Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.0419.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE AND REGULAR SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL April 19,2007 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL AND VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ROLL CALL—Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Nichols, Councilmember Kehe, Councilmember Leger, Vice Mayor McMahan, Councilmember Schlum, Councilmember Archambault and Councilmember Dickey. VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION-Pursuant to§38-431.03(A)(4). For discussion or consultation with the attorneys of the public body in order to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public body's position regarding contracts that are the subject of negotiations, in pending or contemplated litigation or in settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve litigation. (Specifically, the Lukenda lawsuit.) Councilmember Jay Schlum MOVED that the Council enter into an Executive Session and Councilmember Ed Kehe SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). Councilmember Ed Kehe MOVED to adjourn the Executive Session and return to the Regular Session and Councilmember Councilmember Jay Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION • CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. • INVOCATION—Ms. Susan Ducot,Baha'i Faith Community ROLL CALL—Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Nichols, Councilmember Kehe, Councilmember Leger, Vice Mayor McMahan, Councilmember Schlum, Councilmember Archambault and Councilmember Dickey. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Town Manager Tim Pickering, and Recording Secretary Janice Baxter were also present. Mayor Nichols announced that some people were informed that the Council was going to be discussing access to the McDowell Mountains this evening and stated that that item will be on the agenda of the May 3r1 meeting and would not be addressed tonight. • MAYOR'S REPORT (i) Recognition of the Eggstravaganza and Movie in the Park sponsors. Mayor Nichols, on behalf of himself, the members of the Council, Town staff and the residents of Fountain Hills, recognized the contribution that the Goyenas and the MCO Realty team have made as a result of their z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 1 of 13 sponsorship of the 2007 Eggstravaganza held on Saturday, March 31St. He noted that this wonderful tradition began many years ago and the event is currently held at Golden Eagle Park. He added that it consists of over 12,000 plastic eggs stuffed with candy and toys and said that the event continues to be an exciting time for both children and adults. He asked the sponsors to come forward, presented them with Certificates of Appreciation, plaques and commemorative Fountain Hills' pins and thanked them for their continuing contribution to the entire community. Mayor Nichols also expressed appreciation to the sponsors of Movies in the Park and requested that representatives of MCO Properties come forward and be recognized. The Mayor presented Jeremy Hall, Steve Vargo, and Natalie Varela with Certificates of Appreciation, plaques and commemorative Fountain Hills' pins and thanked them for their contribution to the Town. He added that the MCO team is an integral part of the fabric of the Town (ii) Recognition of outgoing Planning and Zoning Commissioner Michael Downes. Mayor Nichols recognized outgoing Planning and Zoning Commissioner Michael Downes and read the contents of a plaque presented to him in appreciation for his many hours of hard work and dedicated service. He said that Michael took the job very seriously and did an outstanding job. The Mayor also presented him with a commemorative Fountain Hills' pin. Mr. Downes stated that it was an honor and a privilege to serve as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Nichols announced that Agenda Items 8 and 9, the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit for golf ball fencing/net has been withdrawn by the applicant. He said that the applicant is applying a type of siding on his home and no longer needs the netting. (iii) Presentation by Rich Amalfi with Aquatics Consulting regarding Fountain Lake. Director of Parks & Recreation Mark Mayer addressed the Council relative to this agenda item. Mr. Mayer advised that staff had been working with Dr. Amalfi for several years. He noted that it became clear that a number of the remedial measures taken over the last couple of years that included the introduction of certain chemicals into the lake to control midge fly problems as well as increasing the aeration to the lake had gone a long ways towards solving the issues the Town had been experiencing (midge flies and odors). This last summer some of the algae problems resurfaced and they experienced problems with fish dying in the lake as well. It became clear that without spending some additional funds and utilizing Dr. Amalfi's services on a more pro-active basis,the Town was likely to experience similar problems again this year. Mr. Mayer stated that Dr. Amalfi was involved more this year in a pro-active approach to the management of the lake, which includes his visits to the lake on a more regular basis, monitoring the water quality of the lake and, should the Town experience problems, there are funds set aside in the budget request for additional treatment to the lake. He noted that Dr. Amalfi is highly regarded in his field. He said that Dr. Amalfi will highlight a ten-minute presentation this evening(a copy of which is on file in the office of the Town Clerk). Dr. Amalfi addressed the Council and presented a brief overview of the challenges the Town faces as lake managers when reclaimed water is used. He presented a brief background information on himself,his company, and their expertise in this field. He explained why Fountain Lake develops algae(green color in the water),how nitrogen phosphorous gets into a lake and said that most of it comes from the reclaimed water itself. Dr. Amalfi highlighted his presentation for the members of the Council and discussed the benefits of utilizing reclaimed water (turning a waste into a resource); the fact that reclaimed water is very cost effective; the fact that algae can be controlled with chemicals called algaecides that when properly utilized, ensure that other lake organisms are not negatively impacted; costs associated with algaecide treatments/labor; the fact that the z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 2 of 13 • treatments lose their effectiveness if constantly repeated; if too much algae is killed off, the food chain becomes altered, which results in stunted fish that cannot do their jobs; too much algae dying at one time results in bacteria decomposing too quickly, odors and fish kills; various species of fish that exist in the lake for different purposes; the fact that odors occur when the wind blows and there are accumulations of algae in the down-wind coves, decomposing organic matter and some dead fish; current and future steps to control the odor such as oxidizers that chemically destroy odors, operating the Fountain(aerator) and an additional aeration system in the lake that is designed to move water from the bottom of the lake to the top in a vertical mixing pattern. Dr. Amalfi advised that the strategy for the coming year, which can be modified based on their level of success, is to utilize algaecides to keep growth to a minimum. They also plan to operate the aeration systems and utilize chemical additions if odors occur; keep the fish stocked to avoid nuisance insects and aquatic weeds and use supplemental larvicides if any problems develop. The final component is a monitoring program that will begin this year to assist in proactively responding to issues. Vice Mayor McMahan commented that the Town has been experiencing some odors lately and asked whether more aerators are needed. Dr. Amalfi stated that he would get together with staff, look at some specs and determine whether the right amount of air is going through the aerators. He added that the high winds the Town experienced last week appeared to have shifted some of the aerators(far closer to shore) and said that they could be shifted back into place. He said that an entire perimeter treatment occurred yesterday (with algaecide and peroxide) and he heard that the lake looked pretty good today as a result of that action. Vice Mayor McMahan noted that the Town usually experienced problems as they moved into the summer months due to extended sunlight and asked whether there was a way to solve that. Dr. Amalfi responded that they needed to continue to be proactive and"head off"problems in this area. In response to a question from Councilmember Kehe, Dr. Amalfi stated that the more frequent use of the Fountain would mix the water but added that it would also blow things to the shoreline, along with the Nate prevailing winds. He stated the opinion that the current operational pattern was good and said that when they had had some odors he asked whether the Fountain could be operated longer (more hours into the night). He added that this was always an option but there was a cost involved. He noted that they never wanted to treat the entire lake at one time with chemicals because too much algae could die and they would suffer oxygen loss in the lake. He said that they did it a section at a time, or administered a perimeter treatment, to avoid such problems. Councilmember Dickey asked whether Indian Bend Wash utilized reclaimed water and Dr. Amalfi said that it did not but they got a lot of runoff that went into the streams. Councilmember Dickey questioned whether the turf at the Fountain was fertilized and was told that it was. She said that they used the reclaimed water for irrigation and noted that they were talking about a lot of fertilizer,especially in light of the runoff situation. Don Clark addressed the Council and said that they do fertilize Fountain Park. He added that lately they had not been doing very much but once the new irrigation system went in, they would be doing more fertilizing than in the past and some of the runoff would end up in the lake. He advised that they fertilized two to three times a year at the Park to minimize the effect on the lake. Councilmember Archambault commented that they were challenged due to the fact that the lake was very shallow and Dr. Amalfi agreed. He said that because of the shallowness, the sun warmed up the water during the summer months and created challenges. Councilmember Dickey stated that at the Department of Environment Quality, the Water Quality Division also works with Dr. Amalfi. She added that the purpose behind the issuance of permits by DEQ for certain activities was to protect the public health and the environment. She noted that nitrogen and phosphorous did not pose the kind of a threat that requires over-regulation by the agency. z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 3 of 13 • Councilmember Leger thanked Dr. Amalfi for his presentation and said that a majority of the emails he receives at home are about the lake. He recommended to the Town Manager that Mr. Amalfi's presentation be run periodically on Channel 11 for the benefit and education of the citizens on this issue. He spoke in support of pro-activeness in this area. Mayor Nichols also thanked Dr. Amalfi for his efforts and for developing a "people friendly" presentation relative to this issue. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. CONSENT AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 5,2007. AGENDA ITEM#2 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PREMISE PATIO PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MERITA KRAYA (EURO PIZZA CAFÉ') FOR MAY 5, 2007, FROM 6 P.M. TO 10 P.M., LOCATED AT 12645 N. SAGUARO BOULEVARD. THIS TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PREMISE/PATIO PERMIT WILL BE UTLIZED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CINCO DE MAYO DANCE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE EVENTS THE COUNCIL APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 1,2007, (TEMPORARY USE PERMIT#TU2007-01) ISSUED TO THE PLAZA FOUNTAINSIDE MERCHANTS). AGENDA ITEM #3 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RURAL METRO CORPORATION AND THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS TO ADD SECOND siii) AMBULANCE AT NO COST. AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2007-15, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN THE CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 602C, BOOK 3, LOT 37 (15744 E. THISTLE DRIVE) AS RECORDED IN BOOK 166 OF MAPS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,ARIZONA. (EA07-04—PALMER.) AGENDA ITEM#5 — CONSIDERATION OF A REPLAT OF FOUNTAIN HILLS PLAT 706 ENTITLED "REDROCK BUSINESS CENTER," LOCATED AT 17100 EAST SHEA BOULEVARD. CASE#S2006-20. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to approve the consent agenda items as listed and Vice Mayor McMahan SECONDED the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Vice Mayor McMahan Aye Councilmember Kehe Aye Councilmember Dickey Aye Councilmember Leger Aye Councilmember Archambault Aye Councilmember Schlum Aye Mayor Nichols Aye The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 4 of 13 ACTION AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #6 — PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR "AQUATICS UNLIMITED," A SWIM SCHOOL IN A R1-8 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED 17362 E. CALAVERAS AVENUE,AKA PLAT 107,BLOCK 6,LOT 4. CASE#TU2007-05. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 7:04 p.m. Planner Eugene Slechta addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and said that the request was for a Temporary Use Permit to conduct a seasonal swim school, Aquatics Unlimited, in a residential neighborhood (R1-8 Single-family residential zoning district located at 17362 E. Calaveras Avenue). He noted that the swim school typically operates on a seasonal basis, April through September, with sessions and private lessons occurring during the daylight hours on Mondays through Saturdays (exact hours are included in the Staff Report). The location is in the northeast section of the Town, the fourth house from the corner and down the block is the Four Peaks School,the Boys and Girls Club, and the Park. Mr. Slechta noted that the Council was aware of the fact that the Temporary Use Permit(TUP) requires that the nature of the TEP be mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property and that it be posted. The advertisement period is for ten calendar days and if no written objections are received, the permit becomes effective the next day after Council approval and becomes a staff responsibility. He noted that one objection was received and therefore it was necessary for the Town Council to hear the request. He said that the packets contained a copy of the letter objecting to the use and said that concerns included noise and the presence of many parked cars on the street both day and night. The individual in opposition also found the six days of operation to be unacceptable. Mr. Slechta referred to aerials of the property showing access and said that there was fencing that kept the children within a small portion of the property. He noted that Sue Mackie has owned and operated the swim cop, school at this location since 1994 and almost all of the students were youths from the community. Last year, it was brought to the attention of the Council that the existing Zoning Ordinance did not allow the operation of a swim school out of a residence. The Town Council directed staff to research courses of action to resolve the issue. Staff proposed the use of a TUP with several stringent criteria, which in the Ordinance is referred to as "Minimum Standards." Since a similar approach exists for other business types in residentially zoned districts, there was precedence and a logical approach for the Town. On March 1st of this year, the Council approved Ordinance 07-2, which among other things added swim schools as a use permitted with a TUP in a residential area. The revision included minimum standards for the business to follow to help maintain the residential character of the neighborhood and also addressed safety. Section 10.03.E of the Zoning Ordinance is the heart of the swim school verbiage and spells out the minimum standards a school must meet (outlined in the Staff Report as well as how the applicant plans to meet those standards). Mr. Slechta stated that the standards address the overriding concerns of safety and maintaining the residential character of the area. Above those standards, the applicant had taken on additional measures — no evening sessions beyond 7:00 p.m. and most finish earlier; on Fridays and Saturdays one-on-one sessions are conducted; the applicant has spoken with the School Superintendent at Four Peaks and received approval to use their parking lot to ensure that cars are not parked on the street in front of the homes on the block and she has also talked to neighbors about using other driveways in the neighborhood to park cars. In addition, Ms. Mackie is working with her customers to schedule sessions in an effort to encourage car pooling. Mr. Slechta noted that the packet contains a copy of a recent correspondence from the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department indicating that Aquatics Unlimited is required to meet their conditions of special use as a semi-public pool. Ms. Mackie has begun dialogue to comply. He said that Aquatics Unlimited works hard to keep students restricted to the limited area and has installed additional fencing to this end. He referred to Chapter 2 of the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance and stated that, "the Town Council shall determine if a Temporary Use Permit is to be granted based upon its judgment as to whether the specified conditions have z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 5 of 13 been met or will be met and whether such use can be compatible with the neighborhood and area where it is located." He stated that staff recommended that the Council approve the TUP as outlined in the report with the following conditions: (1)That the approval of the TUP be for a period of two years,which is the maximum, and (2) that approval must be obtained from the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department prior to the effective date. Mr. Slechta indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council and said that the applicant was in the audience should they have any questions for her as well. In response to a question from the Mayor, Ms. Baxter advised that there were five citizens wishing to address the Council relative to this issue. The Mayor requested that the speakers come forward as their names were called and present their remarks. Marilyn Buettner, 17437 E. Tejon Drive, said that she had lived near Aquatics Unlimited for approximately eleven years and her children had attended the swim school for about ten years. She stated that the needs and benefits of the children's safety and welfare had been addressed at previous meetings and added that she would like to discuss the traffic and noise issues at this time. Ms. Buettner assured the Council that the facility and its operation were surprisingly quiet for the number of children involved. She stated the opinion that they would be hard pressed to find any other environment with that many youths present that was so quiet. She added that the facility was not being run as an entertainment or "fun factory" type of situation; it was a serious swim school and the children had to be well disciplined. She noted that Ms. Mackie expects a great deal from the youths and they were there to learn to swim, not to use the facility as a playground. Ms. Buettner also discussed traffic related to the business and stated that the amount of traffic the neighborhood experiences from Four Peaks School, the Boys and Girls Club, and the soccer fields was much greater than any traffic that occurred as a result of the swim school. She commented on the fact that the time frame in which the school was utilized was quite short in comparison to the school year and was staggered. For the most part the youths were there when school is out. She stated the opinion that traffic was not much of an issue and requested that the Council consider granting the requested permit. Linda Jupstrom, 17359 Calaveras Avenue, also spoke in support of the issuance of the TUP and said that she NI) lived across the street from Ms. Mackie. She read a letter from neighbors who could not attend the meeting, dated April 15, 2007, as follows: "To the Fountain Hills Councilmembers: In reference to the Council hearing on Sue Mackie's swim school, we are neighbors of Sue Mackie, directly in back and one house over. In the ten years that we have lived in Fountain Hills, we have never encountered any problems with her swim school. Sue's school is operated during daylight hours and we have never been bothered by excessive noise or loud music. In fact, we have always considered Sue's swim school to be of great benefit to the Fountain Hills community. More of a problem we feel is the neighbor to the east of Sue with the late night pool parties, loud music and loud voices going on until close to midnight and after, obviously with no consideration of others." She stated that the letter is signed by Gordon and Kathy Davis, 17317 E. Valloroso Drive. She added that on behalf of herself and the neighbors on both sides of her, Bonnie and Bryan Lettie and Steve Ingram, they concurred with the comments made in the letter from Gordon and Kathy Davis. Ms. Jupstrom added that she was happy to be Sue's neighbor and she was extremely proud of her choice in starting and maintaining her business. She was dedicated to teaching the children this valuable skill and should be commended for her contributions to the community. She noted that there were no public facilities in Town that provided this much needed service and questioned where the children of Fountain Hills would learn this life-saving skill should the school be forced to close. Ms. Jupstrom requested that the Council approve the applicant's TUP as requested. Kathleen Andrews, Monterey Drive, also spoke in support of Aquatics Unlimited. She said that the merits of the swim school had been articulated in great detail in letters to the Town and newspaper and were also confirmed at the Town Council meeting last November by the number of individuals who packed the room in support of the swim school. She noted that not one single person at the meeting spoke in opposition. She said NI that for more than twelve years not one single person complained about Aquatics Unlimited and now one neighbor had done so. The Town had carefully considered the issue and had worked to strike a balance between z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 6 of 13 the right of a private property owner to the quiet use of his property and the public benefit of operating the swim school. Based upon the Town's suggestion, as evidenced this evening, Ms. Mackie had made significant Lie concessions in an effort to keep her business open. However, one neighbor continued to take issue with the traffic and the noise. She said that noise was clearly subjective and could present problems in any neighborhood. Ms. Andrews added that for the past two summers she sat in Ms. Mackie's backyard two days a week for thirty minutes a day while her daughter took swim lessons and advised that at no time was the noise from the swim school greater than that of any family swimming or talking in their own backyard. She discussed the noise generated as a result of soccer practices held several nights a week at Four Peaks as well as playground noise generated at the elementary school. She stated that no one was saying that soccer practice or recess should be stopped and added that the public benefit of continuing to operate the swim school certainly outweighed the uncorroborated opinion of a single home owner. She said that parents of students at the school were willing to park in the Four Peaks parking lot and walk to the lessons. She expressed the opinion that in this instance the rights of a single property owner should not outweigh the needs of hundreds of families and requested that the Council approve the TUP. Sue Mackie, 17362 E. Calaveras Avenue, the applicant in this case, thanked Richard Turner and Gene Slechta for all of their efforts to date. She said that everything had already been said, the Council knows the facts and she has resided at that address for over twenty years. She added that for twelve of the thirteen years the school had been in business, Town had licensed the facility and allowed her to successfully conduct her swim program. She reported that one of the traffic studies that Mr. Slechta shared with her stated that during the winter months there were in excess of 250 cars during the week and over that amount on the weekends, a far cry from the small amount of traffic that existed during the summer months. She pointed out that Mayor Nichols said earlier that it was all about the kids and agreed. She discussed the importance of taking care of those youths, being their champion and teaching them how to be safe and prevent drownings. She discussed the recent tragic child drownings in Mesa and said that she would hate to have Fountain Hills join in those statistics and was proud that those statistics did not exist to date. Ms. Mackie commented on the concessions she agreed to in order to remain in operation and said that she was working closely with Tim Hurst from Maricopa County to ensure that her facility operated within their guidelines. She added that she felt strongly that the members of the Council would once again make the right decision that would reflect the interests of the entire community. Dr. Steve Feyrer-Melk, 11814 N. Vista Del Oro, advised that he was the PTO President of the Fountain Hills Charter School and spoke to numerous children and parents on a daily basis. He discussed the positive atmosphere that exists in Fountain Hills and stated that there was one thing missing—swimming instruction. He noted that their options in this area were very limited and the summer season was fast approaching and they needed to get their children into some type of a swimming program. He said that Ms. Mackie had done an excellent job over the years and added that he hoped the Council would make the best decision for the community and allow her business to continue to operate and provide a much need service. Mayor Nichols thanked all of the speakers for their input. There being no additional citizens wishing to speak,the Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 7:27 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR "AQUATICS UNLIMITED," A SWIM SCHOOL IN A R1-8 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 17362 E. CALAVERAS AVENUE,AKA PLAT 107,BLOCK 6,LOT 4. CASE#TU2007-05. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to approve the Temporary Use Permit for Aquatics Unlimited and Councilmember Leger SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 7 of 13 AGENDA ITEM#8—PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUESTING A GOLF BALL FENCE/NET TO BE LOCATED AT 10437 E. NICKLAUS DRIVE, AKA PLAT 402B,BLOCK 2,LOT 7. CASE#SU2007-03. ,41) THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. AGENDA ITEM #9 — CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUESTING A GOLF BALL FENCE/NET TO BE LOCATED AT 10437 E.NICKLAUS DRIVE,AKA PLAT 401B,BLOCK 21 LOT 7. CASE#SU2007-03. THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT AGENDA ITEM#10—PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON RESOLUTION 2007-14,A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICAL GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE MAP FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS. CASE#GPA 2007-01. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 7:30 p.m. Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item. He stated that the General Plan serves as the Town's "blueprint"for future development and growth. It depicts the vision, goals, and objectives of the community and systematically examines existing conditions and their implications for the future. The Town of Fountain Hills General Plan, adopted June 20, 2002, fulfills the State of Arizona's Growing Smarter legislation. According to State law, the General Plan must include a land use element that "designates the proposed general distribution and location and extent of such uses of the land for housing, business, industry, agriculture, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, open space and other categories of public and private uses of land as may be appropriate to the municipality." He noted that the adopted General Plan fulfills this requirement through the incorporation of Exhibit 4, the "Land Use Map," which is a graphic display of the land use classification appropriate in Town. Noir Mr. Rodgers advised that the subject property was designated with the land use category of "Multi- Family/Medium" in the approved 1998 Firerock Country Club Area Specific Plan. The plan was adopted by Resolution 1997-62 in April of 1998 by the Town Council. When the Town adopted the 2002 General Plan, it erroneously amended this privately owned parcel of land from the pre-existing land use designation to "Park." The re-designation of private property to an open space or "Park" category requires that the Town receive written consent from the property owners. Staff reviewed the Town records and could find no evidence that permission was granted for the re-designation and in fact had received a letter from the property owner stating that the permission was never granted and requesting that the property designation be reverted back to its original designation. Staff believes that the property was unintentionally designated as a "Park" and that the Land Use Map should be corrected to reflect the designation prior to the adoption of the 2002 General Plan. Mr. Rodgers noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted at their March 22, 2007, meeting to forward a recommendation to approve this Minor General Plan Amendment. Staff recommends that the Town Council amend the Town's 2002 General Plan Land Use Map to correct the erroneous land use classification. Mayor Nichols asked whether there were any citizens wishing to speak at this time and requested that they come forward as their names are called. Mark and Kathleen Starling addressed the Council and stated that they own a lot in the Firerock community at 9847 N. Four Peaks Way. Ms. Starling advised that they were present to express their concern regarding MCO's request to have the Firerock property on which the temporary sales information center is located amended from its present designation as "Open Space or Park" to "Multi-Family" on the Town's General Plan. She noted that MCO Properties had made it quite clear to property owners that they saw this as a pathway to rezoning the property as commercial and said that that was unacceptable. She added that they were here to z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 8 of 13 request that the proposed amendment be tabled until a later date,until such time as all Firerock homeowners and Country Club members, some of whom live outside of the Firerock community and the State, had been notified L. of MCO's intent regarding the rezoning and disposition of this open space property. She stated that some of the homeowners only heard about the plan at last evening's homeowners' meeting. She added that MCO wants to replace the temporary sales and information office with a real estate office to resell Firerock homes and properties, remarket Firerock Country Club memberships, and sell other properties within the Fountain Hills Township. Ms. Starling noted that Firerock homeowners were assured by MCO Properties last year that once all of the Firerock lots were sold, the temporary sales and information office would become a recreational tennis facility. Many homeowners and other residents bought memberships and even homes based on this expectation and now feel that MCO had broken its good faith agreements. In addition, Firerock homeowners have major concerns that rezoning this land to commercial property will increase traffic; jeopardize the value of their homes, and ultimately the integrity and character of the entire community. Historically, the Planning and Zoning Commission had worked to protect the open space concept in Fountain Hills. She requested that a motion on this agenda item be tabled. There being no additional citizens wishing to speak on this agenda item, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 7:35 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #11 — CONSIDERTION OF RESOLUTION 2007-14, A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE MAP FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS. CASE#GPA 2007-01. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to approve Resolution 2007-14 and Vice Mayor McMahan SECONDED the motion. Nor Councilmember Archambault clarified that this property had never been rezoned "Open Space" and Mr. Rodgers concurred. Councilmember Archambault stated that this action was just to correct a mistake on the Town's General Plan designation. Mr. Rodgers stated that the action before the Council was to simply change the General Plan designation from "Park" back to "Multi-Family," which was the original designation that was erroneously changed. He confirmed that the land had always been"Multi-Family" or M-1. In response to a question from the Mayor, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated that when the Growing Smarter initiative was passed in 2002, there were a number of amendments to the General Plan's statutes in the State and one of them was to include a number of the different elements in the General Plan. One of the changes allowed communities to allow open space whenever desirable within the community. During the 2002 General Plan Amendment adopted by the Town, a number of areas were designated as open space on the plan. The problem with that designation was that the Statute also requires that none of those areas be re-designated as open space or parks such as in this category, without the consent of the land owners. About a year and a half ago, staff went back and "cleaned up" a number of the provisions that were erroneously done and turned them back to what they should have been if the map had been correct in the first place. This one was missed because in the existing conditions map, the old map on the General Plan, this was shown as park land but that was erroneous based upon the Firerock General Plan adopted several years earlier. He emphasized that they were not making any change to the land use;the land use was improperly designated on the 2002 amendment map. Mayor Nichols thanked Mr. McGuire for his clarification and called for a vote on the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). LirAGENDA ITEM #12 — PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ORDINANCE 07-04, AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.09 — WALLS & FENCES, OF THE ZONING z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 9 of 13 ORDINANCE. IF ADOPTED, THE AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THAT BOTH SIDES OF WALLS AND FENCES BE PAINTED,STUCCOED,OR OTHERWISE FINISHED. CASE#Z2007-01. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 7:40 p.m. Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item. Mr. Rodgers stated that the Zoning Ordinance currently requires that fences and walls be maintained in "good repair" and be of "conventional design." This ordinance revision clarifies what is necessary to meet these requirements. Staff received a complaint regarding a highly visible, unpainted block wall. They researched the issue and drafted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would facilitate the Town requiring that fences and/or walls be finished. He noted that the amendment would require that both sides of walls or fences be painted, stuccoed, or otherwise given a decorative face. The proposed revision does not assign responsibility for this because the current typical situation allows each neighbor to paint their respective side of a fence or wall. Mr. Rodgers added that there were situations in which there might not be a direct neighbor, such as in the case of a property backing up to a wash, park, or other open space. In such cases, the property owner erecting the fence or wall would be held responsible for ensuring that both sides of the wall or fence were finished with paint, stucco, decorative block, or another process approved by the Zoning Administrator. He noted that staff had investigated and resolved the current complaint and the wall had been voluntarily painted by its owner. He added that staff also did a field survey of properties around Town and found four additional walls that were in need of maintenance of the type that would be addressed by this proposed ordinance. (He referred to slides depicting such fences/walls). Mr. Rodgers advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2007, and voted to forward a recommendation to approve revisions to the Walls &Fence section of the Zoning Ordinance as presented. He added that staff recommends that the Town Council vote to approve the proposed zoning amendment as outlined in the Staff Report. Ms. Baxter advised that there was one citizen wishing to speak on this agenda item Bob Deppe, 16247 N. Boulder Drive, said that he was a member of the Board of NPOA and said that their rules for fifteen years or longer have required that walls be stuccoed and painted to match the house or to whatever is attached. He added that they also did not allow fences that were made of wood or plastic. He requested that cinder block walls be stuccoed and painted to match for aesthetic and long-term maintenance reasons. There being no additional citizens wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 7:44 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#13—CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 07-04,AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.09 — WALLS & FENCES, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IF ADOPTED, THE AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THAT BOTH SIDES OF WALLS AND FENCES BE PAINTED STUCCOED,OR OTHERWISE FINISHED. CASE#Z2007-01. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to approve Ordinance 07-04 and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Archambault asked Mr. Deppe who would be responsible to have the work done if the wall backed up to the property line, backed up to the neighbor behind, the person behind him or the person erecting the fence? Mr. Deppe said that his understanding from the Ordinance was that while residents were required to build walls on their own property unless granted permission by the neighbor, if a neighbor wanted to paint his side of the wall that would be agreeable, otherwise,the person erecting the wall would have to paint both sides. Councilmember Archambault commented that without any neighbors in place, it would be the responsibility of ,416) the person erecting the wall to paint both sides. z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 nunutes.doc Page 10 of 13 Councilmember Kehe asked Mr. Rodgers to comment on Mr. Deppe's suggestion that the walls be stuccoed as well as painted. Mr. Rodgers replied that the Town was not trying to supercede HOA requirements in any of the lase areas. If a HOA required a wall to be stuccoed in their own community,then that requirement would have to be met by the homeowners. Staff did not intend for the ordinance to take the place of a HOA; they were merely dealing with areas not covered under HOAs. Councilmember Kehe said that it was a good environmental policy in terms of appearance to have a stuccoed wall rather than simply a painted cinder block. He asked what staff's stand was on this for areas without HOAs. Mr. Pickering agreed that the walls would look much better if they were stuccoed and painted. Mayor Nichols commented that they were talking about new construction and not existing walls and Mr. Rodgers concurred. He added that although not required for existing structures, staff would probably try to "coax"people into cleaning up existing walls. Councilmember Kehe, for purposes of discussion, MOVED that both sides of the walls be stuccoed and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Dickey stated that she was not sure that the inside of the wall would have to be stuccoed (the one that faces the house itself)but she seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Councilmember Schlum noted that sometimes neighbors build walls right next to one another and asked if there was a provision for this occurring. Mr. Rodgers responded that the proposed amendments did not include a provision for this instance. He said that they would assume that the side not painted/stuccoed would not be visible when they backed closely up to one another. Councilmember Schlum stated that he would not be comfortable requiring that the inside part of a wall be painted but agreed that the outside was a different story. Councilmember Archambault commented that most of the homes in Town fall under an HOA and he did not know many people who would not paint the inside of their wall. He added that he always erred on the side of caution and did not want to place too many restrictions on residents and start taking rights away. He agreed with staff that at least painting the walls would make them more appealing than doing nothing at all. Mr. Rodgers responded to a question from Councilmember Archambault and stated that if a neighbor was going to erect a stuccoed wall, he would be required to stucco both sides of the wall. Councilmember Archambault stated that in that case, he did not see that they needed to go down the road of determining whether that particular person had to stucco his wall; he might have a block design that he would like better that he'd like to paint. He stated the opinion that they were starting to tread too much on citizens' rights and he would steer away from voting for this amendment. Mr. Pickering clarified that decorative block alone would be allowed. Staff would change the Ordinance to state paint and stucco or decorative block. Councilmember Archambault said that he had seen different types of fence blocks, aside from the decorative block, that had been used in an artistic way. He added that that should be a person's preference and they should have the right to choose their type of wall. Mayor Nichols restated the amendment and said that Councilmember Kehe was calling for both sides of the walls to be stuccoed. Councilmember Kehe agreed and said that as Mr. Pickering pointed out, the owners could also use a type of decorative block that would not have to be stuccoed or painted. He said that this raised the question on the whole amendment. z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 11 of 13 v Councilmember Leger stated that the original motion allowed the use of decorative block; it was not an either/or. He added that Mr. Deppe raised a good point and stuccoed walls were typically more attractive in neighborhoods. He said that when they looked at the community, there were currently not many violations and the ones they did have were addressed by adding paint. He stated that most HOAs would have more stringent requirements and agreed with Councilmember Archambault relative to not overstepping their boundaries. Councilmember Kehe WITHDREW his amendment to the motion. Councilmember Dickey MOVED to amend the language recommended by staff and instead of saying "both sides" of any wall, it would say "the exterior" of any wall or fence must be finished using either paint, stucco, decorative block or any similar process or finish approved by the Zoning Administrator. Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the amendment. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). Mayor Nichols asked whether the Ordinance contains language that allows HOAs with more stringent regulations to continue to enforce them. Mr. Rodgers replied that the language in the Ordinance would not supersede HOA regulations. If the HOA's regulations were more stringent,the homeowners would actually have to abide by both. Councilmember Leger referred to the original motion and stated that he had concerns regarding the statement in the staff report that read, "The provision's revisions do not assign responsibility for this because the current typical situation allows each neighbor to paint their respective side of a fence or a wall." He noted that Mr. Rodgers stated earlier that walls could not be built on property lines and Mr. Rodgers confirmed that if an owner wanted to build a wall, that wall must be constructed on the owner's property. It could be built on a property line or over the edge if permission was granted by the neighbor(it could be up to the property line). Councilmember Leger commented that in the case of someone building a wall, although responsibility was not being assigned, it would be the individual requiring the permit who would be responsible for stuccoing or painting the outside of the wall. Mr. Rodgers confirmed that the property owner would ultimately be held responsible for that action. Councilmember Leger expressed the opinion that it might be important to include that because responsibility was not clearly stated. Mr. Rodgers advised that in such a situation, a condition of the building permit would be that both sides of the fence or wall be finished. He added that the Zoning Administrator would have the ability to deal with any problems that arise. He said that he believed the language was well written and allowed staff to work with those kinds of issues as they arose. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the main motion. The motion CARRIED by majority vote (6-1) with Vice Mayor McMahan voting Nay. AGENDA ITEM#14—QUARTERLY UPDATE BY THE TOWN MANAGER ON THE PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTING THE COUNCIL'S FY2006-07 GOALS. Mr. Pickering advised that the members of the Council had been provided copies of a report outlining the goals and said that for the most part they were almost complete on five of the goals and fairly far along in working with the schools as well as creating the pedestrian safety plan and improving the business community. He added that the rest of the goals (low water landscaping, enforcement of the General Plan, the first phase of the long- term revenue gap, the architectural review board and annexation of the State Trust Land) were essentially „„) complete. He indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council. z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 12 of 13 Members of the Council commended Mr.Pickering on his success to date. AGENDA ITEM #15 — DISCUSSION WITH POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE LUKENDA HOLDINGS LITIGATION. Councilmember Archambault MOVED that they proceed as recommended by Appellate Counsel and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. There was no discussion on this agenda item and the Mayor called for a vote on the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). AGENDA ITEM#16—SUMMARY OF COUNCIL REQUESTS BY TOWN MANAGER. Mr. Pickering stated that he would try to separate Dr. Amalfi's presentation and have it as a separate presentation that could be shown periodically on Channel 11. He added that staff would redo the wall ordinance to reflect the Council's decision this evening. AGENDA ITEM #17 - 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: A. NONE AGENDA ITEM#18—ADJOURNMENT. Vice Mayor McMahan MOVED that the Council adjourn and Councilmember Schlum SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). The eting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. TOWN 0 HILLS By Wally Nic Is,Mayor ATTEST AND REPARED BY: ice Baxter, Recording Secretary 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 19th day of April 2007. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 3rd day of May 2007. nice Baxter,Recording Secretary z:\council packets\2007\r5-3-07\04-19-07 minutes.doc Page 13 of 13 j j