Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008.0515.TCREM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE AND REGULAR SESSION OF THE Coo. FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL May 15,2008 Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #1 — ROLL CALL AND VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION: PURSUANT TO A.R.S. §38-431.03.A(1) FOR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT, APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, DEMOTION, DISMISSAL, SALARIES DISCIPLINING OR RESIGNATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICER, APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY PUBLIC BODY, EXCEPT THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SALARY DISCUSSIONS, AN 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, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF INTERVIEWING); AND (ii) 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,(a) REGARDING ACCESS TO THE FOUNTAIN HILLS MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN PRESERVE, AND (b) THE FORMER STATE TRUST LAND PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.) ROLL CALL—Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Nichols, Councilmember Kehe, Councilmember Leger, Councilmember McMahan, Councilmember Schlum, Councilmember Archambault and Vice Mayor Dickey. Interim Town Manager Kate Zanon, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. Councilmember Leger MOVED to convene the Executive Session at 5:04 p.m. and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Councilmember McMahan MOVED to adjourn the Executive Session at 6:10 p.m. and Councilmember Leger SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). AGENDA ITEM#2—RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION * CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. * INVOCATION—Pastor Ewen Holmes,Fountain Hills Presbyterian Church * ROLL CALL Present for roll call were the following members of the City Council: Mayor Nichols, Councilmember Kehe, Councilmember Leger, Councilmember McMahan, Councilmember Schlum, Councilmember Archambault and Vice Mayor Dickey. Interim Town Manager Kate Zanon, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present. z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 1 of 35 • The Mayor expressed his appreciation to the Council and said that he would wear the watch with pride. Councilmember Archambault stated that it had been a pleasure working with the Mayor. Councilmember Leger noted that this meeting would also be Councilmember Kehe's final meeting and presented him, on behalf of the Council, with a watch. He said that the wording inscribed on the inside of the watch states, "To Ed Kehe for your integrity, wisdom, character in our natural world and your respect for it. Thank you." Councilmember Kehe thanked the Council for the gift. Mayor Nichols expressed appreciation to all of the members of the Council and said that this was a sad night for him and he would miss the Council meetings. The Mayor added that it had been a wonderful privilege to work with the Council and commented on the fact that time and time again he had heard that Fountain Hills was one of the few municipalities that enjoyed a functional Council. He said that although the members had not always agreed on issues, they had dealt with all of them in a professional, respectful manner and for this he was extremely grateful. Councilmember Kehe commented that it had been an honor and a privilege to serve on the Council and he would miss all of the members. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Sharon Morgan addressed the Council and said that on behalf of the Sister Cities organization she would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Mayor Nichols and the Council for their support of all of the Sister Cities' projects. She advised that a natural disaster had recently occurred in El Salvador and within a week and a half the citizens of this Town had donated$13,500 to help the people impacted by this tragedy. j She added that on the last trip, the organization had brought with them 2,000 toothbrushes, 1,500 tubes of toothpaste, etc. to distribute to all of the children in Ataco. She reiterated her appreciation to the Mayor for all of his efforts. Ms. Morgan also invited Mayor-Elect Schlum and the other members of the Council to accompany the organization on their next trip to Ataco (at their personal expense). Mayor Nichols expressed appreciation to Ms.Morgan for her comments. CONSENT AGENDA AGENDA ITEM #1 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 29 AND MAY 1,2008. AGENDA ITEM #2 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING A LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DANIEL LEVATO (DANIEL'S PLACE) LOCATED AT 16726 E. EL PUEBLO BOULEVARD,#B,FOUNTAIN HILLS,AZ. THIS IS FOR A SERIES 12—RESTAURANT LICENSE. AGENDA ITEM #3 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING RESOLUTION 2008-23, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF PROJECTS FOR GRANT FUNDING FROM THE 2009 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN FOR EXTRICATION EQUIPMENT FOR HIGHWAY USE. AGENDA ITEM #4 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING RESOLUTION 2008-26, ABANDONING WHATEVER RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THE TOWN HAS IN THE CERTAIN UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF PLAT 401B, z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 3 of 35 • density development in the residential area had increased by 121 acres; the amount of single-family medium density had been reduced by 201 acres; there had been a reduction in dwelling units (down to 1,350); there were Le 78 additional acres of open space land use; traffic circulation and proposed plans to address connections to the existing neighborhoods to improve emergency response times and circulation of traffic; the addition of a new north/south collector at the west end of the site and the fact that there would be less traffic to Boulder because of the additional open space being provided in that area, and traffic studies that were conducted in connection with this proposal. Town Engineer Randy Harrel addressed the Council and stated that there were several off-site stipulations being proposed, several having to do with traffic analysis and a traffic signal and stop as well as off-site improvements. He noted that the off-site stipulations had to do with Public Works' infrastructure requirements. In response to a request from Councilmember Leger, Mr. Harrel outlined the off-site stipulations associated with infrastructure improvements and noted that they included the widening of the pavement and right-of-way width for Richwood Avenue on the property; widening Ivory Drive to a minor collector if needed based on the traffic design for the adjacent commercial parcel; provide a limited collector or local road widths instead of hillside road widths at several of the entrances, including Parcels 8 and 13 at Fountain Hills Boulevard if appropriate based on the traffic analysis at the time of the platting of those; widen new roads intersecting with Fountain Hills Boulevard to allow separate left turn and right turn movements and widen the departure lane and bike lanes as appropriate; put in a traffic signal, interconnect conduit and fiber optic cables to interconnect with any public facilities up there; irrigate public roadway medians and extend sidewalks past the edge of the property to the nearest block. He added that there were other stipulations related to Public Works development improvements included in the agreement (several stipulations regarding pavement (50%) for traffic signals if they were determined to be warranted at several locations at the north end of Fountain Hills Boulevard and at Golden Eagle and Palisades Boulevard; requiring the developer to participate 25% in the cost of turn pockets in the two lane section of Fountain Hills Boulevard between Palisades and almost down to Shea; requiring the developer to L. participate in 50% of the cost of several box culvert structures on the north end of the property, including El Pueblo at Caliente Wash and Fountain Hills Boulevard at Oxford Wash; an effluent stipulation and several other off-site trail and wildlife corridor improvement stipulations). Councilmember McMahan noted that the biggest objection he had heard at the P&Z's public hearings had to do with traffic flow into the old Boulder area (Boulder & Richwood) and said that he had proposed a collector street C, going down Boulder past Richwood and into Bluejay, which would feed into wide Glenbrook Boulevard. He requested input on this suggestion. Mr. Harrel responded that he had looked at the recommended option and determined that the grades would not allow a feasible roadway (very steep roadway and high cuts and fills). Councilmember Kehe commented on the work to be done on Fountain Hills Boulevard between Palisades & Shea and said that over time discussion had taken place relative to widening Fountain Hills Boulevard in the vicinity of Cholla and asked if that was still a possibility. Mr. Harrel stated that some of the work was included in the long-range CIP (Capital Improvement Program) and expressed the opinion that it would be further out than the Ellman project or, if that was not the case, that the developer would participate in the project to the extent that they were required to in this agreement. Councilmember Kehe said that he was thinking of the Ellman Companies' participation in widening that road and added that while they were working on the General Plan Amendment it seemed to him that now would be the time to focus in on that. Mr. Harrel pointed out that their traffic impact on that roadway would be a very small percentage of the traffic utilization of a four-way median roadway (approximately 10%). He added that left and right turn pockets were probably what they needed to do in the near future and participation by Ellman was really about the level of their contribution to the traffic. Loy In response to a question from Councilmember Archambault relative to whether traffic studies had been conducted to determine the traffic that would be generated on Palisades going out to Shea Boulevard,Mr. Harrel z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 5 of 35 Ms. Riddel discussed the community park and said that they were proposing on the western side of the property immediately adjacent to the school a 19-acre community park. This did not take into consideration the eight acres of adjacent State Land located within the School District's control. It would include two lighted softball fields, a multi-purpose field/turf area; restroom concession; and office/storage building. She also discussed the ',tad 27-acre neighborhood park on the east and noted that they were proposing a shaded playground for children ages five and younger as well as one for children six years and older, two lighted tennis courts and one lighted basketball court(all based upon staff input and recommendations). Ms. Riddel commented on access to McDowell Mountain Park and said that they were certainly open to the potential for there to be some sort of trailhead or access into the Park. She also discussed density and reported that they were prepared this evening to reduce the proposed density by 100 units; they were prepared on two of the parcels to modify their application to change it from the R1-6 Zoning to R1-18 and to change to General Plan low (R1-18). They were also prepared to commit to an overall reduction of 400 dwelling units with the maximum number of dwelling units being 1,350. She added that accompanying the application this evening was a Pre-Annexation & Development Agreement, which ensured the Town and the Council that the reduction would occur, limited the density and allowed site plan approval on Parcels 8 and 9 (the ridge-top pieces) that were shown as R1-6. Their intention was to come in with a new courtyard product type that would have a much softer footprint on the hillside. She said this would not be straight R1-6; there would be an overlay that came in and they had also agreed to cap the number of units that could be constructed there as part of the Development Agreement and had agreed to process a site plan so they could show specifically what the product type would be for those parcels within five years. She noted that the Agreement also limited the hillside disturbance on each parcel and for the overall development and they had cut and fill requirements for the right-of-way consistent with how the Town had treated other applications. They recognized that each individual lot and parcel would have to come back for consideration if there were any further cuts and fills. Ms. Riddel summarized her presentation by stating that they had relocated the park to a more central and accessible location; they had relocated McDowell Mountain Road (and would call it Fountain Hills Boulevard) through the center of the community; they had dramatically increased the internal circulation for the project; they had increased the preservation of open space and decreased the density twice. She noted that they had received a unanimous recommendation for approval from the P&Z Commission as well as staff and requested approval of the proposal. Ms. Riddel indicated her willingness to respond to questions from the Council. In response to a question from Councilmember McMahan, Ms. Riddel noted that the plan before them did not show the internal traffic circulation. She said that they had committed to have a connection point going down that connected to Blue Jay and Pelican Drive. Mayor Nichols thanked Ms. Riddel for her presentation and said that they would now hear from the speakers. Joanne Hanson, 15538 E. Richwood Avenue, addressed the Council and said that the people in the Richwood/Boulder area of the Town were facing an invasion of traffic on their two-lane streets with very little traffic control from 1350 homes to be built as part of the Ellman project. She noted that there were 51 homes on Richwood alone and those people must back out of their driveways into the street. She said that she and her husband live on the steepest part of Richwood and had a blind curve marked "Hidden Driveways" and people speed up and down the hill endangering everyone. There were no sidewalks and the children wait on the street for school buses. People also walk their dogs and ride their horses and bicycles through this neighborhood. She questioned where they would widen Richwood and whose properties would be affected. She said that their neighborhoods were opposed to access from the Ellman development and requested that both Richwood and Boulder be closed off with cul-de-sacs. She added that to close one and not the other would still put traffic on both streets. She stated that they were counting on the Council to listen to their pleas and direct the Ellman group to adhere to a plan that would not impact the neighborhoods. Bob Deppe, 16247 N. Boulder Drive, addressed the Council and said that he had given the Town Clerk a copy of a packet to distribute to the Council. He noted that traffic studies predict that 3,929 vehicles would intersect z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 7 of 35 • new Ellman subdivision) and come out on Boulder because it flooded the bottom. She also said that people got lost up there and did not know where they were going. Cheri Robertson, 15925 E. Richwood, stated she lives three houses from Boulder at the end of the wash and addressed the Council. She said that the first home she had looked at in Fountain Hills to purchase was on El Pueblo and she told the realtor she did not want to live on that kind of street. Her fifth choice was on Richwood and although the house was smaller than she wanted, she loved the area and the streets. She said that the roads could not handle any more traffic and appealed to the Council to deny the application and support the residents' quality of life. Ed Wilson, 15820 N. Boulder Drive addressed the Council and expressed concerns relative to volume and speed of traffic in his neighborhood. He stated that the studies showed that there would be increased vehicle trips in the area(one every 15 seconds) during a 12-hour period and said that the traffic was already unacceptable in that area in terms of traffic and speed limit violations. He added that his wife and children enjoy landscaping and so they were in the front yard a lot, down by the road, and in terms of traffic and speeding a serious problem existed. People come down Boulder at 38 or 43 m.p.h. and if they see you at your mailbox, they veer into the oncoming lane because it feels uncomfortable to be so close at that high rate of speed and the view was very limited at that location (vehicles in the oncoming lane) and he had witnessed, during the six months he had lived there, almost five accidents. He expressed the opinion that staff and law enforcement personnel had been unable to control this serious speeding problem in the neighborhood and the same problem existed on Richwood. He added that it was irresponsible to simply add to the traffic load in this area given the fact that they already had a serious problem that was not under control. Evelyn Munn, 16222 N. Boulder(on the corner of N. Boulder and Richwood), addressed the Council and agreed with the comments of the previous speakers. She said that the neighbors had attended the meetings and were concerned. They live there and face a dilemma and a"hemorrhage" of traffic in the neighborhoods. She added that the issues being presented this evening were not selfish on their part; they were simply very concerned citizens who participate in the community and they wanted to give the Town a "heads up" because two years ago she and other neighbors wrote to this Council and to the Planning Commission about the very same issues the people from her neighborhood were talking about this evening. This was not a new issue. Boulder and Richwood was a "postage stamp" intersection and a major urban freeway interchange. She said that the Town should apply its own subdivision ordinance, which states, "In residential subdivisions, the road system shall be designed to serve the needs of the neighborhood and to discourage use by through vehicular traffic." She commented on the fact that Ellman's representative stated that they would not widen that part of Richwood but noted that they were keeping a narrow road narrow so that there could be more traffic, accidents and hazards for the neighborhood. She agreed with Councilmember Kehe's statement that "Development never pays for its way" and said that what they were talking tonight about was 25% of the cost of improvements, perhaps 50% towards the cost of the signal and stated that signals were expensive and the developer should bear the entire cost. Two letters were received and were made part of the Council's packet; one from Louise Ratchup, Joseph Ratchup, and Jeannette Coleman, with the other from John McNeill. Mayor Nichols thanked all of the speakers for their comments. The Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 8:09 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #6 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2008-25, A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS GENERAL PLAN 2002 TO REVISE LAND USE, RELOCATE A PARK SITE AND REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON 1,276 ACRES IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE TOWN. GPA 2008-01. z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 9 of 35 one or the other — a connection or no connection. He reiterated that both choices were acceptable to the developer. He stated the opinion that the stipulation that was being placed on the table this evening was one they could agree to — making no connection at all was quite acceptable. He clarified that all of his comments svii) relate to the Boulder connection. Councilmember Kehe requested that Mr. Kile also reflect on Richwood. Mr. Kile stated that from his perspective the situation on Richwood had a completely different argument. He said he believed that to be a meaningful connection and that traffic had been mitigated as a result of dialogue and concessions that had been made including taking Parcels 10 and 17 from R1-6 to R1-18. He added that whatever the traffic issues that were represented in the traffic study were at this point in time, they were significantly less on Richwood than they would have been under the existing plan that affected entitlements on the property right. He stated that it was a developable plan and he hoped it gets approved so that they could proceed forward with significantly less density. He expressed the opinion that the connection at Richwood and on all the points on the southern borders should be mandated. Councilmember Kehe asked Mr. Kile if he was in favor of a gate at Boulder for emergency services and Mr. Kile responded that representatives from emergency services should respond to that question. He added that he would argue in favor of no connection if the argument was that no emergency services needed to be able to bust through that zone. He said that he did not find it quite as complicated to drive up and down Boulder and he did not believe there was much of a benefit when emergency services were going to know right away that if they had to get to a parcel right there, they could come up Fountain Hills Boulevard and turn west and that brought them right into the community. He stated the opinion that it would be undesirable for emergency services traffic to make its way up Boulder and then head east into their parcel and he found this illogical. He recommended that the Boulder connection be completely terminated. Councilmember Schlum requested that Mr. Kile or one of his staff members speak to the anticipated impacts on the Boulder/Richwood area as they extend over to Golden Eagle. Mr. Kile replied that he believed the impact on Boulder would be zero and Councilmember Schlum clarified that he was looking for input on traffic impacts from the Boulder/Richwood intersection and then Boulder and Richwood extending outwards from the development. Mr. Kile stated that he would yield to Ms. Riddel on this matter. Ms. Riddel said that if they look at the Traffic Impact Study submitted with the application they would see that there was an increase in traffic shown on Boulder, south of Richwood, of 1,154 trips. She asked that they keep in mind that that number did not take into account the 100 units that were reduced today. She said that even at that greater number it continued to provide an acceptable level of service. She noted that additional traffic studies would be conducted to accompany site plans and platting further down the road and if mitigation was warranted, it would be provided. She commented that the number given was not the net difference and said that it was difficult to expand on the net difference because the original traffic study that accompanied the entitlement that was in place today (1,750 units) did not show what the impact on the traffic would be. She added that when they look at the overall density on the site, they were coming down by roughly 20%. She stated that their Traffic Engineer,Chuck Wright, would be happy to address the Council relative to this issue. Mr. Wright addressed the Council and said that a real quick comparison from the original plan of 1,750 units with a different street system and the volume of traffic that was assigned to Boulder south of Richwood went down by approximately 2,200 vehicles per day as compared to the 1,400 unit plan. In response to a question from Councilmember Archambault relative to traffic issues on Boulder and Richwood, Mr. Harrel stated that in response to a resident's concerns regarding traffic on Boulder he responded to her specific questions. He commented that staff did consider the Richwood connection to be of major importance for fire and police, public works maintenance and resident egress in emergency situations. He noted that some of the issues that were addressed in his memo included the fact that staff anticipated that when the Ellman project was connected at Richwood (and according to Ellman's plan, that would not happen until the third phase) due to the traffic shifting they would end up with an all-way stop at Boulder &Richwood, which would z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 11 of 35 0 Councilmember Archambault MOVED that another stipulation be added to the General Plan Amendment stating that the sidewalk from Boulder be completed all the way north to Richwood and turn and connect in to Low the Ellman property and Vice Mayor Dickey SECONDED the motion. Mayor Nichols clarified that the above motion was an amendment to the main motion. Ms. Riddel requested clarification as to the section the Council was talking about and added that it was also not clear whether the necessary amount of right-of-way was in place to do that. She suggested that they make that part of the consideration when they come back through with the traffic impact study and at that point in time, when they knew what their numbers were, when they knew what the actual development was going to be, it could be considered as a potential implication at that time. Councilmember Leger commented that he believed that earlier in the week he asked for an analysis of the width of Boulder south of Richwood as well as the right-of-ways. Interim Town Manager Kate Zanon stated that according to the document that was prepared, Boulder Drive south of Richwood has a 70-foot right-of-way and 36 feet of that was paved with asphalt at this time, leaving a remaining 34 feet. The document did not describe the distance from the Richwood connection on Boulder south to Golden Eagle but staff could provide that information. Councilmember Leger said that Councilmember Archambault's proposal was from Richwood not all the way to Golden Eagle and Ms. Riddel asked if they were talking about curb and gutter or just sidewalk for residents to walk on (the level of improvement). Councilmember Archambault clarified that they were only talking about sidewalks—the distance from Eagle Rock Drive down to Richwood. Vice Mayor Dickey asked how binding Ms. Riddel's suggestion would be and Mr. McGuire said that he was not sure that the traffic impact study in its current scope would include sidewalks. He asked if the traffic study today was proven not to be exactly as it is, whether the Council would want to have a sidewalk on the property regardless of what the study said. If a traffic engineer said "no" does the Council still want the sidewalk? He said that the Council has to ask themselves this question and then direct staff. He said the question was not whether the traffic study would show more or less traffic, it was given that whatever the numbers turned out to be, did they want to include the sidewalk in this area. The Vice Mayor commented that they had talked about sidewalks before and sometimes people did not want them. Ms. Riddel said that they were hearing some of those comments tonight as well and she did not know if they were for or against this but it was certainly something that the developer would be willing to consider. She requested that they be allowed to consider it as the development continues when they know exactly what was going to be there. Councilmember Leger advised that he attended the P&Z hearings on Monday and Tuesday, had listened to the discussion this evening and had received a tremendous amount of e-mails relative to this issue. He said that his "take away" from the P&Z meetings was that the neighborhood was extremely fragile when it came to existing traffic as well as pedestrian traffic. The line of logic they were following here,and it might be illogical, was that they were stepping back and saying in the event that this Council decided that the Richwood connection was going to happen, they were trying to look at what the neighborhood concerns were. The Council had asked the Town's Traffic Engineer to look at enhancing pedestrian and traffic safety in the neighborhood regardless of whether the Ellman thing happened or not and that was the exercise they were going through right now. He said that in walking through the neighborhoods, he determined that there were right-of-ways and the possibility existed for sidewalks. He added that he also asked Mr. Harrel to recommend some other ways to mitigate traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, actually discouraging traffic if in fact that connection went through and Mr. Harrel had mentioned speed humps. He said that he did not think that there was a pedestrian or traffic safety z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 13 of 35 enough time, those consequences could be life threatening. He stated that any time access was limited, a disservice to the community as a whole resulted. Vice Mayor Dickey commented that the amendment was about sidewalks but the reason they were continuing to Nail talk about this was because it related to safety. She asked Captain Kleinheinz his perspective on the problems that currently exist in the area under discussion, such as speeding. Captain Kleinheinz said it had been their findings that most of the situations in a neighborhood such as this that had speeding problems the speeding was typically done by the individuals who lived in the neighborhood. He advised that a motorcycle deputy has been up there on numerous occasions at different times of the day in an effort to try and get a gauge on the traffic flow to address some of the complaints and they were finding a"hit and miss"type of a situation. He added that they were looking at this one particular corner and he suggested that one way to mitigate the problem might be to put together a series of Block Watches and in conjunction with that another effort be expended to go out and educate the residents of that particular neighborhood on the dangers involved with speeding and taking advantage of their familiarity with the roads, which increased speeds. Councilmember Archambault stated that a little over a year ago they talked about a sidewalk plan and they just had a discussion about how that was one of the sidewalks that was planned to be put in. He said that his discussion this evening was more to mitigate the safety concerns of the residents relative to a sidewalk that was going to eventually be put in. He requested feedback on this and Mr. Harrel concurred with Councilmember Archambault's statement. Councilmember Leger said that one of the concerns he had today when he tried to visualize the proposed sidewalk was that it would disturb property, although he realized it was a right-of-way. He noted that there was a lot of landscaping in the area and walkways and in two cases there was actually a wall that came out across the right-of-way. He stated that he could understand why people were "pushing back" on the sidewalk idea because from their perspective it would disturb their property. He said in the event that a sidewalk went in as a function of this project or down the road, he would like to know how the Town would deal with that— who would bear the cost if a mailbox, landscaping, etc. had to be moved. Mr. Harrel responded that the plan had not yet been finalized but staff would be coming back to the Council with a proposal relative to what the Town should do and what the residents should do in such a case. He added that the issue of who would bear the costs would be determined. Councilmember Leger asked what has happened in other neighborhoods when they had gone on to people's property and Mr. Harrel said that in general the Town puts everything back when they were done. He added that obviously landscaping that was removed was simply removed and effort was expended to go around things and do minimal damage. Public Works Director Tom Ward stated that typically the Town paid the costs and noted that this year alone the Town had paid almost $250,000 for new sidewalks and that included landscaping, drainage and other elements connected with those, including utility boxes. Councilmember Kehe asked Mr.Ward if there was a process in place whereby citizens of a neighborhood could express whether or not they wanted sidewalks in the neighborhood. Mr. Ward advised that that was part of the process discussed on August 14th of last year. Staff was asked to look at a process in which staff would ask the neighborhood whether they really wanted a sidewalk or would rather live without one since they had lived there for a number of years and found it acceptable to walk in the street with a striped pedestrian area. He added that this was part of the process that staff was developing now to give the residents an option. He said that for the current situation, staff could certainly canvass the residents and look at the issue of a sidewalk as well as work with the developer. He noted that right now he was hearing that they were talking about a sidewalk that would connect the existing one up to Richwood. j z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 15 of 35 r Councilmember Leger requested a clarification on Councilmember Schlum's motion and Councilmember Schlum stated that the motion stated "to eliminate Boulder Drive access to the property." The intent was to not 40600. have that extension on Boulder built through the beautiful desert at all but simply would have a loop road within that section hundreds of yards away from the existing Boulder(not to have the road improved in that area at all). Councilmember Leger commented that it was evident that the residents care about their neighborhoods. He added that the Mayor outlined a list of changes and noted that this process started in 2005 and many public hearings took place. He said that the "long and short of it" was that the neighborhood got a greenbelt, more open space, got Boulder to close down. He stated that their efforts had significantly helped to move this plan from where it was to where it was today, a better plan. He noted that there was an approved plan that they had seen that could happen tomorrow and that plan has Boulder open and did not have Fountain Hills Boulevard realigned, etc. so this was a better plan. He applauded the residents on their efforts. Vice Mayor Dickey stated that she concurred with Councilmember Leger's remarks and said that the people who bought this property did so with an assumption and that assumption was what existed before this evening. She added that last year they voted on Prop. 207 (a statewide initiative) that said you could not do anything that diminished the value of property in the eyes of people who owned the property. She said that she believed the Council was making an earnest effort to do the right thing. The Mayor called for a vote. The motion CARRIED by majority vote (6-1) with Councilmember McMahan voting Nay. AGENDA ITEM #7 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2008-24, APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PRE-ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AND FOUNTAIN HILLS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE STATE OF ARIZONA. Councilmember Archambault MOVED to approve Resolution 2008-24, including the changes to the Is` Amendment to the Pre-Annexation Development Agreement outlined by the Town Attorney relating to R1-18 zoning for parcels 10 and 17 and a reduced cap of 1,350 units and Councilmember Kehe SECONDED the motion. Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated that the Councils' packets contained a Pre-Annexation Development Agreement and noted that they reflect a change in the zoning on parcels 10 and 17 from R1-6 to R1-18 and the density cap reduction to 1,350 units from what was reflected in Version 13 of the packet, 1,450 units. He indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council. Councilmember Kehe said he wanted to confirm that the buffer areas would have no horse, bike or hiking paths and would be strictly open space preservation. Ms. Riddel confirmed this fact for the record. Vice Mayor Dickey asked about the migration and said it was part of the agreement for the desert wildlife and something they had talked about before. She asked what kind of allotments were in place to ensure that the washes were free flowing and all the coyotes and other animals they had grown to love in Fountain Hills would still be able to do what they were used to doing as much as possible. Ms. Riddel first went back to Councilmember Kehe's previous question and said she was reminded by the Planning staff that there may be places where there were drainage facilities within the 200-foot buffer, all of which would be restored back to natural desert. In response to Vice Mayor Dickey's question regarding the wildlife corridors, Ms. Riddel said she believed there was a requirement that they were maintained through the washes. z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 17 of 35 children. He said he could see a time when adults and their children were going to be in both parks at once and by making that flow go easier, whether it was under or over the road, would be a big improvement (to connect the two parks together even though they had two separate uses). Ms. Riddel commented that it had been her experience as a zoning attorney that it was never a good idea to let the zoning attorney do the design and rarely a good idea to have that happen on the floor of the Council Chambers. She said that they were very sensitive to the Council's desire to have some connection between the parks and asked for the opportunity to go back and determine what that connection could look like and what it should be. Councilmember Archambault asked Ms. Riddel if she would be comfortable if the Council made a motion relative to that fact(not specific direction but a request for connectivities to address pedestrian safety). Ms. Riddel conferred with her client and then advised the Council that they were comfortable that there could be some connectivity but they would not be comfortable tonight determining exactly what that would be. She requested that the stipulation be crafted in a manner that would provide them the flexibility to come back with an appropriate design or recommendation as to how they connect. Councilmember Archambault stated that he wanted to provide enough flexibility so that the developer's engineers could come up with connectivity but he did not want to hear something like "we were going to put a crosswalk right here." Ms. Riddel advised that she could not say at this point what they would bring back to the Council but acknowledged that they heard the Council's concerns loud and clear. Mr. McGuire said that there were two ways to handle this type of a motion — they could either handle it as direction in the Development Agreement, which would require a change in the language or they could stipulate under the zoning that they come back prior to the first building permit being issued with an acceptable plan at the Council's discretion to handle the connectivity between the two parks. He added that under zoning was probably the better place to do it. Niad Councilmember Archambault brought up the issue of Parcels 8 and 9 and disturbance and said that under Paragraph B it talked about 530.9 acres of disturbance and asked how they came up with an allowable disturbance on Parcel 8, which was a 52-acre piece and they were estimating 42 acres of disturbance. Ms. Riddel replied that at this time they were taking their best estimation as to what the maximum disturbance could be. When they come in with an actual product and site plan they would be able to show exactly where the disturbance would and would not occur. She added that the reason they were asking for R1-6 and the reason they were comfortable with the language in the Development Agreement requiring them to come back with a specific site plan was because they believed that the Council would see that the product they were proposing was indeed a softer footprint on the environment and would ultimately result in less disturbance. Councilmember Archambault advised that he was uncomfortable with the proposal to disturb more than 50% of this particular parcel and Ms. Riddel noted that that was some of the most significant topography and she believes the reason they were seeing that was because every inch of dirt up there would weigh into a calculation to some extent. She added that they were limiting the amount of density that could go on that site and said she would hope they could defer to some extent the conversation until she could show them the product, which she believed would be exactly what they envisioned. Councilmember Archambault asked if they would still had the 42 acres of disturbance if they proceed in that manner, the proposed product"does not fly" and Council wants to take the zoning back to R1-18. Mr. McGuire said yes, that was correct. Councilmember Archambault stated that it was not necessarily the product that the developer wanted to bring forward that concerned him; it was the amount of disturbance to this highly visible parcel. Noi) z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 19 of 35 i 3G allowed full credit for meeting hillside preservations if flat areas, slopes less than 10%, were undisturbed. She stated the opinion that this was ridiculous and added that instead of protecting and preserving hillsides the developer would be allowed to get full credit for not disturbing large areas of unbuildable washes or flood planes. She further stated that Section 5 of the Agreement gave away their cut and fill requirements completely for road construction and said that this could leave unsightly scars and be dangerous. She said that these last minute changes, little study time, and hardly any allowances for public comment attested to the fact that this issue required further consideration. Bob Deppe, Boulder Drive, addressed the Council and said he would like to take a few minutes to discuss some of the traffic issues that they had discussed earlier. He stated that he used Blackbird despite the fact that there were two speed humps and he did so because he has a difficult time sometimes turning from Boulder left onto Golden Eagle so he took the shortcut. He agreed that they needed Richwood because of safety but said they could do what the Planning and Zoning Commission did with their recommendation on Boulder and that was to put a gate up and allow only fire and police access. He added that the other reason for access on Richwood was because of convenience and the fact that it was a shortcut, the same reasons why he took Blackbird. He asked the traffic engineer from Ellman where they came up with the figure of 383 increased vehicles on Richwood (190 each way) and he was told that that was people going to the park and commercial area. He said that was not even mentioned tonight and questioned the accuracy of that number and said he believed the actual number would be much higher. He added that there was discussion about the fact that in 2006 the Town accepted what was proposed and said that was not true. Mayor Nichols thanked the speakers for their comments. The Mayor called for a vote on the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 1 �✓ AGENDA ITEM #8 — PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENT ON ORDINANCE #08-12, AN AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 1,276 ACRES (50 PARCELS) FROM Ri-35, R1-18, R1-10, R1-8 AND R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL); L-2 (LODGING); OSC AND OSR (OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL) AND C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) TO R1-35, Ri-18, R1-10, R1-8 AND R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL); L-2 (LODGING); OSR AND OSP (OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION) AND C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. Z-2008-01. Mayor Nichols declared the public hearing open at 9:50 p.m. Planning &Zoning Director Richard Turner addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and advised that this represents the last of the Ellman Companies' applications on this agenda. He highlighted a brief slide presentation and stated that a lot of fine tuning had occurred that resulted in a large number of requests for individual zoning changes. He said that that was why they had 50 different parcels. He noted that the rezoning was considered at the open houses that were held and stated that notice of the hearing appeared in the newspaper and posters and letters were mailed to the neighbors. He referred to slides that depicted the various zoning changes and provided a brief explanation on each. He noted that the changes in zoning contained in the application mirrored the General Plan Amendment changes and referred to the phasing plan and briefly highlighted its contents. He commented on the fact that two of the R1-6 parcels were now proposed to be R1- 18, a total of 109 acres, which meant fewer dwelling units (an additional reduction of 100 dwelling units). He advised that the proposal was consistent with the General Plan Amendment and added that low-density zoning had increased, medium-density zoning had decreased and open-space zoning had increased by 90 acres. He Lir noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application with an added condition regarding future review of development proposals for Parcels 8 and 9, the same condition of approval that staff had suggested on the General Plan Amendment. z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 21 of 35 Vice Mayor Dickey referred to the Open Space Recreational and asked if it was possible to put ramadas or areas where citizens could sit (not just in the park/but having some stuff intertwined into the community as a whole). She said that she had received requests from citizens relative to this issue and wanted to follow up on it as this time. Ms. Riddel asked whether the Vice Mayor was speaking specifically to the proposed parks or more intermittently throughout the community and Vice Mayor Dickey said she was speaking about throughout the community. Ms. Riddel stated that at this point in time, because they did not have a lot layout or a specific trails plan, they had not yet determined what that might look like but they certainly appreciate the input. She added that because there was a large amount of green area, it certainly allows opportunities for that discussion. Vice Mayor Dickey stated that when you came in from Rio Verde and came upon the Middle School, people were going really fast because they felt as though they were out in the middle of nowhere and then they came upon the school. She said that roundabouts were very good at slowing people down and asked if that was what was planned. Ms. Riddel explained that when they began the planning process the planners had put that there and thought of it more as a"bull's eye" in the project and not really a traffic circle/traffic mitigation. She added that the longer they proceeded with the plan the more comfortable they have all become that might very well be an appropriate traffic mitigation device as well as an entry feature to the community. She said that this was something they were very open to but she could not state that they were committed to that at this time. Vice Mayor Dickey commented that if the issue was one of cost, the road that they did not have to build on Boulder might be a cost savings for them. Ms. Riddel asked whether the mention of changing R1-6 to R1-18 was addressed in the motion and Mr. McGuire said that he did not believe it was but the motion could be amended to include the change in Parcel 10 and Parcel 17 to R1-18. Councilmember Archambault AMENDED the motion to add at the end that that they included the amended zoning change on Parcels 10 and 17 to R1-18 and Councilmember Schlum SECONDED the amendment. The motion CARRIED by majority vote(6-1) with Councilmember McMahan voting Nay. Councilmember McMahan stated that he has not had sufficient time to review the issue thoroughly and he did not believe that there has been enough time for public input. Councilmember Leger commented for the record that he had been condemned this evening for allegedly making promises that he never made. He said that his credibility and his trust in this community were paramount to what he did on a daily basis and he listens but listening did not necessarily mean he agrees. He stated that it appears that when he did not agree then he was condemned for lying. He emphasized that he has made no promises but he did state that what he would do was work for a better development, work to reduce the density, work to preserve the green space, work to enhance open space, work for community parks and work within reasonable limits to create a traffic circulation plan to mitigate traffic. He stated that he never said that he would work for zero tolerance and he thought they made that perfectly clear this evening in their efforts to engage enhanced safety in the neighborhood. He added that everything that was put out there was met with "no, we don't want that." He added that he never heard any of the Council say that not one vehicle would enter the residents' neighborhoods and stated that that was somewhat unrealistic. He reiterated for the record that he made no promises. Councilmember Kehe said that he had heard references relative to a referendum and requested that Mr. McGuire explain that if there was a referendum attempt, as part of the democratic process that he supported, and it succeeded whether or not they would go back to the original General Plan, which they all agreed was inferior to the current proposal. z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 23 of 35 r addition, any requests for a TUP that receive objections within the prescribed advertising period must also go before the Town Council. Mc. Slechta advised that objections had been raised relative to this request and noted that the major objection had to do with the engine being revved up during race day and the second complaint had to do with the car being deemed"unsightly." Mr. Slechta informed the Council that staff feels that the noise from the car could be disruptive to the community and restrictions on that use should be included as stipulations. Staff was also putting restrictions on the number of hours that the car could be displayed (as outlined in the staff report). He said that staff recommended that the Council approve the TUP for the Two Step Saloon subject to the stipulations outlined in the staff report. He indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council and advised that the applicant was also present in the audience. Councilmember McMahan MOVED to approve the Temporary Use Permit for the Two Step Saloon as outlined by staff and Vice Mayor Dickey SECONDED the motion. Ms. Bender advised that one citizen wished to speak on this agenda item. David Gage said that he would waive his opportunity to talk at this time. Mayor Nichols stated the opinion that this was something that fits in very well with the Town's objectives for 2008-09 Fiscal Year, of trying to help support businesses in Town, and said that he would support the issuance of the TUP. Councilmember Leger referred to Stipulation #1 that read as follows: "The NASCAR shall only be started to move the car into place in front of the restaurant and to remove it at the end of race day" and noted that at the current time the car was parked at the entry to the business on race days and then it was moved to the back of the business on the west side where it was covered. He asked whether the car was being permanently stored on that site when it was not being moved and Mr. Slechta stated that he believed that to be the case. 4isie David Gage, representing the owners of the Two-Step Saloon, advised that a couple of months ago they purchased an actual racecar that had been modified and has a different carburetor and cam system. It was louder than a Toyota but not as loud as a Harley Davidson. He noted that they had displayed the vehicle during the annual Arts & Crafts Fair in February and they felt that it was a very accepted part of the arts and crafts community. A newspaper article written on the car praised it and they planned to bring it out to the VFW event in November. Mr. Gage stated that what they would like to do was load the car onto their 25-foot trailer that they kept on the side of the building. He added that they would not start the car within the Fountain Hill's town limits; they would simply like the ability to display the car in front of the business not only on Sundays but on kids' nights as well. He said that they invited parents to bring their kids out to the restaurants and the kids eat free, get to sit inside the car and their parents take pictures of them. He said that the kids think it's great and they just want to be able to display a vehicle that they purchased in the name of their business. He said that they would load the vehicle onto the trailer and take it out to Mesa, where they had another sports bar, and start it up in Mesa. He said that the people there were crazy about the car and they just wanted to be able to display it. Right now it sits covered on the side of the building facing the houses that were located to the west and they want to be able to put it out front so that people driving into Town could see it. He informed the Council that they receive nothing but compliments on the vehicle. He reiterated that they were seeking approval to display the car and would refrain from starting the car in Town (other than starting it once a week just to run the fluids through the system and/or to place it on the trailer to take out of Town). He indicated their willingness to work with the Town and come up with the best possible solution for everyone. Mayor Nichols stated that the recommendation was that the car shall not be visible on non-racing days. Mr. Gage said that they did not understand why that was and reiterated that they had displayed the car during the Arts & Crafts Fair without a permit. He questioned what the difference was between their car and the Big 0 Discount Tire car. z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 25 of 35 t. Vice Mayor Dickey asked how they could limit the amount of times that the car was started and Mr. Gage advised that according to the manual the car had to be started once a week and either way they went it was a two-minute operation. Mayor Nichols suggested that the stipulation read that the car should not be started more than five times a week or something like that and Mr. Gage advised that he would settle for once a week. He explained that when they bought the car, the whole purpose was to get local businesses to advertise on it because their intent was to donate the money generated to the golf tournaments and the arts and crafts festivals. Councilmember Leger said that the reason they were all here this evening and the reason why Code Enforcement officers went to the site was because of the noise — the car was being started and revved. He explained that the Council was here because they received four to five complaints about the noise that the car produced and added that the complaints were from the same neighbors who respectfully asked staff to limit the hours, which they did not do. Now they were respectfully requesting that the car be parked on the west side and this was being done and then move it to the front so it was move visible during race days. He noted that this would meet the concerns of the neighbors and seemed to meet the business' needs. He added that from a market perspective, they would probably get "more bang out of their buck" by covering it and taking it out and putting it around the side because if it was out front all the time it became a novelty and added less to special events. He suggested that they stick with the stipulations that staff had presented because they were developed in order to be responsive to the business owner as well as the citizens. Mr. Gage stated that if the only reason he could not place his car out front was because of the decal/signage, then he would gladly remove it. He said that as a business owner he did not feel that he should have to park his vehicle, which belonged to his business, on the side of a parking lot. He used the vehicle every day for adults and kids that came into the restaurant, whether they were visiting Fountain Hills or they lived here. Mr. Turner advised that the main issue appeared to be the decal. Councilmember Schlum said that if the Town's Sign Ordinance stated that the vehicle could not have a commercial sign on it and be parked in front of the business and Mr. Gage was comfortable removing the sign, then he believed that was the best solution. Councilmember Archambault commented on the fact that they had been using the car for events and if they were going to do that then they had to have a TUP, which was the purpose of the permit. He said he believed they were going down the wrong road. Mr. McGuire stated that the Council could vote to table this issue until staff figured it out and then come back to it later on during the meeting. Vice Mayor Dickey MOVED to table the item and Mayor Nichols SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). **(After allowing staff time to further research this item, the Mayor stated that the Council would continue their discussion of this item.) Mr. Turner addressed the Council and stated that in the Sign Ordinance, under Signs Not Authorized, it said, "Signs mounted, attached or painted on trailers,boats or vehicles." Ms. Zanon explained that what was presented to staff was that upon investigating, Code Enforcement staff had determined that the car was placed at the entrance to the business for events. At that point, because it was an outdoor event and staff moved it through the TUP process based on the information provided by the applicant. She said that if that information was not the information that they wanted presented today, that changed the scenario somewhat and perhaps changed what they were doing here this evening. She noted that the process z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 27 of 35 referred to a side map and explained the surrounding zoning. He pointed out that the clubhouse was located to the west(across Country Club Drive),that the 10th hole of the golf course was located to the north,the 11th hole was located to the east and the driving range was located to the south. Mr. Slechta further stated that there were 27 buildings on the site and most contain three units. He noted that the emergency access easement and sewer easements were located along the southern boundary, as designated and agreed to. He advised that staff was adding another stipulation because staff determined that a step had been missed along the way in the process during the concept plan. He explained that with a utility disturbance they needed to have a utility disturbance permit approved by the Town Council prior to the recordation of the final plat. He said that staff was recommending that such a stipulation be added to the requirements for approval. He said that staff recommended that the Council approve the preliminary and final plat subject to the stipulations outlined in the staff report and the stipulation added this evening. He indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council. Councilmember Schlum MOVED to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat for La Bella Vita subject to the stipulations listed in the staff report as well as the stipulation stated above and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Ms. Bender advised that Mr. Paul Gilbert and a number of citizens wished to address the Council. Mr. Gilbert waived further discussion at this time. Ms. Bender advised that Sharon Hutcheson also submitted a request to speak but was no longer present at the meeting. Dale Baker. 15807 East Firerock, Country Club Drive, said that he served as President of the Homeowners' Association and advised that the HOA was very much supportive of what the developer has proposed and added that it appeared their intent was to build a quality product. He added, however, that they did have three concerns: (1) that the disturbance area as they understood it appeared to greatly exceed what was contained in the area specific plan for Firerock and said that this should be corrected; (2) the CC&R's require that Firerock's Architectural Review Committee approve any plan before a "spade of dirt was turned" and so far those plans had not been submitted to review; and (3) they were going to have to obtain easements from the Firerock Country Club and they had been told that those easements would not be forth coming until such time as they meet and receive approval from the Architectural Review Committee. He stated the opinion that the current process was a waste of Council's time because the matter was going to come back to them in a different form at some future date. He noted that the process would take some time. He urged the Council to table the application pending the developer addressing the additional conditions that need to be met. Gary Zagner and Marianne Wiggishoff waived their opportunity to speak and said that the previous speakers had covered their comments as well. Mr. Gilbert stated that they were here this evening to discuss a plat and pointed out that the considerations for discussing a plat differed greatly from a concept plan, a zoning case or anything of that nature. He said that what has occurred prior to this evening's hearing was: This plat reflected the General Plan, the specific area plan, zoning and the concept plan and staff had advised that they met all of the requirements of the ordinance. He emphasized that the only thing the Council should be reviewing on the plat was whether it was compliant with the requirements of the Town's ordinance and two prior approvals attested to that fact(Planning&Zoning approval and staff's recommendation). He addressed the three items brought up by Mr. Baker and stated that the disturbance area was not a question; they had the conceptual plat and they were disturbing less area than they were permitted to on that plat and this fact could be confirmed by staff; the second issue was obtaining the HOA Architectural Committee's approval and they concurred with this requirement but noted that the Town's approval process was distinct and separate from the CC&R approval. He said that they were going by the Town's ordinance and that was what was before the Council this evening. He added that as far as the z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 29 of 35 V Wayne Tall said that he was speaking on behalf of the McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission (MMPC) and said that this was the organization that the Council was supposed to be looking to for information relative to the Preserve. He stated, however, that there was no MMPC representation at the last meeting. He noted that Councilmember Dickey previously stated that she would like to see the MMPC separated from Parks & Recreation just because of possible conflicts. He stated the opinion that Mark Mayer had a lot of strengths but trading information up and down and around did not seem to be one of them and it was hard to get information either through him and up to the Council or down from you and through him. He said that he had heard conflicting stories about what happened at that meeting and he had no idea what really happened and what was said. He questioned whether this was the reason why no progress was being made and expressed the opinion that the entities were"not on the same page." He added that he did not believe that the job has been completed. Councilmember Leger commented on the fact that the process had been a long one and requested that Mr. McGuire clarify the outcome of the last meeting that was held. He said that he was not aware of any counter proposals. Mr. McGuire stated that he was perplexed by the comments this evening because at the end of the last meeting that they all attended Mr. Kinsey said to them "Well, we gave it our best effort, good show but it looks like it was not going to go"and now they were hearing a different message this evening. He added that he did not understand why Mr. Tall was hearing conflicting information. He noted that Mr. Kinsey had been there representing the MMPC from the beginning and it made sense to have him continue on in the role because of that. He stated that the"counter proposal" as it had been referred to, from MCO, was the same counter proposal they received before, i.e. manned security on the property site. It also had a different twist last time in that an additional requirement was added that stated that if anyone entered in through the Town's gate but then left the trail and went out onto MCO property, the Town would assume additional responsibility and liability for those people. He encouraged Mr. Kinsey to correct him if he felt he was misstating what occurred. He added that Councilmember Schlum had even commented that he felt that they were going backwards. Mr. Kinsey said he apologized for any confusion he had caused by the statement he made after the last meeting. He stated that after the meeting what he heard from MCO was that they felt the proposal they had come up with was okayed by the Risk Management representative in the sense that during their discussion they determined that security would be alright (they used the analogy of the skating rink and some of those other examples) and therefore, they could offer whatever they offered with the security to be tied in and yet not destroy the Town's liability. He said that since the meeting that was their interpretation. He reiterated appreciation for holding the meeting and said they had given the matter their best effort. He added that he could not explain the confusion that existed but there seemed to be different stories coming from people who were in the room. Mayor Nichols commented that he had a lot of respect for the people who were in that room—Councilmembers Schlum, Kehe and Mr. McGuire — and they all had the same story. He added that that was the reason why he was going to support Councilmember Kehe's motion. Mr. Kinsey stated that he was not denying any of that; he was just saying the twist was how you heard what was said. Councilmember Kehe agreed that they had given it a good shot, a real good try. Councilmember Schlum stated that MCO had generously attended the meeting and Mr. Hurowitz flew in specifically for the meeting and this was very much appreciated. He said that although they sat down and tried to come to an agreement, in the end it seemed as though they were stepping back and the liability grew from what he understood it to be previously. Mayor Nichols called for a vote on the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). AGENDA ITEM #13 — CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING AN ENGINEERING AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,576.00 WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR DESIGN OF THE SHEA BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT DURING FISCAL YEAR 2007-08. z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 31 of 35 • graded them well as far as all the work the Task Force performed. Mr. Slechta discussed the top ten priorities and said that they were all good except for the Riparian Area that was a definite no but all of the others were looked upon with favor but some of them would obviously be put off to a later date. He further reviewed the staff report and requested that Council approve Resolution 2008-18. Vice Mayor Dickey MOVED to approve Resolution 2008-18 and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Councilmember Kehe said that he could not find anything regarding environmental issues relative to open space and Vice Mayor Dickey advised that the environmental stewardship referred to did include stewardship of the Town's open space in the community and in the Preserve. The Mayor called for a vote on the motion. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). Mayor Nichols thanked the Vice Mayor and staff for their work on this issue and said that it was very important to have a policy on the environment in place in the Town of Fountain Hills. AGENDA ITEM #16 — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 2008-19, ADOPTING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 TENTATIVE BUDGET WITH APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO PUBLISH SAID DOCUMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. THE COUNCIL MAY ADDRESS ANY OR ALL ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT AND INITIATE ANY SUGGESTED CHANGES PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION. Ms. Zanon stated that at the April 29th meeting when the budget was discussed, staff proposed to the Council total proposed expenditures for all funds for a total of $28.4 million. She said that the maximum expenditure would be set at that amount this evening if approved by the Council. Ms. Zanon indicated her willingness to L. respond to questions from the Council. Mayor Nichols MOVED to approve Resolution 2008-19, establishing the maximum budget at $28,427,890 ($28.4 million) and Councilmember McMahan SECONDED the motion. Mayor Nichols advised that the budget would be discussed in detail during public hearings at the June 5th meeting after the new Council was seated and the new Council would be the ones who would approve the detailed budget. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). AGENDA ITEM #17 — PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ESTABLISHED ITEMS OF COUNCIL BUSINESS: Ms. Zanon stated that most of the items had already been addressed this evening but indicated that she did want to speak briefly on Development Fees Adjustment. A. DEVELOPMENT FEES ADJUSTMENT Ms. Zanon advised that this evening the Council had set the indexing but said that if they did want to move forward with a Development Fee Study staff would like to accomplish that by December 2008, which meant they would have to move forward very quickly and start the process. Mayor Nichols complimented Ms. Zanon and staff for accomplishing the objectives that they as a Council had set approximately six months ago. He said that Ms. Zanon had asked the Council that as they go forward as a group that they spend some time with her to discuss the good things that had happened as well as other areas z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 33 of 35 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 4 ailBY Schlum,Mayor ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: Q446/L Bevelyn J. d , own Clerk CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Executive and Regular Session held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 15th day of May 2008. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 5th day of June 2008. Zc Bevelyn J. der, own Clerk ,s4g) z:\council packets\2008\r6-5-08\05-15-08 executive and regular minutes.doc Page 35 of 35