes and stated that for a 100 to 200 home spread; he is not willing to gamble. He said he is particularly not willing to gamble on what the impact will be on people who live around there, although the entire Town would be affected. Councilmember Kavanagh stated that he does not believe that a gain of possibly 100 to 200 less homes is worth it and added that he would rather stay in the game and count on the Sanitary District to be basically accurate in that they can only service about 1,200 units. He said that he will vote for the proposal currently before them and said that the plan is not perfect but he has serious concerns about what the alternative might be should they decide to play games with the State. Councilmember McMahan thanked everyone who was involved in putting the proposal together and said that it has been a long, hard road. He advised that he has concerns about the R1-6 zoning and 6,000 square foot lots. He said that he would prefer multi -residential over clusters of small homes. He added that as far as the 1,750 units, an agreement would have to be worked out with the Sanitary District. He further stated that it would be nice if the agreement was in place before the auction but in the end it is going to be the developer's problem. He also questioned the need for the commercial acreage and questioned why the park was not located near the middle school. Councilmember McMahan noted that traffic and the roads on Richwood and Boulder have also been a huge concern of his. He said that Richwood could probably accommodate some light traffic but the one area of Boulder (where the stub is located and between Blackbird when Boulder suddenly widens out all the way down to Golden ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 8 of 12 Eagle) will have problems unless they do something about it, such as limiting parking and implementinglenforcing speed limits. He questioned why a north/south street had not been designed along the west side of the parcel. Councilmember McMahan commented that in the long run his concerns and the concerns of others could be considered after annexation. He said that modifications, adaptations, even zoning changes could be negotiated with the buyer of the land. He emphasized that the overwhelming consideration right now is that the land be annexed and be a part of Fountain Hills so they can exercise control over development in order to maintain the existing Fountain Hills environment and benefit from development revenues. He added that they have an opportunity before them that cannot be passed up and said that he believes the annexation should move forward for the present and future benefit of the entire Town. Councilmember McMahan asked whether this was the first time that the State ever permitted land scheduled to be auctioned off to be annexed prior to the auction. Mr. McGuire responded that it is not the first time that land has been annexed prior. He said that a previous State land method was to allow annexation pretty freely; it was not to realize the benefit of the property. He explained that the current Land Commissioner's approach is a little different than that -- to take the properties that are most likely to be developed and place them at the front end of the auction line. Their goal is to actively plan and entitle some of the land so that it can be entitled prior to auction. He said that this is the first case representative of the modern era where there is a Pre -Annexation Development Agreement, there is zoning entitlement, there is a General Plan Amendment and all of that happens along with the annexation. He added that this is a unique model of the current philosophy of the Land Department. Councilmember McMahan reiterated that annexation should be their first priority this evening for the future of Fountain Hills. Councilmember Archambault commented that other cities that border up against State Trust Land are watching to see what Fountain Hills does because it is a unique situation. He said that he gives a lot of credit to staff for their accomplishments to date. Councilmember Archambault said he doubts whether anyone is aware of what it costs to accomplish something like this. He stated that they had hired specialists and put a lot of staff time into it and asked Mr. Pickering to "guesstimate" the Town's cost. Mr. Pickering replied that they budgeted approximately $100,000 for this process because of the legal fees involved and planning that went into it. He said that they had listed that in the Strategic Plan; when people made decisions on what they thought should be a priority and so they understood the extensive planning that had to go into this. He stated that the firm they hired, LVA, did not make that much money but the attorney's fees were expensive and well worth it. Councilmember Dickey commented on the varying Land Department mandates and said that November will not change anything for Fountain Hills — the property being discussed at this time is not going to be preserved. She questioned the County island aspect, particularly when it comes to public safety and fire protection. She said that this is something that is really in the news. Mr. McGuire responded that there are actually a number of different issues that are raised by that question. He said of utmost importance is the Town's relationship with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department. He explained that the Town pays a contract fee to the Sheriff's Department to provide law enforcement services for the Town. Under their mandate as the County Sheriffs Department, they cover all the other areas of the County. The contract says that they will not use Fountain Hills as a base to cover outlying areas to any great extent but as a practical manner, the Sheriff's deputies stationed in Fountain Hills are the ones that are going to provide Rio Verde and areas to the north with service. He said they have a contract number of beats they will provide to the Town; however, if they add this much area in the County, he cannot imagine having a contract that is enforceable enough to prevent that this area from gaining benefits from the Town's contract without paying for it. Mr. McGuire also addressed the issue of fire services and said that right now the Town has a fire station in proximity to cover the area. Unfortunately, during the Legislative Session, a piece of what has been deemed by the ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 9 of 12 Court as special legislation came forward. It required the Town of Gilbert to provide fire services to unincorporated County areas located adjacent to the Town. He reported that the legislation was struck down a couple of days ago in Superior Court and said that he doesn't know whether that will stand and/or whether an appeal is currently pending. He stated that that type of legislation will grow based upon the number of County islands that are nearby and the Town may be forced into the situation of providing service for what would have essentially been the amount of a service fee, rather than for the infrastructure and capital costs funding that the Town has to go through, a serious concern. Mr. McGuire advised that other legislation this year has also called been into question — issues that may apply to County islands -- and so there are a number of reasons to be concerned. Mayor Nichols stated that when they started this process 18 months ago, the chances of getting to this meeting this evening were probably less than 10%. He commented that they didn't start out with having the best relationship with the State Land Department, it was actually an adversarial position, but Town staff, the Council and the consultant worked very hard to establish a relationship with Commissioner Winkleman and his people. He noted that negotiations are a compromise — give and take — and there were times the Town had to reject what the County was proposing and they held the line on those types of things. He stated the opinion that they are much better off as they go forward into the future to be the ones in control, to "drive the bus," rather than having the "bus driven by the County." He added that whoever buys the property is not going to want to stay with the current General Plan Amendment or the zoning; they are going to want changes. The Mayor asked who they wanted to be in control of the changes — the Town or the Board of Supervisors? He emphasized that he is not willing to risk that and would rather remain in control and have the Council be responsible for keeping everything in line with the Town's ordinances. He added that if they want something different from what is outlined in the plan, then the Town will get something back from them in return. He commented that there has been mention of a north/south road and advised that they received input from residents and then asked the State to put a north/south road in and they would not do it. He noted that once the property is sold to a developer who wants to do some things on the property, perhaps the road would be a negotiation factor, part of the give and take process. He added that as long as the Town has control, they have the power to do things like that but if the developer goes before the County Board of Supervisors, the Town will not have any say in the matter. Mayor Nichols further stated that he fully supports this proposal so that the Town can maintain some element of control as they go forward with the development of the property after it is sold at auction. He noted that an overwhelming majority of the Town's residents want to have this land annexed before it is sold and questioned why they should go through a referendum process and spend money to conduct an election when they already know what the people of the Town want to happen. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the motion to approve Resolution 2006-25, to amend the General Plan. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-27, APPROVING THE PRE - ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS THAT PROVIDES FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE STATE TRUST LAND NORTH AND EAST OF TOWN, AMENDMENT OF THE TOWN'S GENERAL PLAN, REZONING OF THE LAND AND, IF NECESSARY, RECISSION OF THESE APPROVALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE TRUST LAND. Mayor Nichols requested a motion on this agenda item. Councilmember McMahan MOVED to approve Resolution 2006-27 approving the Pre -Annexation Development Agreement and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7- 0). AGENDA ITEM #10 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-12, EXTENDING AND INCREASING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, PURSUANT TO THE ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 10 of 12 PROVISIONS OF ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES § 9-471, ANNEXING THERETO CERTAIN STATE TRUST LAND LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF THE EXISTING TOWN LIMITS, SOUTH OF MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN REGIONAL PARK AND WEST OF THE FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION. ANNEXATION CASE #AN2006-01. Mayor Nichols requested a motion on this agenda item. Councilmember Kavanagh MOVED to approve Ordinance 06-12, extending and increasing the corporate limits of the Town of Fountain Hills and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Kehe said that the Mayor touched on this, but he would like to re-emphasize, for everyone's benefit, the following: He quoted Sir Winston Churchill, who said, "This is not the end, it's not the beginning of the end, it's the end of the beginning." He stated that they are going to be called upon as a Council to continue their work on this, specifically with whomever is the successful purchaser of the land, to make sure that they maintain the standards that are supported by the people of Fountain Hills and to address problems that have been identified. He expressed the opinion that with the passing of the three resolutions, the Council will have the strength and obligation to do just that. He reiterated that their work is not done and added that he believes everyone on the dais recognizes that. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). AGENDA ITEM #11— PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 06-11, A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE ZONING FROM R1-43 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING) TO OSC (OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION ZONING — 14 PARCELS), OSR (OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL ZONING — 1 PARCEL). R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING — 3 PARCELS), RI-8 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING — 2 PARCELS), R1-35 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING — 1 PARCEL), L-2 (LODGING ZONING — 1 PARCEL) AND C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING —1 PARCEL) ON APPROXIMATELY 1,311 ACRS OF WHAT IS PRESENTLY STATE TRUST LAND. CASE #Z2006-02. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 8:10 p.m. Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that Mr. Hansen and Ms. Hutcheson both turned in cards and questioned whether they wished to speak again. The citizens declined the opportunity to do so. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing closed at 8:11 p.m. AGENDA TEM #12 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-11, A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE ZONING FROM R1-43 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING) TO OSC (OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION ZONING — 14 PARCELS), OSR (OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL ZONING — 1 PARCEL), R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING — 3 PARCELS), RI-8 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING — 2 PARCELS), R1-35 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING — 1 PARCEL), L-2 (LODGING ZONING — 1 PARCEL) AND C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING —1 PARCEL) ON APPROXIMATELY 1,311 ACRS OF WHAT IS PRESENTLY STATE TRUST LAND. CASE #Z2006-02. Mayor Nichols requested a motion on this agenda item. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to approve Ordinance 06-11, a Zoning Map Amendment, and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Mayor Nichols advised that the documents would be signed at the end of the meeting and would be available to the public tomorrow by contacting the Town Clerk's Office. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 11 of 12 Mr. McGuire stated that the staff were all paid professionals who put in time at work under the direction of the Council. He added that the Council had worked very hard on this issue for a very long period of time and commended Mayor Nichols and Councilmember Kehe for their extensive efforts. He said that their "pay" could not be considered "pay" and expressed appreciation to them for all of the times they drove down to the State Land *40 Department with staff to discuss and negotiate this crucial issue and for all the time they spent at various meetings. Mayor Nichols said that he believed what the Council had done this evening was a momentous step forward for the Town of Fountain Hills. He noted that not everyone got what they wanted but the Council has a file containing those requests and they would continue to work to resolve the issues. He added that the Council would stand behind the Strategic Plan that says "let us keep our view corridors open and let us stick to our ordinances." He said that the Council was asked by the State to give a blanket cut and fill waiver and they refused. He assured the citizens of Fountain Hills that he for one would maintain strict adherence to the Town's policies as they develop the land. AGENDA ITEM #13 - COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF (i) PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR (ii) DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL: �11011M AGENDA ITEM #14 — SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER. 010jelm AGENDA ITEM #15 — ADJOURNMENT. Councilmember McMahan MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0)./yhe meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN By i IV Wally chols, Mayor ATTEST AND PEPARED BY: &44Zu� Bevelyn J. en r, Town Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 4th day of May 4 2006. 1 further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 18`" day of May, 2006. Bevelyn J. en r, Town Clerk ZACouncil Packets\2006\R5-18-06\05-04-06 minutes.doc Page 12 of 12