Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006.1207.TCREM.MinutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AND EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL December 7, 2006 Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Nichols, Vice Mayor Kehe, Councilmember Leger, Councilman McMahan, and Councilmember Dickey. Councilmember Schlum arrived at 5:10 p.m. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. Councilmember Archambault was absent from the meeting. AGENDA ITEM #1 — VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. 38- 431.03.A1, FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, SALARIES, DISCIPLINING OR RESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY BODY, EXCEPT THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SALARY DISCUSSIONS, AN OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE MAY DEMAND THAT THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. THE PUBLIC BODY SHALL PROVIDE THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AS IS APPROPRIATE BUT NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FOR THE OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION SHOULD OCCUR AT A PUBLIC MEETING. (SPECIFICALLY TO INTERVIEW QUALIFIED APPLICANTS FOR VACANCIES ON W BOARD OF AD.IUSTMENT AND (ii) THE PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION AS WELL AS REVIEW APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED FOR VACANCIES ON (i) THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, (ii) THE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION, (iii) PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND (iv) STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION— YOUTH.) Councilmember Leger MOVED to convene the Executive Session and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). Councilmember Leger MOVED to recess the Executive Session at 6:25 p.m. and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #2 — RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION Mayor Nichols reconvened the Regular Session at 6:30 p.m. INVOCATION — Mr. Fred Widom from the Temple Beth Hagivot ROLL CALL — Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Nichols, Vice Mayor Kehe, Councilmember Leger, Councilman McMahan, Councilmember Schlum and Councilmember Dickey. Councilmember Archambault was absent from the meeting. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 1 of 20 CONSENT AGENDA Vice Mayor Kehe requested that Agenda Items #7 and #8 be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Action Agenda. AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 14 AND NOVEMBER 16, 2006. AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, POST 7507, (BRUCE THULIEN) FOR THE PROMOTION OF A FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD AT SAGUARO BOULEVARD AND PALISADES BOULEVARD, FOUNTAIN HILS, AZ, FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 2007. AGENDA ITEM #3 — CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR CASA ALAMOSA CONDOMINIUMS, A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION, LOCATED AT 16815 E. ALAMOSA AVENUE, AKA PLAT 105, BLOCK 3, LOT 1. CASE #S2006-21. AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR GALATEA CORNER CONDOMINIUMS, A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION, LOCATED AT 14421 N. GALATEA DRIVE, AKA PLAT 104, BLOCK 11, LOT 1. CASE #S2006-22. AGENDA ITEM # 5 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-54, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN THE CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 203, BLOCK 7, LOT 1 (16110 E. KINGSTREE BOULEVARD) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 149 OF MAPS. PAGE 29, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SUBJECT TO STIPULATION. EA06-13 (CLYDE & SUZANNE WILLIAMSON). AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-55, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN THE CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 604A, BLOCK 4, LOT 16 (15147 E. PALOMINO BOULEVARD) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 165 OF MAPS, PAGE 16, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, SUBJECT TO STHPULATION. EA06-14 (ARIEL ROBISON). AGENDA ITEM #7 — MOVED TO THE ACTION AGENDA. AGENDA ITEM #8 — MOVED TO THE ACTION AGENDA. AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-52, ADOPTING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURES, AMENDED AND RESTATED DECEMBER 7, 2006. AGENDA ITEM #10 —CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-47, ADOPTION OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE AGENDA ITEM #11 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-30, AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 2, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, ARTICLE 2-7, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND ARTICLE 208, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, RELATING TO APPOINTMENT, POWERS AND DUTIES. CASE #Z2006-08. Councilmember Schlum MOVED to approve the Consent Agenda (Items 1 through 6 and 9 through 11) and Councilmember Leger SECONDED the motion. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 2 of 20 A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Vice Mayor Kehe Aye Councilmember Dickey Aye Mayor Nichols Aye Councilmember Leger Aye Councilmember Schlum Aye Councilman McMahan Aye Councilman Archambault Absent The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). ACTION AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING AN 11.1% INCREASE IN THE PPO PREMIUMS AND A 0% INCREASE IN THE HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT PREMIUMS WITH LIFEWISE HEALTH PLAN FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2007. Human Resources Administrator Joan McIntosh addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and stated that about this time every year the Town receives renewal quotes from their health insurance company (rates for the upcoming calendar year). She reported that LifeWise Health Plan quoted an 11.1 % rate increase for 2007 PPO premiums and no increase for the 2007 Health Savings Account premiums. She explained that the Health Savings Account (HSA) was a new option implemented January 1, 2006 and said that it was very similar to a catastrophic insurance plan. The HSA was not for everyone; it was geared towards employees who want to take control of their health costs and be able to "shop around" for the best prices for prescriptions and other services. There was a larger deductible and because of that a much lower premium for that insurance. Twelve members of staff chose the HSA for 2006 and were been very happy with that selection. She stated the opinion that this option played a big part in keeping the proposed rate premiums low for 2007 (last year there was a 23% increase with their previous insurance company and there were higher increases in other prior years as well). Ms. McIntosh explained the annual process that was followed relative to obtaining health service proposals and said that following a review of the proposals and discussion with Town Manager Tim Pickering, they met with the Employee Services Committee (made up of a member of each Town Division) who brought the information back to their departments. She reported that the Committee agreed that the proposed rate increase from LifeWise was an excellent one and following review by the various departments and approval from the Tom Manager, it was the overall consensus that staff recommend to the Council that the Town stay with LifeWise Health Insurance for 2007 with an 11.1% PPO increase. She explained that if the proposal was approved this evening, staff would proceed with the enrollment process and employees would also have the opportunity to enroll in the HSA, which might result in a larger savings next year. She indicated her willingness to respond to questions from the Council. Councilmember Schlum MOVED to approve staff's recommendation relative to health insurance for calendar year 2007 and Councilmember Leger SECONDED the motion. Vice Mayor Kehe requested additional information relative to costs for the Town and employees. Ms. McIntosh advised that the Town paid 100% of employees' health costs as well as 50% of any dependent for premium coverage and the employees paid the remaining 50%. She reported that for 2006, the employees were paying $110.55 per pay period (24 pay periods in a year) to cover their spouses' health costs. If approved, that amount would increase to $122.82 for 2007 ($294.00 a year). Employees could also cover the health costs of dependent children and pay $90.45 per pay period for children's coverage. For 2007 that figure would increase to $149.00 (an additional $241 a year). The premiums were all pre-tax dollars. Family coverage for 2006 was $201 a pay period (coverage for employee, spouse and children) and for 2007, the quote was $223.31 ($535.00 a year increase). ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 3 of 20 Ms. McIntosh added that there was no cost to employees who enroll in the HSA because the premiums were so much lower than the PPO enrollees so the Town pays that amount. The difference between the two premiums gets deposited to an account for an employee enrolled in the HSA, an interest -bearing account that could roll over from month -to -month if the money was not used for health services and could also roll over from year-to- year. After reaching a certain amount, the monies could be invested in the same manner as a retirement account. The money was never taxed to the employees as long as they use it for health services. She reported that the total cost of health insurance for both plans to the Town for 2007, (66 employees) if approved, would be $436,857, an increase of approximately 10.8% over last year due to additions/changes in employees' coverage. The motion CARIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). Mayor Nichols thanked Ms. McIntosh for the presentation. AGENDA ITEM #8 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER TO THE SOUTHWEST SLURRY SEAL CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,599.64. Public Works Director Tom Ward addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and noted that the change order would be paid for by Salt River Project (SRP) and would not result in any cost to the Town because of a utility cut that SRP made. He noted that the Council must approve any expenditure above $20,000 and that was why this item was before the Council this evening. Councilmember Leger MOVED to approve the Change Order as recommended by staff and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Vice Mayor Kehe said it was his understanding that the Town had already received a check from SRP to cover the cost and Mr. Ward confirmed that the check was already in hand. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this item. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #12 — PRESENTATION BY SHARON MORGAN WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING THE ADDITION OF A NEW SISTER CITY FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS IN EL SALVADOR. Sharon Morgan, Chairman of the Fountain Hills Sister City Organization, addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and said that the organization was seeking Council approval for a third Sister City in El Salvador. She explained that she was approached several months ago by a member of El Salvador's Council about entering into a potential Sister City agreement. She noted that the Town of Prescott was the first to establish a Sister City in El Salvador and said that she hoped that the Town of Fountain Hills would follow suit. Ms. Morgan reviewed the reasons contained in the Council's memo relative to the organization's belief that the Town's third Sister City should be in the Americas, which included: Less travel time for both "Sisters;" Not so costly to travel to and from, more affordable for families of potential students traveling; If young people from either Sister City were going to be able to compete in the global world we live in, it was imperative that they learn each others' language and customs, and through student and/or teacher exchanges, tourism would begin and this would be good for the economy of both countries. She reported that Dr. Marian Hermes, the School Superintendent, was very excited about this program with El Salvador and the potential exchange of students and teachers and stated the opinion that the proposal was a "win -win" for both the Town and whatever city or town they select in El Salvador. Ms. Morgan provided the Council with brief facts relative to El Salvador, which included: The population of El Salvador was 6.7 million people; there were 14 major universities; 70% of the population was under 40 years of ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 4 of 20 age; El Salvador had the only FAA approved airport in Central America; Fountain Hills would be the second Town to have an El Salvadorian Sister City, and the fact that cities under consideration were Ataco, Apaneca and Juayua, located in what was known as the "Route of the Flowers Region," located in the high country where some of the world's finest coffee came from. She noted that the Council had been provided copies of photographs taken by Jerry Miles on a recent trip so that they could familiarize themselves with El Salvador. She requested unanimous approval from the Council that would result in the adoption of a Resolution, which would allow them to proceed. She noted that if approved, a group was planning a trip to El Salvador in March and emphasized that "not one red cent came s out of the taxpayers' pockets; they paid all of the costs themselves." She respectfully requested approval of the request. Mayor Nichols stated that at this time he would request a motion to approve the intent of the Council to look at establishing a Sister City in El Salvador and to support a delegation that would go down there from the Town of Fountain Hills (limited to a representative of the School District, a representative from the Sister Cities Organization; a representative from the Chamber of Commerce and a Town Official). The Mayor noted that El Salvador officials would pay for the hotel, meals and traveling costs in their country and added that the delegation would visit the three communities and, through the Sister Cities Organization, make a recommendation to the Council as to which location should be selected. He emphasized that they were not approving a city at this point in time; they were merely approving their intent to send a delegation to El Salvador. He added that although they had been assured that there were no safety concerns involved, a delegation would not be sent to El Salvador until safety conditions had been confirmed by the United States government. Ms. Morgan noted that the delegation would be provided guides, drivers and every safety precaution would be in place. In response to a question from Councilmember Dickey, Mayor Nichols advised that the motion should be that the Council endorsed the exploration of a possible Sister City arrangement with a city in El Salvador. Councilmember Dickey MOVED to endorse the exploration of a possible Sister City arrangement with a city in El Salvador and Councilmember Leger SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Leger stated that this was an excellent idea especially from the perspective of the opportunities such a relationship would provide to the Town's students. He added that the Spanish language was an integral part of the Southwest and this provided a very good opportunity. He thanked everyone involved for their efforts. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this item. Mayor Nichols advised that they had received a few letters from residents endorsing this proposal and editorials had been published in The Republic and The Tribune stating that this was the right thing to do for the Town. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #13 — PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 06-27, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION, TO REMOVE PROVISIONS THEREIN RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING FEES AND THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. CASE #Z2006-08. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 6:54 p.m. Planning and Zoning Administrator Richard Turner addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and noted that information on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Adjustment was in both the Zoning ZACouncil Packets\2006\R 1 2-21-06\1 2-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 5 of 20 Ordinance and the Town Code. This amendment would take this information out of the Zoning Ordinance and refer the reader to the Town Code. The changes to the Town Code were a separate item on this agenda. This ordinance also clarified how fees would be updated in the future, by resolution or with the approval of the annual budget. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment on November 9`h. The Town Code was a better place for these provisions and the Town Council would be able to change the rules governing the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Adjustment without having to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Turner stated that the proposed amendments had been prepared by the Town Attorney to remove redundancies and clarify how fees would be updated in the future and staff recommended that the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance be approved. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this item and the Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 6:55 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #14 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-27, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HLLS ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION, TO REMOVE PROVISIONS THEREIN RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING FEES AND THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. CASE #Z2006-08. Councilmember Leger MOVED to approve Ordinance 06-27 as recommended by staff and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. In response to a comment from Councilmember Dickey, Mr. Turner stated that the budget process was an extremely open process and therefore there would be plenty of opportunity for citizen input relative to fees, etc. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #15 — PUBLIC HEARING OF ORDINANCE 06-19, WHICH AMENDS CHAPTERS 1, 2 AND 5 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND CHAPTER 6 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. IF ADOPTED, THE AMENDMENTS WOULD REQUIRE LOW-WATER LANDSCAPING TECHNIQUES AND PLANTS. CASE #Z2006-03. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 6:56 p.m. Mr. Pickering noted that this was an item that the Town had worked on for quite some time and it was part of the Strategic Plan. This represents one of the top six goals that were identified by residents. Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and reported that the Town's Strategic Plan identified Goal #3, Low Water Landscaping, as a desirable goal for the community. Staff from the Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning and Zoning Department had put together proposed ordinance amendments requiring low-water plantings and recommending that low-water irrigation techniques be major components of new landscaping plans. The proposal would amend Chapters 1, 2 and 5 of the Zoning Ordinance to adopt a definition of a significantly altered lot, outline the approval process and refer developers to landscaping requirements contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal would also amend Chapter 6 (the official plant list) and Table 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The amendments revise the plant list to include low-water use plants as identified by the Arizona Department of Water Resources. They outline the maintenance requirements and call for low-water irrigation techniques. Mr. Rodgers advised that if adopted the new regulations would require all new developments to provide low- water landscaping and would also require existing properties to provide low-water landscaping if they significantly alter their property by either re -landscaping 50% of the property, re -landscaping an area of 500 ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 6 of 20 square feet or greater or replacing non -conforming plants that had been dead for over a year. Otherwise, existing and non -conforming landscaping would be "grandfathered in" and allowed to remain. The amendments were fully outlined in the Staff Report (on file in the Office of the Town Clerk). He added that the proposed ordinance also significantly expands the plant list and requires irrigation plans to be submitted and approved and it made the use of low-water landscaping mandatory rather than simply recommended. Mr. Rodgers explained that the primary goal of the low-water landscaping ordinance was water conservation. This reduces waste and lowers water bills. The pre-existing landscaping was not affected by the amendments unless they met the three criteria previously outlined. The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated the ordinance revisions on May 25 h, held a public hearing on June 8`h and voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the proposed ordinance revisions as presented. The Town Council was presented the proposal at their August 10`'' meeting and at that time, they determined that staff should revise the proposed ordinance to include all properties, including single-family houses. Staff revised the proposed ordinance accordingly and brought it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for another public hearing due to the significance of the changes. The Commission reviewed the ordinance at their November 9t' meeting and voted to forward a recommendation of approval of the revised ordinance to the Council. Staff also recommended that the Council approve the proposed ordinance, as revised. Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that there were two citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item. Jerry Butler, a member of the Town's Strategic Planning Advisory Commission (SPAC), addressed the Council and stated that the group's Chairman was out of Town on business and the Vice Chairman was also unavailable or one or both would have been present this evening. He said that speaking on behalf of SPAC, he would like to support staff's recommendation relative to the low-water ordinance. He added that SPAC believed it served the intent of what the public talked about during the 2005 Strategic Plan Process. He noted that the Commission was appointed in February of this year and after just ten months, they were very pleased with the progress that they had made to fulfill the Strategic Plan objectives. He commended staff for the thorough and fast job they had performed in this area. He said that SPAC supports the proposed ordinance and recommends Council approval. Charles Fox, 14629 N. Glenpoint Drive, addressed the Council and was advised that he could raise questions by making comments. He said that if the owner of a single-family home that was not in a development wants to build something, he would like to know whether the ordinance would apply to that, to the whole lot, or just the front (which he would highly recommend). He stated the opinion that some portion of the land, the backyard, should be sacrosanct to the public and left to their own decisions. He recommended that no plan be required as long as the owners agree to put in "X" number of trees and "X" number of plants and meet the regulations contained in the ordinance. Otherwise, he did not believe they should be taking away an individual's right to design his/her own property. He advised that when he and his wife bought their first home, they did not have the funds to put in lavish landscaping and instead added a little year by year. He asked whether this point had been taken into consideration in the ordinance. Mr. Rodgers explained that the ordinance did allow for some exemptions, including municipal government areas such as parks and medians; the normal maintenance of previously existing landscaping; private gardens up to 1,000 square feet in size in rear or side yards and any landscaping that had been dead for less than one year could be replaced in a like manner. He added that as to whether or not this applied to a single-family house located outside of a development the answer was yes, it would. The owner would be required to provide staff with copies of proposed plans and staff would verify that they were included on the list of approved plantings. He added that this pertained to new construction. Mayor Nichols thanked the speakers for their input and declared the public hearing closed at 7:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #16 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-19, WHICH AMENDS CHAPTERS 1, 2 AND 5 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND CHAPTER 6 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 7 of 20 IF ADOPTED, THE AMENDMENTS WOULD REQUIRE LOW-WATER LANDSCAPING TECHNIQUES AND PLANTS. CASE #Z2006-03. Councilmember Leger MOVED to approve Ordinance 06-19 and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Leger stated that he was in favor of the intent of what they were looking at and agreed that it was an issue that the citizens support. He commented on the proposed garden space, a maximum of 1,000 square feet located in either the rear or side yard as discussed by Mr. Rodgers. He said that he had an issue with the terminology "garden space" and noted that typically a garden was used for the purpose of planting vegetables, etc. He asked whether owners would be allowed to put grass in the garden space and Mr. Rodgers confirmed that grass would be allowed in that area as well as fruit trees and shrubs/plants not contained on the prescribed list. Councilmember Leger commented that in essence, this space was an exemption provided to homeowners in terms of their rear or side yards. He said that he was not comfortable using the word "garden" and added that some HOAs refer to those areas as "private spaces" or an "exempt space or non -restricted space." He advised that this was merely his opinion and would like to know whether other members of the Council agree and if they should make a motion to proceed in this manner. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire advised that the proposed ordinance could be amended to include other items that would not be included in a typical garden if that were the Council's intent. Mayor Nichols stated that the intent was to remove the word "garden" and use the words "private space" or something similar. Mr. McGuire said that the language at first glance appears somewhat confusing and agreed that the language could be changed to help clarify the matter. Councilmember Dickey pointed out that the homeowners would not be required to put anything in the side or rear yards (private space) if they did not wish to do so and the Mayor concurred. Councilmember Leger MOVED to amend the motion to change the terminology contained in the ordinance from "garden space" to "non -restricted private space." Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the amendment to the motion. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that the figure of 1,000 square feet was originally recommended by Councilmember Archambault at the Workshop; the fact that staff never considered expanding that space to 1,500 square feet; the fact that they had not considered limiting the "non -restricted private space" to just the rear yard; the fact that the intent of the 1,000 square feet was to reduce water, and the fact that new homeowners would be required to utilize prescribed plants in all areas except the 1,000 square foot space prior to receiving any performance money. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the amended motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0) by those present. In response to a question from Councilmember Leger, Mr. Rodgers explained the conditions of the deposit. Mr. Rodgers explained that a deposit was only required if it was new construction and the person wants to move into the house, get an occupancy permit, before all of the landscaping had been completed. He further clarified that someone in an existing home, who gets involved in a landscaping redesign that entailed over 1,000 square feet, would not be subject to the deposit. Councilmember Leger said that when he looked at the Strategic Planning initiative, specifically the question that was asked of the citizens, it really spoke to new development. He stated that he understands the need to move ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 8 of 20 this into existing homes for remodeling, additions, etc. but he felt that the 500 square feet was really a very small area and he would like to suggest, and receive input from the other members, relative to expanding that. He expressed concerns relative to placing a burden on a citizen homeowner to take a small portion of landscaping like that and require them to pay the fees and go through the process. He recommended that they change that and increase it to between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet. Mr. Rodgers noted that the 500 square feet figure was a recommendation from a member of the Council. Councilmember Schlum clarified that if someone was living in an existing home and disturbs more than 500 square feet of yard, that person would then fall under the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rodgers concurred with Councilmember Schlum's statement. Councilmember Schlum said that meant that if they had a 30,000 square foot lot and a third of it was already disturbed they would be required to address the additional 15,000 square feet of their yard. He added that this was a very sensitive issue and they had to make sure that that number was high so that they do not over -burden people who were addressing issues such as converting a grassy area to desert landscaping. He said that perhaps 1,500 square feet was not sufficient. Mr. Rodgers clarified that the lots were not all -barren land; for the most part the lots were already landscaped and a majority of the larger lots would remain desert anyway because of HPEs or non -disturbance areas. For the most part, they were not talking about flat, barren lots that were being partially remodeled. If the parcel was already landscaped and they were changing a portion of the landscaping, they might not be required to actually do everything else on the lot. They might just be required to address the part that they were disturbing. Councilmember Leger commented that if someone owned a flat lot and the entire lot was currently disturbed (30,000 square feet of lot), if over 500 square feet was disturbed, they would have to address the entire lot. Mayor Nichols brought up the fact that the ordinance was new and it would require some experience to work through the various issues that might arise. He added that citizens could always came back and say that the regulations were creating a hardship, prove their case, and be granted relief if warranted. He said that the ordinance could be revised as needed. Councilmember Leger stated that he believed that the intent was for new residential properties. Councilmember Leger MOVED to change the criteria in the ordinance to 1,000 square feet. Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). Councilmember Leger referred to Ordinance Section 6.09(D)(4) on Page 11 and asked how this would be managed and whether this would be over -burdensome (detection, reporting, resolution of dead plants). Mr. Rodgers commented that staff raised a similar concern when single-family homes were added to the list. In response to Vice Mayor Kehe, Mr. McGuire stated that previous discussions relative this issue dealt with the burden of proof. The bottom line was that they had decided to treat this issue as they treat all legal non- conforming uses. The burden of proof would be on the person that was going to be asserting a defense; they would have to show that the plant was in existence and healthy prior to the time limit. He agreed that it was an administrative burden and there would be enforcement issues regardless of how the ordinance was implemented. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that enforcement would occur on a complaint driven basis; placing the burden of proof on the homeowners; the fact that the ordinance would be new and they would learn more as time progresses; the fact that most homeowners would typically replace trees/plants once they die and not wait an entire year; the fact that if a fruit tree died, the owner would have the option of replacing it within a year, removing it completely and not replacing it or, if the year had passed, replacing it with an approved plant/tree and the fact that if this portion of the ordinance proves burdensome, it would most likely be removed/amended in the future. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 9 of 20 Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the main motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #17 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-60, AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING. BUILDING AND ENGINEERING FEES FOR THE TOWN TO INCLUDE FEES RELATING TO THE LOW WATER USE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE HIRING OF AN ADDITIONAL 1.5 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE THE REQUIREMENTS. Planning and Zoning Administrator Richard Turner addressed the Council relative to this agenda item. He stated that there were several significant changes to the Town's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances in process — the Saguaro Cactus Preservation Regulations, which would be on the Council's agenda in two weeks, the Architectural Design Review Guidelines, which were on the agenda later this evening and the Low -Water Landscaping Regulations, which the Council just approved. Each of the regulations would require an increase in employees' workloads and in order to meet this need, staff recommended converting a part-time Planning Technician position to a full-time Planning position and creating an additional full-time position in Code Enforcement. There would be no cost to the General Fund as a result of the changes since the increase in personnel costs would be made up for by fees charged in the Plan Review process. Mr. Turner stated that this topic was discussed at the September 12`h Work Study Session. A flat fee of $420.00 was recommended for the review and approval of landscape plans. Staff was also recommending a refundable deposit of $2,500.00 for the installation of landscaping for new home construction if occupancy was required prior to the installation of the landscaping. With the additional plans that would need to be reviewed due to the new regulations, staff estimates that .61 FTE of a Planner would be needed to maintain the current level of service. Three -tenths of an FTE of the .61 would be due to the low-water landscaping regulations and the need to review landscaping plans and inspect the properties and 0.6 of the FTE of the .61 would be due to the need to do site plans in conjunction with the Architectural Design Review Standards and .25 FTE of the .61 would be attributable to the Saguaro Cactus regulation. Since the Town already had a half-time Planning Technician position, staff was proposing to upgrade that to a full-time Planner position in order to meet their needs. Mr. Turner informed the Council that staff had also estimated a need for additional resources in Code Enforcement due to the new Low -Water Landscaping regulations and in order to determine those needs, staff discussed enforcement issues with the three large local HOAs in Town. Based on those discussions, staff estimated the anticipated annual number of new zoning violation cases from new and existing homes and multiplied that number by the time it took to process a zoning violation. They arrived at a total number of hours needed and that translated to a total of 1.5 FTEs in Code Enforcement but staff was requesting one FTE and the position would not be filled until and unless the need materialized. Code Enforcement current provides a very high level of service and their pro -activeness results in 70% of their caseload. An increase in workload based on citizen driven complaints would result in a reduction in pro -active enforcement. At the levels being projected, with the FTE, the pro -active caseload would be cut in half from 1,680 cases a year to 856 cases a year. Mr. Turner advised that in conclusion, three new ordinance amendments would increase staff's workload. To maintain current service levels, an increase in FTEs would be necessary and staff recommends that an existing half-time Planning Technician position be converted to a regular full-time Planner position and that a new Code Enforcement position be authorized. The latter position would only be filled if and when the volume of zoning violations warrants it (when the Town reaches an annual increase of 600 cases over the current level). Mr. Turner recommended approval of Resolution 2006-60. Councilmember Dickey MOVED to approve Resolution 2006-60 and Vice Mayor Kehe SECONDED the motion. ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 10 of 20 Councilmember Schlum stated the opinion that the Planner position was justified and noted that they also have some State Trust Land that was going to be developed at some point and they would have to "ramp up" to meet those needs as well. He asked whether they had discussed a way for private industry to help the Town address some of the ordinances that they were looking to institute in a manner whereby if they hire someone to provide an architectural stamp or have someone in place who was trained and had expertise in this area, they could stamp the plan in advance and certify that the plans meet the guidelines of the Town (rather than charge them an additional fee for Town staff to conduct this work). Mr. Turner replied that staff did not discuss that particular issue but at the Work Study Session they did discuss staff's recommendation relative to hiring a landscape architect but that suggestion had been reconsidered and staff was going to get some training for the new positions so that they would be able to evaluate the plans and conduct the inspections. Councilmember Schlum also discussed the $2,500 refundable deposit and said that he would prefer to lower that amount to $1,000 so that the fee did not become overly burdensome. He also commented on the staff requirements contained in the Resolution and stated that he was not comfortable approving future staffing in advance of determining a real need. Instead of keeping that in the current Resolution, he would rather address it in a future Resolution when they have a better understanding of the need if it was ahead of a budget period. Councilmember Dickey asked what the ramifications would be of approving a position and noted that it did not necessarily mean that the position had to be filled. Town Manager Tim Pickering replied that there was no "downside" to approving the position and added that Mr. Turner had also suggested that more criteria be added. He reported that approximately 800 service calls were typically received in a year for a Code Enforcement Officer and added that Mr. Turner was suggesting that they possibly place criteria in the Ordinance to say that when they hit 600 calls, then the position would be authorized. This would address the concern of authorizing a position for which the work never materializes. If the call volume did not increase to 600 service calls, then the position would never be authorized or filled. Councilmember Schlum advised that he did have some concerns with the justification, comparing their level of enforcement to that of an HOA and not knowing what the HOAs do (their regulations and CC&Rs). He said that he doubts they would allow a plant to remain dead for a year before doing anything about it. He added that he would not like the Town to act in the same manner as a HOA. He pointed out that people move into HOA communities because they like that but said that not everyone likes that. He expressed the opinion that they should not hire an employee based on a fairly certain need because they were responsible for the Town's spending and budget and so they should first determine that a need exists. He said that he would be open to hiring another employee in the future when the need became evident. The enforcement of the ordinances was going to be a "ramped up" process and the Town would not get hit all at once and in view of the fact that staff was going to receive additional training, he believes they would be able to handle the situation for a period of time. Mr. Pickering responded that staff did not know what the exact "ramp up" time was going to be and said staff believed it would actually take a Code Enforcement Officer and a half to do the job but requested only one. They do not want to "ramp up" Town staff any more than they had to and they had kept staffing levels very low. He suggested that the Council modify the Resolution to include the added criteria so that when they were at 75% of what a full-time Code Enforcement Officer typically handled, then they knew they needed additional help. He added that if that never happens, there would not be any authority in place to hire anyone. He noted that it would not be fair to ask existing staff to take on the extra workload with no hope for any relief. He said that he believed it would be appropriate to do this in conjunction with the laws that were causing the overload (to have a correlation between what they were passing and the staff levels that they have). Councilmember Schlum expressed appreciation for staff's planning efforts. He added the opinion that current staff would not feel that the Council would pass an Ordinance and not be sensitive to the possibility of over- ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 11 of 20 burdening them. They could come back with a revised Resolution at any time prior to the budget and request funds for additional staffing. He added the opinion that the Council would be amenable to that once a demonstrated need existed. He said that rather than include criteria, he would prefer to have discussion about the matter if and when the need arose. Councilmember Leger stated the opinion that Mr. Turner had made a very good case but added that the criteria that staff benchmarked against HOAs was significantly more stringent than the Town's. He proposed an amendment to the Resolution that would basically authorize that the second part of the Resolution authorizing the .5 FTE for a Planner to implement the low-water Ordinance. Mayor Nichols questioned if Councilmember Leger's intention was to change the Ordinance to deal just with the .5 FTE at this point in time. Councilmember Leger that concurred with what he had in mind. Councilmember Schlum suggested that they could just cross out "and enforce" in both paragraphs to accomplish the goal. Councilmember Leger agreed and said that it would state, "and authorize the hiring of an additional .5 FTE." He added that he would also like to put the word "Planner" in there for implementation. Councilmember Leger stated that this would be his motion. Councilmember Schlum SECONDED the motion. In response to a request from the Mayor, Ms. Bender read the proposed amendment as follows, "Councilmember Leger MOVED to authorize the .5 FTE for the Planner position for implementation of the ordinance." Councilmember Dickey asked whether they could approve the amendment and then discuss the fees; she was told that they could do that. Ms. Bender advised that one citizen wished to address the Council regarding this agenda item. Bob Deppe, 16247 N. Boulder, addressed the Council and said that he was a member of the Neighborhood Property Ownership Association (NPOA) and expressed the opinion that if the Council proceeds in this manner, they would create an administrative bureaucracy. He stated that he did not object to Ordinance 06-19 and added that NPOA governs over half the Town and some commercial properties had their own landscaping rules. They require a certain number of trees, bushes, etc. in front of the property but do not get involved in anything in the back of the properties because they believe that would be intruding on the privacy of the individual homeowners. They also recommend low-water plants but do not require them. They tell the builders the requirements when the building permits were approved and they do not require a landscaping plan because if a homeowner submits a plan that would not be implemented for a year and half, that plan would change drastically during that period of time. Builders of spec homes typically allow potential homebuyers to decide what they want to do in this area. Landscaping typically goes in after the house was built. Their rules were enforced upon final inspection, which includes having landscaping in the front yard and they do not experience any problems but if some arise, the owners were required to make changes and fines were issued for not following guidelines. If changes were not made, they had the option of placing a lien on the house or taking the owner to court and the homeowner or builder pays for all the legal fees. He urged the Council to adopt a plan similar to NPOA's. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. Deppe for his input. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the amended motion. The motion CARRIED by majority vote (5-1) with Councilmember McMahan voting Nay. Mayor Nichols advised that the half-time Planner position had been approved. Councilmember Schlum MOVED that a modification be made to the Table (Exhibit A) to change the $2,500 refundable deposit to a $1,000 refundable deposit. Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Z:\Council Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 12 of 20 Vice Mayor Kehe asked what the average cost of a home in Fountain Hills was at the current time and Ms. Zanon replied that Scottsdale Magazine had recently asked questions about Fountain Hills. The price point quoted was based on resale not rebuild and stated the opinion that the average home price was approximately $540,000 with a housing price range from $300,000 to $3.5 million. Vice Mayor Kehe commented that the purpose of the $2,500 refundable deposit was to ensure that the landscaping would be done and applies to people who want to move into their homes before the landscaping had been completed. The monies were to be returned to the people once the landscaping was in. He pointed out that there were very few homes in Town that could be purchased for $300,000 and questioned whether a refundable deposit in the amount of $2,500 should be considered "a deal breaker." Mayor Nichols concurred with the Vice Mayor and said that he would not support the amendment. Mr. Rodgers confirmed that the refundable deposit would only apply to new homes. Councilmember Schlum asked whether the Town had other ways in which to address work that was not done in a timely manner. Mayor Nichols noted that the deposit would also apply to remodels. Councilmember Schlum stated that owners might not want to landscape their entire yards at once and he questioned holding back a larger amount of their money longer than necessary if they wanted to do their backyards in a year or so. He reiterated that the amount appears to be burdensome. Councilmember Dickey and Councilmember McMahan concurred with Councilmember Schlum's comments. Councilmember Leger commented that if someone was constructing a new home and the intent was to complete the landscaping prior to occupancy, they would not have to put a deposit down. Mr. Rodgers concurred and Councilmember Leger stated the opinion that this point needs to be taken into consideration Councilmember Schlum pointed out that oftentimes people put off putting in their pools and backyard landscaping and suggested that the Council consider a refundable deposit in the amount of $1,250. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the amended motion. The motion FAILED for lack of a majority vote (3-3) with Mayor Nichols, Vice Mayor Kehe and Councilmember Leger voting Nay. Mayor Nichols advised that the refundable deposit would remain at $2,500. Discussion ensued relative to the fact that the fees would be collected on a gradual basis but would eventually cover the staffing costs; the fact that the fees would be placed in the General Fund and staff would monitor the amount of calls received and come back before the Council (hopefully before the Budget Session); Councilmember Dickey's commented that this was all planning for the eventual hiring of an enforcement person, the fact that the costs would be covered, and her support for such an option when needed; the fact that should it be determined that no additional staff was needed, additional revenue would be generated; staff's response to Mr. Deppe's comments and justification for the additional enforcement staffing; the fact that enforcement was the single most active responsibility of the HOAs surveyed by staff (Eagle Mountain, North Heights and Sunridge Canyon), and the fact that when citizens call in complaints, staff must respond. Vice Mayor Kehe stated that one of the things that always bothered him in light of determining the need for personnel, was when they say they were going to do it later on, they really don't know what the conditions were going to be six months down the road and perhaps it would not be that easy to get a person at that time. He said that he was hearing a fairly strong plea from the Town Manager and would therefore like to "float" an amendment and receive input from the members of the Council. ZACouncil Packets\2006\1212-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 13 of 20 Vice Mayor Kehe MOVED for the purpose of discussion that the Council authorize the position (full time Code Enforcement Officer) and base the filling of that position on reaching a workload level that exceeds 75% of the current workload. The Vice Mayor stated the opinion that the motion represents a reasonable compromise and requested comments from the other members. Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire advised that one amendment had been moved and passed, one amendment was moved and failed and no vote had been taken on the main motion. Councilmember Schlum commented that the first calls (complaints) from residents probably go to their HOAs rather than to the Town because their regulations were probably stricter. He added that it was hard to determine how many calls they would get and although as a Council they were open to making funds available where there was a need, he did not believe they were there yet. Mayor Nichols stated that the amendment currently on the floor did not authorize the filling of that position until there was a need. He said that he supports the amendment and stressed the importance of giving the Town Manager and staff the equipment to carry out their jobs. He added that the Council should not micro -manage staff s jobs. He noted that the fee schedule gave them enough money to do it so they were not adding any cost to the Town. Councilmember Dickey clarified that the only difference between this and what was on their agenda and recommended was that instead of taking the 600 figure into consideration, they were saying that in order to fill the position it's going to be 75% of their current workload. Mr. Pickering commented that staff actually put it into the Resolution, it was not in the Resolution, there were no criteria and now they were actually adding criteria that would say with 600 service calls, which constitutes 75% of a normal full-time position, they would be authorized to fill the new position. Councilmember Leger stated the opinion that the Council would not be "hand tying staff' by now moving in that direction and added that he believed this was "un-chartered water." He commented on his extensive background in the HOA area and expressed the opinion that there would not be a lot of changes occurring once they got beyond the planning stage (95% of the land was desert landscaping). He expressed the opinion that Code Enforcement would not be that significant in this regard because there were already so many layers built into the process. He said that the common sense thing to do was to approach it. They were coming into a budget season and there would be an opportunity at that time to take a look at this issue. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the amended motion. The motion FAILED for lack of a majority vote (3-3) with Councilmembers Schlum, Leger and McMahan voting Nay. The Mayor then called for a vote on the main motion. Mr. McGuire clarified that Resolution 2006-60 had only been amended once and that was in two places in the Resolution, one in the recital and one in Section 2 that strikes the 1 from 1.5, leaving it at a .5 full time equivalent and they have inserted the word "planner." The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 14 of 20 AGENDA ITEM #18 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2006-59, _DECLARING THE "COMMERCIAL/MULTI-FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES" A PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Pickering advised that this issue was also the result of the Town's Strategic Plan. Mr. McGuire stated that there would be a single presentation followed by consideration of the Resolution that declares the Guidelines to be a public record. The Council would then move on to the public hearing on the actual ordinance that adopted the public record and then the Ordinance itself. Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and said that the Strategic Plan identified the creation of architectural design controls and possibly a Board as a priority goal. The Town Council directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to create a subcommittee to study the topic and make recommendations on the formation of a design review board and regulations. The Commission's Chairman appointed and headed the subcommittee. When conducting the research, the subcommittee looked at other municipal ordinances in Arizona and elsewhere and referenced a number of professional publications published by the American Planning Association. The subcommittee met weekly from May through July of this year and conducted additional extensive research. They came up with a number of recommendations and findings including the fact that a separate design review board would be an unnecessary step in the approval process. They determined that the Planning and Zoning Commission currently conducts site plan reviews and the design review process could be integrated into that process. Discussion ensued relative to streamlining and associated time and cost savings; the importance of creating an ordinance that did not stifle creativity; the fact that the ordinance should be functional, easy to use and encourage applicants to provide outdoor amenities and public art; the fact that an ordinance was drafted to specifically address architectural review in commercial, industrial and multi -family developments in Town; the fact that the proposed ordinance created a new Chapter 19 with seven major sections; the various sections being proposed in the proposed ordinance; the subcommittee completed their work and approved the proposed ordinance currently before the Council at their July 5"' meeting; the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed ordinance on September 28`h of this year and voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Council. Mr. Rodgers added that staff also recommended approval of the proposed ordinance as presented. Mayor Nichols called for a motion on Ordinance 2006-59. Councilmember Schlum MOVED to approve Ordinance 2006-59 and Councilmember Leger SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #19 — PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 06-23, ON A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT CHAPTER 19 — COMMERCIAL/MULTI-FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS IF ADOPTED, THE AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE ALL NEW PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT OR EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR MULTI -FAMILY PROPERTY TO BE REVIEWED AGAINST THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES. CASE #Z2006-06. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 8:20 p.m. Town Clerk Bev Bender advised that two citizens wished to address the Council relative to this agenda item. Jerry Butler, representing SPAC, addressed the Council and said that staff provided a very accurate presentation on the matter. He noted that the group's goal was not to add constraint to the architectural creativity bur rather ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 15 of 20 to establish some parameters by which the commercial projects could be judged by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He added that on behalf of the Town's Strategic Planning Advisory Commission he expressed support for the proposed ordinance and the opinion that it fulfilled the intent of what the citizens were looking for during the 2005 Strategic Planning process. He emphasized the short amount of time that the group had been in existence and their significant accomplishments to date. Dave Montgomery, 16716 E. Parkview Avenue, addressed the Council and requested clarification and specifics relative to various issues including enforcement, submittal requirements, site plans, public art, requirements for color and other portions of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rodgers responded to Mr. Montgomery's comments and advised that the submittals would be done during the concept plan or the special use permit process for commercial, industrial and multi -family projects. He noted that the definition of multi -family projects was five units or more. He said that there was no dollar amount or limit in the ordinance and explained that it was designed for new construction but did speak to a certain amount of remodeling and if citizens were going to remodel, they would be asked to follow the guidelines. They would only have to go before the Planning Commission if a special use permit was involved; they would not have to go through the concept plan again. Town staff did not define public art; the ordinance specifically stated that it would be forwarded to the Fountain Hills Cultural Council to make recommendations. The value amount was based on 1% of the project cost and that was done through the Town's standard permit estimating process. Mr. McGuire stated that it was important to note some of the subtleties in the language and pointed out that the ordinance stated that applicants were encouraged to meet with the Fountain Hills Cultural Council, there was no requirement to do so. If the applicant wants to place art on the property, the definition of what that art was would be up to the applicant. The Cultural Council was referred to in the ordinance in case the applicant wants a good reference point, some indication of what their direction was from the Town. He added that in 10.02(c) where it talks about whether remodeling was included, the last half of the sentence states that the projects would conform to the guidelines to the extent practical given the nature and extent of the alteration. The entire ordinance was drafted in a "we would like to see you do these types of revisions" language, not as a mandatory requirement for each and every provision. They understood that commercial guidelines were going to require some pretty substantial improvements in some cases and they wanted to provide some level of flexibility. Mr. Rodgers stated that the color palette would be provided by the developer for the Board to review and it would be reviewed in keeping with the area it was going to placed, not a color palette dictated by the Town. There were no additional citizens wishing to speak on this item and the Mayor thanked the speakers for their comments. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing closed at 8:28 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #20 — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-23, ON A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT CHAPTER 19 — COMMERCIAL/MULTI-FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS IF ADOPTED, THE AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE ALL NEW PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT OR EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR MULTI -FAMILY PROPERTY TO BE REVIEWED AGAINST THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES. CASE #Z2006-06. Councilmember Dickey MOVED to approve Ordinance 06-23 and Councilmember Schlum SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Schlum stated that he was not clear on the public art portion of the ordinance and how they might require organizations to spend a certain amount of money within a specific time period on a certain use. He noted that the ordinance contains guidelines not requirements and expressed concerns regarding consistency and the possibility of misunderstandings. He added that the proposed ordinance contains a lot of direction that ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 16 of 20 should help developers and provide direction as to what the Town would like to see generally. He referred to provisions contained in Section 3 for violations resulting in misdemeanors and questioned how guidelines that were not well defined could result in the assessment of misdemeanors. Mr. McGuire responded that the reference to the Class 1 misdemeanor was in reference to the general penalty provision in the Zoning Ordinance. Whenever they adopt by reference, as they did in this case, they were required to set forth whatever penalties might be applicable. The interpretation of Chapter 19 was what it was and its purpose and intent were to set up guidelines as a reference to the architectural standards that were going to be sought after from this point forward. The guideline nature of the document was not changed by the general penalty provision that already exists in the Zoning Ordinance. He emphasized that the ordinance contains guidelines rather than regulations and the intent was to monitor this new area and move towards regulations in the future if they were deemed necessary. The lack of specificity was intentional in this case. In response to a question from Councilmember Schlum, Mr. McGuire advised that a penalty could be assessed for violations of the more definitive requirements such as the items that must be done prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. He added that they really would not get to that point because if the criteria were not met in such a case, a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued. Discussion ensued relative to the use of the words "shall" and "should" in the proposed ordinance and the fact that the former represents a requirement and the latter represents an option; the fact that the ordinance leans towards flexibility for the applicant rather than the Town; the fact that the ordinance refers to low reflectivity (19.06[d] - avoid highly reflective materials) and did not contain an actual index; the fact that HOAs had a reflectivity chart in place; the fact that the placement of an actual index in the ordinance might be cumbersome and discouraging because each project would be unique, and the fact that currently someone who wants to construct a building that would contain art was not subject to any review or judgment. Councilmember McMahan expressed concerns regarding the provision for public art and stated the opinion that developers should not be required to pay for public art. He asked why this was included in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rodgers responded that during the research phase it was determined that Scottsdale did this and the proposed language was very similar to the language contained in Scottsdale's ordinance but they lowered the percentage to 1 %. Councilmember McMahan reiterated his concerns and said that he did not believe that contributing to public art should be developers' responsibility. Councilmember Schlum referred to Section 19.02(b) and asked whether they should put a "ramp up" period in place. Mr. Rodgers replied that such a period was not necessary because the work would be done during the concept phase and would already be in process and if they were not already in process once the ordinance was adopted, they would fall under it as well. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the motion. The motion CARRIED by majority vote with Councilmember McMahan voting Nay (5-1). AGENDA ITEM #21 — PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 06-26, A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO REVISE CHAPTERS 9, 10, 11 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS. THE AMENDMENTS WILL CLARIFY THAT LOT SALES AND THE SALE OF COUNTRY CLUB MEMBERSHIPS ARE ALLOWED USES IN A "MASTER -PLAN VILLAGE SALES AND INFORMATION CENTER" BUT THE RESALE OF LOTS IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE. CASE #Z2006-05. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 8:40 p.m. Planning and Zoning Administrator Richard Turner addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and advised that the amendments would change the Zoning Ordinance by clarifying what could be sold at a Master- Z:\Council Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 17 of 20 Planned Village Sales and Information Center. Specifically, the requested changes would clarify that lot sales and the sale of country club memberships were allowed uses but the resale of lots was not an allowed use. In June of this year, the Board of Adjustment granted an appeal of an interpretation made by the Planning and Zoning Administrator regarding the activities permitted by a Temporary Use Permit for a Master -Planned Village Sales and Information Center. In essence, the Board rules that it was permissible to sell country club memberships as a primary use with this type of permit. Following the vote on the motion to grant the appeal and in answer to a question regarding implementation of the Board's decision, the Chairman indicated that the approval of the appeal did not include the resale of lots. Other members of the Board who had supported the motion granting the appeal concurred with the Chairman's comments regarding the inability to resell lots. On October 26, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Turner stated that it was important for the Town to amend the Zoning Ordinance to clarify provisions regarding the sale of lots, the resale of lots and the sale of country club memberships at a Master -Planned Village Sales and Information Center. With the annexation of the State Trust Land, there might be future implications for a temporary use permit for this type of use and therefore the language in the Zoning Ordinance should be revised to better reflect the purpose and intention of the Town. Mr. Turner discussed the proposed changes and said that the first change adds "the sale of lots" as a primary purpose for a Master -Planned Village Sales and Information Center (MPVS&IC). Nowhere in the sections of the Zoning Ordinance that relates to this use was the sale of lots mentioned. This was a significant omission that needs to be corrected. Second, "the resale of lots" was included as a use specifically prohibited in a MPVS&IC. This activity was better suited for a real estate office. The exclusive privilege that was granted a developer to sell the lots he had created in a larger master planned community should not be extended beyond the initial sale. To do so would unfairly bestow an advantage to the developer not granted to others in the business of selling real estate. Finally, the sale of country club memberships was proposed to be included as a permitted accessory use. Master planned communities were not created with the primary purpose of selling country club memberships. They were created to sell lots. The sale of country club memberships was justifiably a secondary purpose or use. Mr. Turner recommended that the proposed changes to Chapters 9, 10 and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, Z2006- 05 and Ordinance 06-26 be approved. There were no citizens wishing to speak on this item and the Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 8:43 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #22 - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 06-26, A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO REVISE CHAPTERS 9 10 11 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS. THE AMENDMENTS WILL CLARIFY THAT LOT SALES AND THE SALE OF COUNTRY CLUB MEMBERSHIPS ARE ALLOWED USES IN A "MASTER -PLAN VILLAGE SALES AND INFORMATION CENTER" BUT THE RESALE OF LOTS IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE. CASE #Z2006-05. Councilmember Schlum MOVED to approve Ordinance 06-26 and Councilmember Leger SECONDED the motion. Discussion ensued relative to primary and secondary uses; the fact a secondary purpose could not be done without the primary use. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #23 - PUBLIC HEARING OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR "COYOTE CORNER," A MIXED -USE PROTECT WITH RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE Z:\Council Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 18 of 20 COMMON COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 15006 N. IVORY DRIVE, AKA PLAT 106, LOT 29. CASE #SU2006-07. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 8:46 p.m. Temporary Planner Greg Marek addressed the Council relative to this agenda item. He stated that the Council was being requested to allow residential uses in the Common Commercial Zoning District along with retail at the ground floor. He noted that the proposed Special Use Permit request was for two residential units above five retails spaces on a 7,981 square -foot lot. He noted that allowable lot coverage in the C-C Zoning District was up to 100% and this development was at 77% or 6,145 square feet. The commercial spaces range from 519 square feet to 709 square feet in size, totaling 2,977 square feet and the two residential units were 1,613 square feet and 1,463 square feet in size. Four parking spaces were provided for the residential units were in an enclosed garage. Parking for the commercial uses was in the common parking lot. The maximum height of the building was 24 feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the concept plan and approval of the Special Use Permit. Staff also recommends approval of the request. Ms. Bender advised that one citizen wished to address the Council relative to this item. Rebecca Ellison, 15115A N. Ivory Drive, a homeowner who lives across the street from the proposed project and expressed concerns relative to the proposed mixed use, public safety (traffic congestion), neighborhood aesthetics (height of the building) and parking. She requested that the Council not approve this issue until further study was conducted. Mr. Marek responded to the concerns expressed by Ms. Ellison and discussion ensued relative to the various components of this case. There being no additional citizens wish to speak on this item, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 8:55 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #24 — CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR "COYOTE CORNER," A MIXED USE PROTECT WITH RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE COMMON COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 15006 IVORY DRIVE, AKA PLAT 106, LOT 29. CASE #SU2006-07. Councilmember Schlum MOVED to approve the Special Use Permit for Coyote Corner and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present (6-0). AGENDA ITEM #25 — COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION TO THE TOWN MANAGER. None. ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE RELATED ONLY TO THE PROPRIETY OF 0) PLACING SUCH ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR (ii) DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT FURTHER RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL: A. NONE AGENDA ITEM #26 — SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER. None. AGENDA ITEM #27 — ADJOURNMENT. Z:\Council Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 19 of 20 Councilmember Dickey MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Mc Mahan SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTA HILLS By Wally ichols, ayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: Bevelyn J. jfenkr, 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 7th day of December 2006. 1 further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 215L day of December 2006. �w A& ? Bevelyn4Jen , Town Clerk ZACouncil Packets\2006\R12-21-06\12-07-06 Regular and executive session minutes.doc Page 20 of 20