HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008.0812.TCWSM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION
OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
August 12,2008
AGENDA ITEM#1—CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Schlum called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.
Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Schlum,
Councilmember Contino, Vice Mayor Leger, Councilmember McMahan, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember
Archambault and Councilmember Dickey. Town Manager Rick Davis, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire, Director of
Planning & Zoning Richard Turner, Director of Parks & Recreation Mark Mayer and Town Clerk Bev Bender were
also present.
Mayor Schlum welcomed newly appointed Town Manager Rick Davis.
AGENDA ITEM #2 — DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN
ORDINANCE.
Director of Planning &Zoning Richard Turner addressed the Council and stated that this evening the Council would
hear a presentation regarding possible amendments to the Sign Ordinance. He said that the proposed amendments
were consistent with the Council's goal that was set earlier this year, namely, "To further economic development,
business vitality and relationships between the Town and businesses to benefit our community." He added that there
was also an objective that stated, "To review community concerns and make recommendations related to signage
regulations to support business visibility by October 31, 2008."
Mr. Turner advised that sign regulations had always been a controversial topic in the Town and they were revised in
1999, 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004. He added that A-frame signs were prohibited after January of 2006. He noted
that issues/concerns had arisen since the last review of the regulations, mostly from the business community, and as a
result on June 19th of this year the Council directed that staff conduct a review of the sign regulations following a
discussion on the topic of A-frame signs.
Mr. Turner informed the Council that a subcommittee of the Business Vitality Advisory Council (BVAC), a creation
of the Chamber of Commerce, had met and developed recommendations for changes to the sign regulations. The
changes were reviewed by a subcommittee of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He advised that the
subcommittee consisted of members of the Planning & Zoning Commission, citizens, and representatives of local
businesses. The subcommittee met seven times to review the sign regulations and primarily worked off of the work
done by the BVAC. He said that the goal this evening was to obtain feedback from the members of the Council
relative to the proposed changes. He stated that following this meeting, revisions would be made to the proposed
changes and they would be forwarded on for legal review before moving forward with hearings before the Planning
& Zoning Commission and the Town Council. He added that the Council's decision on this issue would come
forward later on this fall. Mr. Turner said that in working with the subcommittee, he had advised them of possible
implications associated with Proposition 207,the Arizona Property Rights law.
Mr. Turner highlighted the main changes being proposed and stated that currently the definition of a window sign
stated that any object within six feet behind a window could be considered a sign. He said that it was being proposed
that the distance be reduced to three feet. He added that also being proposed was an increase in the window sign area
from 25% to 50%. They were also proposing a section in the sign regulations that allowed certain signs without
having to obtain Town permits (small signs, temporary signs, not seen by the public and in compliance with the
( Town's regulations).
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 1 of 14
Mr. Turner also discussed neon signs and said that the current regulations permit "Open" neon signs in the window
and the proposal would allow a business name to be shown in neon as well as the business logo. The square footage
of the neon signs would increase from four feet to six feet and two per business would be allowed. He stated that a
change was also being proposed for signs on vehicles and noted that currently vehicles with signs on them must be
parked in an assigned space, could not be next to the street and must be removed at the close of business. He
reported that the subcommittee had suggested that the limitation regarding parking next to the street be retained but
also that the vehicle containing the signs must be removed within 48 hours. In addition, a vehicle with a name on the
side could be parked in the owner of the business' residential driveway.
Mr. Turner discussed banners, balloons, and pennants and said that these areas had generated much discussion. He
explained that currently banners were permitted by the Town's Zoning Ordinance for a period of 14 days for the
purpose of a grand opening, a name change, or ownership change. The purposes for having banners had been
increased to include Chamber ribbon cuttings and management changes. In addition, balloons and pennants were
going to be allowed during the same type of events that banners were permitted but no permits would be required for
the balloons or pennants. Balloons, as proposed, would be allowed to be flown at a height that would be equal to the
maximum height of a building allowed in that zoning district. He said that when you considered that the maximum
height in the C-2 zoning district was 40 feet, staff thought that that was a little too high; therefore, staff recommended
that the maximum height that balloons could be flown be reduced to 12 feet.
Mr. Turner further stated that banners, balloons, and pennants would be able to exist for 48 hours during any one
calendar quarter for any private type of event, such as a private sale. He said that staff felt that the 48 hours was
somewhat restrictive if there were three-day sales and suggested that it be increased to a maximum of 60 hours. He
advised that no type of permit would be required but applicants should notify the Town that the events would be
happening so that staff could monitor them. In looking at this issue, the subcommittee had also placed an expiration
date of December 31, 2009, on this provision so that at expiration, the Council would have an opportunity to review
this and determine how successful it had been. If the provision had been successful and not abused, then the Council
could continue it or decide that it should simply go away.
Mr. Turner informed the Council that currently the regulations did not allow businesses located above the ground
floor to have any signage and the proposed change would allow businesses above the ground floor to have signage
consisting of a maximum of 50 square feet. He added that the proposed changes also allowed A-frame signs for
businesses (one per business) and said that they must be located a minimum of four feet from the face of the building
but within 20 feet of the main entrance to the building. The A-frames must be for promotional use only. Balloons
could be attached to the A-frame signs at a maximum height of six feet. This provision would expire in two years.
Mr. Turner discussed aggregate sign area and noted that currently the ordinance contemplated two ways to calculate
aggregate sign area depending on the zoning district they were in. For the lower intensity commercial zones, they
were allowed to have a maximum aggregate sign area of 80 square feet and 100 square feet of signage was allowed in
C-2, C-3, and industrial zones. This change would allow the rules to be the same for any commercial or industrial
zone and provide for 100 square feet maximum. It would also allow ratio changes; right now it was one square foot
of signage for one square foot of frontage and the proposed change would allow two square feet of signage for every
one square foot of frontage. The maximum would remain 100 square feet.
Mr. Turner advised that awning and canopy signs were currently limited to six square feet and that amount would
change to 25%, which was consistent with the regulations in place in the City of Scottsdale. He added that the
proposal includes removing the limitation on flying United States flags. Mr. Turner further stated that projecting
signs were signs that went beyond property lines. He explained that the proposal was to allow a broader application
of this type of sign in zones that require setbacks from property lines. He said that there was also a provision that
stated that projecting signs could be allowed where a sign projected over a property owner's own property line. He
added that this was created by the BVAC to address a particular situation.
LieMr. Turner discussed street addresses and said that the subcommittee was asking that street addresses be required to
be displayed and, in the event that the address was displayed on a monument sign, that it be shown in the same place
on the monument signs so that over time people would know to look at the top of those signs to locate the physical
address.
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 2 of 14
Mr. Turner further stated that staff developed some recommendations that they had brought forward to the Planning
& Zoning Commission subcommittee for their consideration. He noted that currently residential subdivisions in
Town contained many monument signs but there were no provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for those signs. Staff
cy, felt that "this was a hole that needed to be plugged". Therefore, they had included a definition and defined a
subdivision identification sign as a type of monument sign and developed some criteria for that as well. He added
that also in the current Zoning Ordinance, at the very end of Chapter 6, there was a provision for a shared monument
sign. He said it was his understanding that the last time there was a comprehensive review of the Sign Ordinance that
shared monument signs were created to assist the business owners in Town and provide them with additional signage
that would not count against their otherwise allowed signage. Mr. Turner stated that for some reason this "assist" had
not been taken advantage of and staff had not seen any shared monument signs. He added that staff believed this
might have something to do with the requirement to establish a sign district. Therefore, staff was proposing a change
that would make it easier for shared monument signs to come into existence by allowing the owner of a property with
multiple businesses to apply for a shared monument sign.
Mr. Turner also discussed Town branding and said that there might be districts in Town that would have a specific
identifying symbol. He noted that the proposed provision would allow the symbol to be shown on signs without
penalizing the owner of the sign. He added that monument signs were a more attractive type of sign and they were
also very expensive to install. He said that staff's proposed change would not penalize someone with an existing
monument sign (existing non-conforming monument sign)for changing the text on the sign.
Mr. Turner reported that very recently the State of Arizona passed a law that required cities and towns to provide for
sign walkers. Therefore, staff had prepared a definition and the subcommittee looked into the appropriate time, place
and manner restrictions. He said that sign walkers, as proposed, would be allowed from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Fridays and Saturdays only; they must be behind the curb and not in the median; they could not obstruct pedestrians
on the sidewalks and the maximum sign area they could carry was five square feet. He added that legal counsel
would have an opportunity to review this provision as well and possibly offer some input.
Mr. Turner commented on monument sign changes and advised that staff had suggested some changes for
consistency purposes (there were some differences in the standards for shared monument signs and free-standing
monument signs). Mr. Turner informed the Council that the next steps included staff making some changes to the
regulations based on feedback obtained this evening; the Town Attorney would then review the document; the
Planning & Zoning Commission might also hold a Work Study prior to one of their regular meetings to review the
proposed changes and public hearings would be held by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town
Council. He noted that there was citizen representation on the subcommittee but so far they had not provided any
type of forum for the public to comment on this issue. He said that the public hearings would provide opportunities
for such input but added that, if the Council deemed it appropriate, staff could also schedule an open house.
Mr. Turner thanked the Council for the opportunity to address them and said that Dennis Brown, Chairman of the
Planning & Zoning Commission and Cecil Yates, who also served on the subcommittee, were present to respond to
any questions from the Council.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr. Turner for the in-depth presentation and stated that in looking at the proposed "next
steps" it appeared that they were ahead of the end of October deadline. The Mayor said that the Council's goal was
to revisit the sign ordinances and have it be done by the businesses and brought to the Council. He added that he
appreciated all of the hard work that had gone into accomplishing this goal by the BVAC, the subcommittee,
volunteers and staff. He invited Mr. Yates and Mr. Brown to come forward and share any comments they might
have.
Mr. Brown stated that he believed the process was "going great" and commended staff, the citizens who attended the
meetings and the business owners who openly joined them and worked hand-in-hand on the solutions and
recommendations before the Council. He said that a great deal of effort during a short period of time was what they
were looking at and he believed it was all thought out very carefully from their end and they were anxious to hear the
Council's response to it.
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 3 of 14
Mr. Yates shared a story about an individual who drove up and asked "Do you know where downtown is?" as he and
other involved members were standing outside and talking about the various issues facing them as far as signage. He
said that this was a perfect example of how desperately needed these measures were.
Mayor Schlum reiterated his appreciation to everyone who participated in the extensive process.
Councilmember Hansen referred to Page 4 of the proposal, the number of A-frame signs, and said that one was
allowed and it had to be on the property that was owned or leased by the business. She noted that they had a couple
of businesses in Town that were compromised in that regard because they did not really have any property (i.e. the
businesses in the little courtyard areas on the Avenue). She said that basically when there was a zero lot line, their
front door was the start of their property and right outside of their door was the sidewalk. She asked how they would
handle situations such as this.
Mr. Turner advised that the 4 feet and the 20 feet did not refer to the ownership situation; it talked about the front of
the building and within the main entrance. He said that he did not believe that the main intent was for it to be only on
the property owned or leased by the business. He said he wanted to read through the section more thoroughly.
Councilmember Hansen referred Mr. Turner to 3.04, Amendment to Subsection 6.08 (2)B.
Mr. Turner read, "Such signs shall be located adjacent to the business on property owned or leased by the business
and may not be located on the public right-of-way."
Mayor Schlum commented that the property owner might own all of the land if he/she was leasing the land or leasing
part of the facility to a business owner. He asked whether the intent was to limit it to where the business was located
or to the perimeter of the property that was leased or owned by the property owner.
Councilmember Hansen said that in this case their only option was the sidewalk and she added that this was an area
that should be looked into.
Mr. Turner asked if he was hearing that the desire of the Council was to allow an A-frame sign off the site.
Councilmember Hansen replied that she was looking for staff to find a way for those businesses to have one because
they were back off the Avenue and there was no way for people to know they were there without some sort of A-
frame or signage closer to them.
Councilmember Archambault commented that he believed the areas being referred to by Councilmember Hansen had
an Association that owned the greenbelt and questioned whether they could add the words "or Association property"
in there or somehow craft it into the document and staff indicated that they could look into that. Councilmember
Archambault added that the Council's intent was to somehow craft the appropriate language because certain
situations existed such as the one commented on by Councilmember Hansen.
Councilmember Hansen stated that if they limited the number of A-frames to one, that was fine on a public
thoroughfare like Saguaro or Palisades but if they start thinking about Enterprise and the businesses that were back
off the main drag, it seemed as though they might need two signs, one more on the main drag and one near their
business.
Mr. Turner advised that it was his understanding that this was intentional on the part of both groups that looked at
that off-site A-frame signage, a considerable distance from the businesses, was not something they wanted to permit.
Mr. Brown addressed the Council and explained that the intent for A frames was not to be directional signage, only
promotional (i.e. advertising daily specials, etc.).
Mayor Schlum stated the opinion that the goal would be to get people to those businesses by expending additional
effort and not necessarily following A-frame signs all through Town.
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 4 of 14
Councilmember McMahan commented that it was his understanding that the A-frame signs would not be business
identifiers; they would only be for specials. He said that they had previously discussed having one business identifier
sign and one directional sign off site.
Mayor Schlum stated that he remembered discussions with the Town Attorney regarding this issue and he was not
sure what they might legally restrict or allow on the signs in this respect but he appreciated what Mr. Brown had
brought forward regarding the promotional respect. He requested input from Mr. Brown relative to identifying the
actual businesses.
Mr. Brown advised that discussion could take place relative to this issue but added that he was a"hard liner" on the
A-frame signs because it was so tremendously painful for everyone four years ago when they had to do something
because there were more A-frame signs on the streets than people. He added that he was sure that there would be a
point between A and C that they could get together on.
Mr. Yates requested that the Council keep in mind that there were other provisions included in the proposal for those
types of situations and noted that they were trying to promote the monument signs in a better manner to help business
districts that were not on the main drag. He added that they were very cognizant of the importance of not using the A
frame signs as directional signs. He said that he was a business owner as well and if his business needed to survive
by being on the corner of Main & Main, then that was where he was going to go and lease space. If he needed the
drive-by traffic and exposure, he should not be leasing space off the main drag. He added that they did want to add
some provisions to help those people but did not want the A-frame signs to become directional as they had been in
the past.
Councilmember Dickey discussed attaching balloons to the A-frame signs. She asked how many would be allowed,
how long they would be allowed to remain in place, and what would happen if the balloons started to cover up some
else's A-frame. She stated the opinion that 6 feet seemed kind of high if they were in the sidewalk area. She also
questioned their necessity from the viewpoint of the business owners.
( 4111119 Town Attorney Andrew McGuire stated that before they handed down any content regulation, they were going to
have to be quite careful about how it was addressed. He noted that the Town was not allowed to regulate content on
signs. He said that he would need more time before providing any substantive comments but added that staff could
certainly provide the Council with all of the necessary information prior to their making a decision.
Mr. Turner responded to Councilmember Dickey's questions regarding balloons and pointed out that the only ones
allowed in the Code right now were 24 inches in diameter and that they could only be flown attached to an A-frame
sign six feet maximum. He stated that if the Council wanted to reduce that or put a limitation on the number of
balloons they certainly could do that.
Vice Mayor Leger commented on the fact that, under the revised amendment, A-frames were to be used for
promotional purposes only and added that they would obviously have to look into the legal ramifications of that. He
expressed the opinion that it might be helpful to define in the policy or provide examples of"promotional" and what
that meant. He added that as he looked through the excellent document, he could not help but think about code
enforcement and monitoring businesses and suggested that they better define or provide examples of"promotional"
uses. He referred to 304(2)B that stated, "on the public right-of-way" and although he understood what the public
right-of-way was, a lot of people were confused about it. He suggested that it might be helpful to indicate where the
restrictions were. He added that he was really happy about reviewing this policy and he believed they needed to look
at providing some latitude. He stated that he wanted to prevent them from going"full circle"and said he could recall
when A-frame signs were totally out of control (the "bulletin board syndrome" as he called it). He said that he was
comfortable with what was being proposed.
The Vice Mayor referred to the matrix in Section 6 and noted that under balloons and pennants it says ten hours
during the day. He said that he would like them to consider twelve hours because oftentimes business were open for
Noe ten hours and an hour on the front end and an hour on the back end might gave them an opportunity to set up and tear
down. He asked staff to look into this. He added that staff's recommendation relative to any type of event was for
60 consecutive hours versus 48 and indicated support for this change. He asked whether someone would be limited
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 5 of 14
to doing a promotional event once a quarter and Mr. Turner explained that if they wanted to use balloons, banners or
pennants, then yes, they would be limited to once a quarter. He added that that would not exclude someone from
having a grand opening and using a banner. He said that he understood that they did not want to have permanent sale
Lie signs up all of the time and noted that some stores had been "going out of business" for ten years according to the
signs. He stated that he would like it if they entertained a different timeline such as once a month or monthly.
Councilmember Hansen said that she was looking at that as well and knew of one business on the Avenue that was
looking to have a monthly evening event. She added that for something like that she thought it would be nice if they
could have a sign outside notifying people that tonight was the night and it would only be once a month.
Mr. Turner replied that if they changed the regulation to once a month that would be fine.
Councilmember Dickey brought up the issue of signs in windows and asked whether there was any language that
spoke to the quality of them and what they could be (could they just be stickers and what quality of materials could
they use).
Mr. Turner referred to Page 8 and noted that the last section stated, "Window signs shall be professionally prepared."
He confirmed that signs sold for example in Home Depot stores would be considered professionally prepared.
Councilmember Dickey stated that she would like to take another look at that.
Mayor Schlum said that there was interest in considering options that were being utilized in some other city or town
relative to sign quality.
Discussion ensued relative to window signs and the fact that allowing them to go from 25% to 50% window
coverage was very generous and the fact that staff looked into recent situations and based their increase on their
findings; the fact that they were still limiting 100 square feet for signage (the aggregate sign area); the fact that
window signage was included in the aggregate; vehicle signage allowed in residential areas and the fact that Chapter
7 limited the size of the vehicle that signage could be placed on; the fact that the proposed regulations stated that
Wito vehicles could not be parked in the same place for 48 consecutive hours; the fact that the proposal did not address
on-street parking; the fact that certain businesses would only have parking along the street and the buildings
themselves actually sat back so the parking stalls were actually along the street; the fact that the proposal would
prevent those people from parking there and this should be looked at as well; the fact that the objective of the
committees that looked at this was to stop someone from using a vehicle as a sign and the fact that, because there
would be certain situations that occur, the issue of vehicle signage should be further addressed.
Councilmember Contino commented that he had seen vehicles on weekends and at night parked in the Town lot
advertising their businesses and noted that nothing was ever done about that. He added that businesses had to
advertise and no matter what size vehicles they had, they must park some place. He cautioned against violating
people's Constitutional rights as far as what could be on the signs.
Mayor Schlum stated that he believed they were talking about the size of the vehicle rather than the content of the
signs.
Councilmember Dickey requested that staff bring back information to the Council to review relative to the limitations
concerning what could be parked and where (motor homes, residential areas versus Avenue of the Fountains, etc.).
She pointed out that they were talking about two different things—the size of the vehicles and the signs.
Councilmember Hansen asked how this (moving the vehicle every two hours) would impact the issue at the 2-Step
Saloon. Mr. Turner said that it was his understanding that sometimes they did not even start the vehicle up, they
simply pushed it. He added that they could park the NASCAR pretty much anywhere on that site except in the
spaces that were immediately adjacent to the street. He stated that right now they parked right in front of their
restaurant and that was not adjacent to the street so they were fine.
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 6 of 14
Councilmember Archambault commented that they had only talked about balloons attached to A-frame signs. He
referred to Section 6.07 and 6.08 and asked if in this particular section staff had any recommendations as to the size
of the balloons.Mr. Turner clarified that the balloons would be limited to 24 inches in diameter.
Mr. Brown addressed the Council relative to the committee's recommendation on balloon height (40 feet in
commercial areas) and explained that they were simply looking for a maximum height for a 24 inch diameter balloon
and just came up with the height that was restricted in that area based on the height of the buildings. He agreed that
12 feet was a little more conducive to what they really should be talking about for a 24 inch balloon because at 40
feet most people could not read what was on the balloon anyway.
Mr. Yates clarified that the six feet on the A-frame signs represented six feet from ground level and not from the top
of the A-frame signs. The maximum that a balloon height would be was six feet.
Councilmember Dickey stated that she would still like more discussion on this because the balloons could possibly
block other businesses' signs. She added that A-frame signs could be different sizes. She also commented on the
fact that although expiration dates had been included in the proposal that did not mean the matters could not be
addressed before that should an issue arise.
In response to a question from Councilmember Contino relative to the impact on real estate signs,Mr. Turner advised
that they had not touched the sections that dealt with real estate signs. He said that there would be differences and
they would have to work through that.
Councilmember Archambault noted that the above ground floor signage was a 50 square foot aggregate signage area
and asked whether that was per business. Mr. Turner replied that that would be the maximum per business and it
would be based on how wide the front is.
Additional discussion ensued relative to the aggregate ratio and the BVAC's proposal that they allow two square feet
of signage per lineal foot of business frontage (still had a maximum of 100 square feet); the fact that any reference to
displaying the American flag had been removed so there were no regulations; Councilmember Dickey's concern
regarding unlimited use and size of the American flag as well as the possibility that signs that could be made to look
like the American flag (pennants, etc.); the fact that a flagpole with a 50-foot flag would probably block a lot of
businesses and the request for establishing some sort of guidelines for this particular issue; Councilmember Hansen's
comment regarding a business located down by the Fountain that for one of the big events wanted to fly a number of
American flags across the front of the shopping center and the fact that they could not do that; Councilmember
McMahan's comment that they would have to be authentic American flags and not depictions of the American flag;
staff's intention to look at what regulations were in place in other jurisdictions relative to flags (size, number, etc.)
and report their findings to the Council.
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Leger, Mr. Turner confirmed that there were Federal and State standards
in place regarding flags.
Councilmember Contino requested that the Council look at the last sentence under 6.08 that said, "Unlimited use of
an American flag as a sign." He said that as Americans they did not want to consider the flag to be a sign.
Mayor Schlum concurred with Councilmember Contino's statement.
Mayor Schlum added that he supported the concept of street addresses as presented as did the rest of the Council.
Councilmember Hansen discussed monument signs and noted that the proposal was recommending a height change
from 5 feet to 6 feet. She said that when the Holiday Inn opened they were a little chagrined at the height their
monument sign had to be because they said people could not see it from the street. She questioned whether 6 feet
cor would be sufficient.
Mr. Turner expressed the opinion that a 6-foot high monument sign should be sufficient and should help
considerably. He added that this was a change that staff had suggested for the purpose of consistency throughout the
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 7 of 14
Code. Additional discussion ensued relative to the height of the monument signs and the importance of ensuring the
businesses could be seen.
In response to the Mayor and Councilmember Contino, Mr. Turner provided a brief explanation of shared monument
signs and said that he hoped that the proposed revision would result in the use of these signs.
Councilmember Archambault commented on Town branding and stated the opinion that the Town's signage should
"invite people in." He asked whether the intent of Town branding was to use monument signs to advise people that
they were in the Downtown area or other area.
Mr. Turner responded that the intent was primarily not to penalize someone from incorporating the brand into their
sign.
Councilmember Archambault asked whether down the road the Town would brand specific areas of Fountain Hills to
let the public know that they were in certain areas. He noted that they had a unique situation in the Town in that the
main drag in most of the other small towns he had visited was all business district (no residential on the main drag).
He added that in Fountain Hills a mixed use existed and that created a problem for people trying to identify certain
areas.
Assistant to the Town Manager Kate Zanon advised that the signage that would identify different business districts in
the Town, which was typically found on Town property in the right-of-ways and so that type of signage would not
pertain to this ordinance. She added that what this ordinance was trying to address as they moved forward and more
business districts tried to become more unique and identify themselves, if they came up with some sort of symbol,
logo or brand that defined their business districts, the businesses within that district could use that in their individual
property signage and not be penalized for it.
Councilmember Archambault said that in looking down the road he saw the Town creating attractive signs that drew
the public in off Shea Boulevard and from other directions. He added that he could envision having different
Lie business districts with specific signage.
Ms. Zanon stated that the BVAC was looking into "way finding signage" and conversations relative to this issue
would take place in the future.
Vice Mayor Leger said that he was comfortable with the work that had been done and spoke in support of the
collaborative effort that had taken place. He added that the Council had recommendations from the Chamber, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, businesses, and staff, and said he supported staff's recommendation relative to
conducting a public forum to allow citizens to provide their input, above and beyond the public hearings. He further
stated that there were some guidelines and standards proposed for A-frame signs and said he believed it would be
important when they were close to being done that they put together an educational program for businesses in an
effort to be proactive. He stressed the importance of explaining to businesses what types of A-frame signs they could
utilize.
Councilmember Contino concurred with the Vice Mayor's comments and emphasized the importance of letting
businesses know what the parameters were before the businesses were opened. He also agreed with holding a public
forum to obtain input.
Mayor Schlum commented on the "business friendly" efforts that had been and would continue to be expended. He
once again thanked everyone who had been involved in the process and said that clarifying the regulations was
important and would have positive results.
Councilmember McMahan also commended everyone involved and expressed the opinion that the proposal was
business friendly and reflected a new spirit of cooperation on the part of all factions of the community. He too spoke
co in support of conducting a public forum.
Councilmember Archambault also expressed his gratitude to everyone and said that he believed they were moving in
the right direction.
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 8 of 14
Councilmember Contino further stated that if Code Enforcement staff could warn people; instead of simply citing
them,that would be the best thing the Town could ever do.
Lir In response the Mayor, Mr. Turner said that he had taken extensive notes and believed that staff had sufficient
direction. He thanked the Council for their ongoing support.
AGENDA ITEM #3 — DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ACCEPTANCE AND INSTALLATION OF
PUBLIC ART.
Director of Parks & Recreation Mark Mayer addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and highlighted a
brief staff report. Mr. Mayer stated that during the June 5th budget discussion questions were raised regarding the
acquisition and installation of public art. He said that he had put together an informational memo for the Council's
benefit that addressed some of the issues. He added that there was an apparent "disconnect" between the Public Art
Master Plan that was recently approved by the Council and the practice that the Town had undertaken over the last
several years relative to installing public art and providing funds to do so. He stated that he had included a quote
from the Public Art Master Plan as it to the contract "... The Committee will prepare a contract covering the entire
scope of the work to be performed, and specifying all fees to be paid, including those for travel expenses, shipping
and/or installation."
Mr. Mayer advised that the discussion that came up previously had to do with some confusion about what the
previously stated quote meant. He stated that in discussions with the Public Art Committee it was their interpretation
that on some occasions, relatively few, the cost of art also included the installation. He added that there were clearly
some pieces that by their nature require the inclusion of the artist such as in the case of Mr. Red Wolf(who installed
a piece of sculpture in the lobby of the Community Center several years ago) a whole bevy of people had been out
there for a number of days to accomplish the installation. He further stated that by far most of the pieces that the
Town had acquired had been relatively easy to install. The exceptions include Mr. Red Wolf's piece and the pieces
"Self Made Man" (located adjacent to the Library) and "The Joy of Music" in the Community Center Courtyard,
which required more extensive bases and were paid for by the Town.
Mr. Mayer stated that in previous discussions with the former Town Manager there was some talk about what
appeared to be this "disconnect" between what was stated in the Public Art Master Plan versus what staff had
continued to do over the years. He noted that he was the author of a document that became part of the Town's
internal procedures (listed as L-1), which was signed by the Town Manager in 2005. He explained that the intent of
that document was to clear up any misunderstanding as to who would be responsible for the installation of donated
art as the Town went forward. He noted that the document in part reads as follows: "All cost for installation will be
covered under the Operational and Community Support Division...," which was under Administration at the time.
Mr. Mayer added that at the June 5th meeting a member of the community spoke to the fact that the Town's actions
were not following the direction laid out in the Public Art Master Plan. He said that one of the suggestions made that
evening was that perhaps the existing policy for public art and the Plan needed to be modified. Mr. Mayer stated that
what he had proposed here and initially to the Public Art Committee were the changes to the language that he felt
would address issues if the Town was interested in continuing to pay for public art. He said that the document could
be modified to clarify these issues. He advised that he had contacted Mr. Jerry Miles, a member of the Fountain Hills
Cultural and Civic Association, and he had indicated that the language, as proposed, was acceptable to their group.
Following were the suggested language changes (listed in italics):
a) Under Item#9,Pages 10 and 11—"shipping and/or installation charges if included...."
b) Under Item#10,Page 11—"and monitoring of the installation of...."
c) Under Item#11, Page 11 - ... paying all project fees, except installation, which is covered by the Town
unless a part of the purchase price, in a timely fashion."
Mr. Mayer advised that Mr. Miles was not able to attend the meeting but Mr. Marty Brown from the Public Art
Committee of the Fountain Hills Cultural and Civic Association was present to respond to any questions from the
Council. He said that he also had the opportunity, at Grace Jakubs' request, to meet with her and he believed the
document that he had and the suggested changes at least addressed some of her concerns but certainly not all of them.
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 9 of 14
Mr. Mayer indicated his willingness to respond to questions from the Council. He added that over the last several
years it had been the Town's practice to pay for the cost of public art and installation. He reported that they currently
had$25,000 in their budget, which was intended to pay for up to ten pieces at a cost of approximately$2,500 each.
Mayor Schlum thanked Mr.Mayer for his presentation and said that he believed it would be helpful for Mr. Mayer to
provide the Council with an overview of exactly what the Town's Public Art Master Plan consisted of as a follow up
and provide answers to questions such as what was it going to look like, where was it going to be, and how much did
they expect to ultimately have. He said that it was important to understand where the people who valued and donated
art would ultimately like this to go. He noted that the Town had spent money on art and added that there was a large
sensitivity that existed relative to the Town spending money on art. He added that many misconceptions existed
including that the art in Town was all paid for by the Town and for the most part that was not true; most of the pieces
had been generously donated. He said that there was also the process that the art moved through — the various
commissions and ultimately the Town Council and he believed that was where the "rub" had been lately, the actual
process. He stated that it might be a fine process but people just needed to be "brought into the loop" and better
understand exactly how it worked. Mayor Schlum stated that the process was as follows: first art was identified,
perhaps it was purchased, and then it was brought through each commission. He added that it would be very difficult
to say no to art that was donated to the Town but stressed the importance of providing a better understanding of the
plan and the process.
Mr. Mayer advised that the Public Art Master Plan was adopted a number of years ago by the Council and it had set a
very lofty goal of within the next ten years to be able to acquire and place for public display 40 pieces of public art.
He stated the opinion that the system had been very successful and a number of pieces had been placed throughout
the community. He noted that the Public Art Committee was also designated in that particular plan as the body that
would be in charge of public art; they would bring recommendations forward to the Council and the Council would
make the ultimate decisions relative to whether or not to accept the pieces and allow them to be displayed publicly.
Mr. Mayer expressed the opinion that the question for the Council to answer was whether or not they wanted to
continue the practice of paying for that art installation, and, if so, how that might be funded. He noted that currently
it was largely funded two ways, either a donated piece came before the Public Art Committee and was funded
Lirthrough the General Fund or with the 1% process that they had, pieces that came through that program were also
installed with monies that came from that particular fund. He stated that it really depended on how that public art
piece came forward—through the 1% fee or through the General Fund.
Mayor Schlum commented that the 1% fee came from commercial construction and had been recently implemented.
He added that that was a separate fund that was in place to fund art if the owner of a construction project in a
commercial area did not implement or erect art on their current property.
Councilmember Archambault said that he was looking at the Public Art Fund guidelines and they had basically
talked about what a property owner could and could not do but noted that the guidelines did not address expenditures
or what the process was and he believed that was part of the concern—it was wide open.
Mr. Mayer advised that Finance Director Julie Ghetti authored the document referred to by Councilmember
Archambault and said it was his understanding that before the monies could be expended, the requests had to come
back before the Council based on recommendations from the Public Art Committee.
Councilmember Archambault commented that the members of the Council were not art experts and he realized that
they relied on the Arts Council but questioned whether it fit into the Master Plan. He asked if they had some kind of
a global idea of the type of art (and everyone's definition differed) and the direction that the public art for the Town
should go. He stated that he was thinking about the Downtown area plat that said"there was a spot here, there was a
spot there" and perhaps there should be some direction from the Public Arts Council on locations where they would
like to see public art and some explanation of the direction in which they would like to proceed. He stressed the
importance of having some type of a plan in place. He added that there was no direction provided relative as to how
to spend the 1% as it built up and emphasized the importance of spending the money wisely. Councilmember Dickey
asked where the appropriation regulations were.
Councilmember McMahan stated that it was his understanding that the 1% went towards art to be placed on the
developers' property and he did not remember it being put into the General Fund.
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 10 of 14
Finance Director Julie Ghetti addressed the Council and advised that the Public Art Guidelines were specifically for
the 1% commercial fee and if a developer decided not to contribute or install a piece of art, in lieu of the art they
could deposit money into this fund. She noted that it was a public art fund and the proceeds of that fund would be
used by the Arts Council to purchase art and it would not have to go on the developers' property, it could go
anywhere within the community. She added that the goal now was to "marry" the Public Art Guidelines with the
Public Art Master Plan and said that when the guidelines were developed, they had specifically dealt with the 1%
commercial fee.
Mayor Schlum thanked Ms. Ghetti for the clarification and stated that perhaps they needed to correlate those two a
little bit more. He requested that Mr. Mayer expand upon the process (how was it supposed to work, was it working,
and which commissions saw each piece).
Mr. Mayer explained that basically the Public Art Committee came forward with recommendations as far as
particular art pieces and provided information including pictures and the value of the piece. Staff went out and
obtained an insurance quote to determine that cost and if the art was going to be placed on park property, they took
the issue to the Parks &Recreation Commission. If it was going to be placed in the Courtyard, it would typically be
sent to the Community Center Advisory Commission. He noted that the way the document was written, the intent
was not that they have approval because that rested with the Council but that it did provide them an opportunity to
comment and those comments would be included in the reports submitted to the Council.
Mr. Mayer stated that individuals could come forward with a piece of art that he/she would like to donate to the
Town and other times a public art piece was found and then solicitation of funds occurred to cover the cost of the
piece. He noted that they had largely an arts system that consists of bronze pieces and in the future there would be
some pieces that would come forth for the Council's consideration that would be stone pieces. He expressed the
opinion that there was a good representative cross section of different pieces now but they had largely been bronze.
The Public Art Committee was looking into finding alternative materials to be used in the pieces for public display.
Mr. Mayer, responding to a comment from Councilmember Archambault, said that staff had sat down with the
16.1" Committee and developed a list of areas deemed suitable for the installation of public art.
Councilmember Dickey asked what type of communication there would be with other commissions, like Parks &
Recreation and the Community Center Commission in addition to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Mayer
replied that, for example, if the art piece was going to be placed in the Courtyard, he would contact Samantha
Coffman to make her aware of the situation and provide her the information about the piece so that she could take
that back to the Commission and bring back any input they might have. He said that he would do the same with
Parks &Recreation but the difficulty with that was that they typically did not meet over the summer but if there were
issues that he thought were important enough he would ask for them to call a special meeting.
Councilmember Archambault asked whether there was a Downtown plan that the Council could review that showed
the various locations for proposed pieces of art. He also asked whether there was a global plan for the purchase of
that art to work in a particular scenario(future visions).
Mr. Mayer stated that he did not believe that staff had communicated anything to the Public Art Committee other
than where art pieces could go. He added that they had left it up to them to select the actual installation points based
on the overall Master Plan. They had provided input relative to the location of art but not necessarily the order in
which they might be placed.
Mr. Brown addressed the Council relative to this issue and advised that he had been a member of the Public Art
Committee and a concerned citizen for many years. He said that they were limited to where the actual placements
might occur. He explained that the Parks & Recreation Department had worked with them and told them the areas
where they were allowed to place public art. He stated that they had an actual physical map for Fountain Park for
cieexample and the same went for the Community Center area, both inside the building and outside. He added that
globally they definitely wanted to do something on the Avenue of the Fountains and in front of the Community
Center eventually. He commented that there was talk about creating a walkway that would lead down to the
Fountain. He said that the art was situated in such a way that if the Town felt that certain pieces needed to be moved
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 11 of 14
for whatever reason, they could be moved. He reported that recently about a half dozen pieces had been moved for
one reason or another, public safety, right-of-way, etc. He informed the Council that they were attempting to be
` broad in their placement and stated that everyone who donated art wanted to have it placed in front of the
Community Center but he, as a member of the Committee, said that they had to place pieces in other areas.
Mr. Brown further stated that they did not have much of a budget to speak of; the monies were generated from
contributions and fund raisers. He noted that they had almost $1 million worth of art in Town and only $125,000 of
it was actually paid for by the Town. He advised that the Committee did reject art and there was an approval process
in place. He added, however, that everyone's taste was different so they were trying to find various art pieces.
Discussion ensued relative to the fact that the Council was placed in a precarious situation regarding art selection
because the decisions ultimately ended up in their lap; the fact that the pieces had gone through multiple layers of
committees and acceptance prior to being brought before the Council; the fact that there was nothing wrong with
controversy as far as art was concerned and the importance of challenging people's minds and thoughts and the fact
that art placement was limited, which created a very real challenge.
Councilmember Dickey asked if there was room for more input from other people before the pieces came before to
the Council. She also questioned how the Council could deal with installation costs (monies coming out of the
General Fund) in view of the difficult financial times.
Vice Mayor Leger stated that what brought them here today to discuss this was the budget discussion they had
regarding$25,000 in the budget for installation costs. He noted that this led to a discussion regarding the importance
of reviewing policy and it was unclear to him when they paid for installation and when they did not. He suggested
that maybe from this session, in addition to all of the positive conversation they were having, they would get back to
looking at the root cause of what brought them here. He said that he has had an opportunity to once again review the
resolution, which was slightly different from the internal policy, and added that now they had this new Public Arts
fund. He stated that his point was not about blame or finger pointing because the art in Town was tremendous but
they had started out kind of"helter skelter" and now they were trying to move forward and achieve some order. He
j added that from his perspective they had two issues—one was they had a policy issue(what did the policy really state
or what did they want the policy to state) and questioned when they wanted to pay for installation and when they did
not.
The Vice Mayor further stated that in the resolution when it talked about purchasing art it talked about contracting,
which implied that when the contract was happening installation was part of that and the Town was not taking on that
burden. He added that another part of the policy spoke about donations and then they had a supplemental policy,
which was excellent, and it said, "the following information applies to the donation of public art." He asked whether
that meant when art was purchased or when it was donated. Vice Mayor Leger stressed the importance of tying all of
the policies together, setting up criteria as it related to installation, achieving clarity relative to each of the scenarios,
and getting the public involved in the discussions and the process.
Vice Mayor Leger advised that the Council recently received a memo from the Arts Committee, which placed before
them three scenarios. He explained that there was a piece of art that the Arts Council was suggesting be purchased
and installed from the arts fund in the amount of $19,006 — a public piece of art that was slated to go in Fountain
Park, so that was scenario one. On another piece, it said that the Arts Council itself (the committee) had money to
pay for it and someone else was contributing so to him that was a purchased piece of art, scenario two. He added that
the last piece was donated, scenario three. He stressed the importance of clarifying when the Town paid for
installation and when it did not. He also emphasized the need to have a Master Plan in place that was shared amongst
the Council (or a refresher), shared amongst the commissions so the right hand and the left hand knew what was
going on with respect to placement.
Vice Mayor Leger stated that from his perspective they need to:
1) Determine when the Town was paying for installation
2) Have a Master Plan in place that was shared with the Town Council and the various commissions
3) Determine the difference between the process for consideration or acceptance of art
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 12 of 14
The Vice Mayor stated that groups could be empowered to do that and it was all about process and procedure. He
stressed the importance of taking the burden off of the General Fund and utilizing the Public Art funds.
Councilmember Contino concurred with the Vice Mayor's remarks and said that what bothered him was that they, as
L. a Council, did not have any say on where the pieces of art were placed in the park. He stated that this was something
that they had to take a look at. He added that he loved art in all aspects, but that they (the Council) had the
community to think about, not just certain people, and he had concerns regarding the installations because the Town
had to take care of the insurance and maintenance. He said that right now they had art work in Town that they could
not take care of as many pieces had calcium deposits on them. He added that these questions needed to be answered
before they moved forward. The process needed to be clearly thought through. He further stated that the installation
costs for many of the projects should be included in the cost of the art.
Mayor Schlum stressed the importance of receiving more public input and being more familiar with the Master Plan.
He added that the sharing of maps was also an important component and a good first step. He said that as far as the
installations he commended Vice Mayor Leger on how he had summarized everything and stated that he covered a
lot of ground. The Mayor further stated that times were tight and they needed to find more intelligent ways to install
art and utilize employees that they had, if possible. He stated the opinion that excellent dialogue had taken place and
he thanked everyone for their input.
Councilmember Archambault commented that he would feel more comfortable if he knew that the Arts Council had
not already purchased a piece before bringing it to the Council for their consideration. He said that then they could
have some dialogue about it and it would alleviate the pressure.
Mayor Schlum stated that what they had not talked about was all of the great things that were working as far as
public art. He added that they were talking about fine tuning, helping to get everyone on the same page and
achieving consensus and awareness but they were not looking to fix what was not broken. He said that they wanted
to encourage those who continued to want to donate art to the Town to do so and noted that a good percentage of the
community greatly valued art and had been enriched by it.
Councilmember Hansen echoed the Vice Mayor's suggestions and encouraged staff to take those suggestions and
observations and come up with an encompassing document that included all of the issues he referred to for the
Council to review over the next couple of months.
Mayor Schlum noted that the Council did receive a map of where the statue of Teddy Roosevelt was going and it had
been approved. He agreed that the manner in which the art pieces came before the Council might not be the most
comfortable manner in which to proceed in the future.
Councilmember Hansen advised that since the subject of Teddy Roosevelt and the statue's location came up, she
wanted to mention that there was also a time capsule buried at the site.
Mayor Schlum again thanked everyone for their input.
AGENDA ITEM#4—ADJOURNMENT.
Councilmember Contino MOVED to adjourn and Councilmember Archambault SECONDED the motion, which
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
L
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 13 of 14
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By
. Schlum, Mayor
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:
Bevelyn J en r,Town Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work Study Session held
by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 12th day of August, 2008. I further certify that the meeting was duly
called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 4th day of September 2008.
Bevelyn J. en r,Town Clerk
L
L
z:\council packets\2008\r9-4-08\08-12-08 work study minutes.doc Page 14 of 14