HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.0911.TCWSM.Minutesz:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 1 of 18
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION
OF THEFOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
* CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Kavanagh called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers.
Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Kavanagh,
Councilmember Yates, Vice Mayor Leger, Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Hansen and Councilmember Elkie.
Town Manager Ken Buchanan, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk Bev Bender were also present.
Mayor Kavanagh wished Councilmember Elkie a happy birthday.
Councilmember Dickey joined the meeting at 5:32 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - DISCUSSION OF AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT.
Development Services Director Paul Mood addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and outlined the contents
of a Staff Report that was submitted to the Council (a copy of which is available on line and in the office of the Town
Clerk). He advised that a Work Study Session was held one year ago regarding this issue and said that staff had brought
back a contract with J2 Engineering and Environmental Design in March of 2012 (he noted that representatives of that
company are present in the audience). He stated that at that time the Council elected not to go forward with the full
design but authorized approximately $20,000 to conduct a site analysis and asked that J2 come up with two concepts for
the Avenue. He informed the Council that the site analysis was completed in June of 2012 and added that a
questionnaire was developed and sent out to the public, the project was announced in the newspaper, various social
media methods were utilized and great effort was expended to get the word out and solicit input relative to the project.
He reported that they had received 367 responses to the questionnaire that the top ranking items from the questionnaire
were maintaining the Holiday lighting, replacement of irrigation systems, reusing existing art pieces, repair/replacement
of the fountains, ADA improvements, tree health/removal and the use of low-water plants. He further stated that J2, in
their site analysis, had looked at the hardscape along the Avenue and had an arborist come out and look at the health of
the trees (some were recommended for removal {16} due to their age and condition -- and the likelihood that they would
not survive construction). He added that J2 also looked at the fountains and did some analysis and explained that one
fountain is on the automatic float refill and the others have to be refilled manually so those were turned off for a week,
they did some calculations and of the five fountains the total water loss was calculated to be about a quarter million
gallons per year (a lot of the leaks are due to the piping underneath, which is not an easy fix). He noted that they also
looked at the existing irrigation and electrical systems and all of that information is included in the report.
Mr. Mood further stated that J2 then took the information from the analysis and the public input received as a result of
the questionnaire and came back with two concepts: The first concept was just to fix basically what is out there today
and most of the work would be underground so when completed they would not notice a lot of difference and the second
was a revitalization concept. He advised that staff met with representatives and invited all of the business owners along
the Avenue to attend the meeting. They also met with the Chamber of Commerce, which has a vested interest because
of the Art Fairs and met with the Public Art Committee, the members of the Greening of Downtown Committee, the
Theatre group and representatives from the Farmer's Market.
Mr. Mood said that based on the input received from the various interested parties, J2 went back and refined their
concepts and they also tried to follow what is contained in the Downtown Vision Plan. He stated that this evening all
three concepts are being presented and said that they were also presented at a public Open House last week. He referred
to a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the office of the Town Clerk and on-line) that highlighted Concept A, Concept B
and Concept C and provided additional details relative to all three proposals. He advised that the cost estimates are
conceptual and there are no hard engineering design or construction documents ($1.2 million for Concept A, which
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 2 of 18
would be mostly underground improvements; $1.8 million for Concept B {$1.9 to $1.95 million for electrical and
irrigation repair and would include future shade canopies} and $2.4 to $2.5 million for Concept C). He said that
Concept C included future projects in the Capital Improvement Plan (i.e. bump outs, trees, on-street parking with second
shade canopy).
Mr. Mood informed the Council that all of the groups liked Concept B but wanted a focal point in the downtown area
and that is what Option C provides -- it can be set up so that all of the work does not have to be done now, it can be set
up for the future. He said that a lot of positive comments were received at the public Open House. He further stated that
different projects have been proposed for the Avenue (the median) dating back quite a long time and it seems to reinvent
itself every three to four years. He noted that staff has been maintaining it and there are some issues. He stated that they
spend approximately $25,000 to $30,000 a year maintaining the median and added that electrical problems can be
expensive. He advised that staff can definitely continue to maintain if that is the desire of the Council. He said that if
Council does want to move forward with one of the options they would want to be under construction after the Art Fair
in February (so sometime in March) and he believes that construction would last approximately four months and plants
and grass should go in around July. He stated that the landscape architects have recommended that for the first year no
over-seeding of the median take place. He added that design will also take three to four months so in order to meet the
schedule and get everything done next summer they will need to get some direction from the Council -- do they want to
move forward with the project and, if so, which is the preferred concept (Concept A, Concept B or Concept C)?
Mr. Mood reported that right now the budget is $1.8 million, with $1 million from the Downtown Development Fund
and $800,000 from the Capital Projects Fund. He reiterated that at this point they are all just concepts and once Council
provides direction to move forward they can pin down the numbers better. He said that the Greening Committee has
indicated its willingness to participate in the greening of the median. He indicated his willingness to respond to
questions from the Council.
In response to a question from Mayor Kavanagh, Mr. Mood advised that the cost of the design would be approximately
10% of the construction costs.
Councilmember Yates referred to the $25,000 to $30,000 that is being spent right now on maintenance and asked how
much of that is due to condition versus cutting the lawn and Mr. Mood estimated approximately $5,000 a year. He said
as far as the water loss, that cost is typically $1.00 to $2.00 per thousand gallons.
Councilmember Brown commented that he has studied the estimates closely and said that they all look a little high to
him but he understands that they are estimates and it is better to estimate high rather than low. He recommended that
they look into using pavers instead of concrete walks. He advised that he prefers Concept B and doing the
undergrounding for future expansions for lights. He stated that he does not believe they should do the shade structures
at this time.
Councilmember Elkie stated that in looking at both Concept B and C he thinks it is important if they are going to create
a wonderful feature downtown that people have easy access to it so he really likes the ideas in Concept C to allow for
parking immediately next to the median and asked what that cost would be.
Mr. Mood reported that staff is estimating $75,000 to add the concrete and the trees for the bump outs.
Councilmember Elkie stressed the importance of having the ability of building onto whatever they decide to do. He
pointed out that they have talked about having a lighting feature in that area and said it is also important to have
something that will draw people -- another reason for people to come into the downtown area.
Discussion ensued relative to the lighting options that are available; Aaron Allan commented relative to the fact that
there are lighting systems out there that can synchronize with water features and Mr. Allan comment that as far as
Option B, accent lighting for the trees and similar lighting for public art, etc. could be accommodated but the more
elaborate systems, such as the synchronized lighting and those with jets, are usually more of a package system and it
would be very difficult to do that after the fact; Mayor Kavanagh's comment about the costs associated with this project
and the fact that there are a lot of residents who are very concerned that money will be spent on this and the Town will
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 3 of 18
not have money to spend on the roads; the Mayor's statement that she has explained to a lot of people what the
Downtown Fund is and many of them do not seem to have a problem with the Downtown Fund being used but when
they start to talk about the Capital Improvement monies, that raises concerns; the Mayor's question as to whether any
thought was given to a design that stayed within the Downtown Fund and would not require dipping into the Capital
Improvement Fund and Mr. Mood's response that just the Downtown Fund would be very close to covering the costs for
Concept A, which is the bare bones of what needs to be done (without any enhancements); and Mr. Mo od's statement
that they could probably do one half of the Avenue with the Downtown Fund but staff looked at doing the entire median.
Mayor Kavanagh noted that the plan calls for deep watering and asked how that will work with the planting of native
trees. Mr. Allan advised that low water or desert trees would be provided low water. He clarified what the report is
actually referring to.
Councilmember Hansen thanked Mr. Mood and staff for all their work and said she believes that what is being proposed
would accomplish all that the Council asked staff to look at. She added that when she looks at this it is like looking at a
park because of the park-like setting and one of the things that she has a problem with is that at the Retreat the Council's
number one priority was streets. She added that this is a wonderful amenity that would be really nice to have but she ha s
discomfort with spending this money on an amenity at this time when they still have the big, glaring street priorit ies to
take care of. She noted that there are going to be other major projects coming up, roofs, etc. and so she is trying to put all
of that into perspective as well.
Vice Mayor Leger stated that he is very sensitive to what the Mayor and Councilmember Ha nsen have said as far as
funding the project and added that it is true that at the Retreat they talked about priorities and pavement management
was the number one priority. He said that in order to accomplish that goal they are probably going to have to l ook into
doing a bond proposal at some point in time. He noted that the second priority was economic development and
commented that this project would help stimulate activity in the Downtown area and add value to the whole notion of
economic development. He agreed with the Mayor's statement relative to spending $1 million in Downtown Funds and
$900,000 in capital funds for this project and said that when they proposed this they said $1 million from the Downtown
Fund and $900,000 from capital but the landscape has changed a lot since then.
The Vice Mayor advised that he had spoken with someone in Finance and asked what the current balance in the
Downtown Fund is. He reported that it is currently $2,063,000 and when he looked at the Capital Plan for the ne xt five
years there has been another million dollars on the sideline that they have used for streetscape improvements on the
north side of the Avenue -- he said they all know where that is going and it is probably going nowhere -- so that money
is available as well. He stated that with a balance of over $2 million in the Downtown Fund he would recommend that
they rethink how they are financing this, pull the $900,000 out for capital and rather than using that on capital, use it to
reduce the cost of doing Saguaro and that to him is how they leverage this discussion.
Vice Mayor Leger further noted that they have $183,000 of the Downtown Development monies budgeted for the
Economic Development Department. He said he doubts very much that they will be spending that money by the end of
this year and if they do spend any, it will probably be half of that amount. He noted that things are looking a little better.
He advised that he certainly is in favor of Option B and he has a really hard time justifying to the citizenry spending $1
million and having nothing to show for it because the work would be primarily underground (Option A). He discussed
the construction schedule and starting the work around February and noted that it is possible that it could span into a
new fiscal year. He advised that his thought process is to use Downtown funding for the $1.8 million and stretch that
across two fiscal years. He expressed the opinion that this is doable and they would not have to utilize capital money.
Mr. Mood referenced Vice Mayor Leger's points and said that there would have to be a conversation with the Town
Manager and the Finance Director because the full use of the Downtown Development Fund is not currently in the
budget. He added that he knows they talked about crossing two fiscal years and if they got construction going after the
first Art Fair he can't tell the contractor to start, spend this much money and then stop until the next fiscal year when he
can start again. He said that they are going to be spending their money as fast as they can build the project so there are
some concerns there as well.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 4 of 18
Councilmember Dickey pointed out that they do fund transfers and said if they didn't do it in two fiscal years she would
like to know if they start the project in February whether the project would be done by July 1st.
Mr. Mood responded that they would have to start after the first Art Fair (the end of February) so in a best case scenario,
if J2 could get everything in place for whichever concept the Council decides to move forward with, then construction
could begin in early March and he would anticipate that the work would go at least a couple months into the next fiscal
year (they might get a majority of the work completed this fiscal year but there may be things that still need to be
wrapped up and that could go into the next fiscal year).
In response to a request for clarification from Councilmember Dickey relative to problems associated with spanning two
fiscal years, Mr. Mood stated that it is his understanding that Vice Mayor Leger is recommending changing the funding
for the project (all of it would come out of the Downtown Development Fund). He explained that it has not been
budgeted that way in the Capital Plan so there would be some legal finance issues.
Councilmember Dickey spoke in support of Option B with the idea of being able to have some of Option C in the future.
She agreed with Vice Mayor Leger's comment relative to economic development, which was also a priority identified at
the Retreat as was the park, so she believes they are very much attached to each other. She said they obviously have to
fix the roads but if they take economic development, Fountain Park and the water those are all one big unit. She added
that as far as the bump outs, even if they don't physically do those the idea of having the median wider gives them some
options for some other things that could be done on the medians -- traveling exhibits and things like that. She stated that
the median could become an area unto itself where other things could take place. She added that she is in favor of that
and if the support isn't there to use the capital improvement funds then she would like to look at using the Downtown
Development funds and seeing how they could make that work.
Town Manager Ken Buchanan said that he believes that the Council is aware of the fact that from time to time he has
expressed concerns about how they need to continue with their restoration programs. He noted that they have had
cutbacks over the last four budgets and they need to consider the priorities and what they need to be looking at in the
future -- namely, the Pavement Management Program. He added that they also need to keep their eye on the prize and
as far as economic development they need to look at the roads, Saguaro and some of the other ones. He stated that they
are going to be asking the citizens, if the Council goes along with staff's recommendation, to proceed with another bond.
He noted that he is concerned about doing this project at this time. He advised that he is for the project and thinks they
need to do a project for the medians but not at this time. He reiterated that he believes they need to start addressing the
Pavement Management Program and should also look at the bond program to get Saguaro done first and then come back
and do this. He added that a portion of the money could be used to maintain some of the streets they have in the
Downtown area because they don't have enough funding to even do that.
Councilmember Hansen again referred to the Downtown Fund and asked when the Council approved taking a portion of
the sales tax and dedicating it to the Downtown Fund whether that was done on a simple motion.
Town Attorney Andrew McGuire replied that he doesn't remember if it was by a motion or a resolution but in any event
it was by Council discretion and not part of any initiative or anything else. He confirmed that the Council does have the
ability to change that.
Councilmember Elkie asked Mr. McGuire what the Downtown Development Fund was set up for (what was it
specifically designated for) and Mr. McGuire said that he could try and pull up the answer to that question during the
meeting if the Town Clerk can give him an idea of when that happened.
Councilmember Elkie advised that he too supports Option B and stated that he is mindful of the priorities they set at the
last Retreat (roads being priority number one). He added that he doesn't think that they have to be single minded in their
approach as far as everything that they are doing. He said that in speaking with many of the business owners relative to
developing Downtown he heard a lot of people say "I will believe it when I see it" and this is something that has been
discussed by past Councils for years and years. He stated that he thinks it is time for them to do something Downtown
and make it inviting for a business to invest in and more interesting/attractive so that more people will come into the
Town and spend time in the Downtown area. He added that they should decide if they are looking at doing anything and
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 5 of 18
if the answer to that is no, then everything else is moot. He said if the answer is yes, then the next question is how do
they pay for it and what are they willing to do.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that she would like to speak to the Downtown funding and using it for something else. She said
that this, like the Mountain Dedication Fund, was passed with sort of a promise that this is what the money would be
used for and the sales tax money has been going into this fund. She added that she knows that this Council could
probably change it and use the money for something else if they wanted to but she is a little hesitant to break this sort of
honor what was established. She stated that she certainly wouldn't want to say "Well, we need the money for something
else so we are not going to use it on the mountains anymore" because she thinks it was sort of a promise and people put
their money into this fund for the purpose of the Downtown so even if they can she would rather not change that funding
and instead save it for Downtown for lots of reasons she had heard this evening -- economic development, tourism, etc.
She added that she would like to honor what a past Council promised the people they would do.
Vice Mayor Leger commented that although they could in the future change how this tenth of a percent is utilized, and
that may be something they need to consider, they have made a commitment and he thinks it is important to honor their
commitments. In this case, the commitment was that the money was for the Downtown Fund and he had people as early
as last week looking at this presentation and they came up to him and say, "There was a commitment there and there is
an expectation that if the dollars are there then they should be spent on this particular project." He added that given the
Downtown Development balance, the dollars are there and he thought it created a relief to move it across two fiscal
years and they do that with a number of construction projects. He stressed the importance of telegraphing a message,
and he is respectful of the Pavement Management concerns, that this is money from the Downtown Fund that is
committed to that fund and those are the dollars that are being utilized for this project and freeing up close to $1 million
in capital that can be moved over to either reducing the cost of the bond, which gets them to the same place, or having
that money for Pavement Management.
Vice Mayor Leger further stated that they have $250,000 in their five-year plan for Downtown enhancements
(streetscape) and that money has been put on the sideline for the infamous projects that are going to occur someday,
somehow, on the south side of the Avenue. He added that knowing what they do about the current project and what they
know about future projects it is going to take a while to get there and they are getting close to $200,000 to $250,000 in
the Downtown Fund annually. He stated the opinion that there has to be a leap of faith at some poi nt in time and he
thinks they need to take a risk. He reiterated that he thinks this can be covered by the Downtown Development Fund
and they have made that commitment. He agreed that they should not change where that money goes at least not this
fiscal year.
Councilmember Hansen said that when they talked about the streets and how important they are they referred to that as
economic development as well so even if they are saying they are going to leave the fund the same way, using that
money on the streets on Saguaro between Palisades and El Lago and Palisades between Saguaro and Fountain Hills
Boulevard would be an allowable use of Downtown Funds (on Downtown enhancements). She said they also talked
about going back to the voters for the bond and if they exhibit that they are trying to come up with part of the financing
for the road repair (from the Town), she believes the voters would be more likely to support a bond issue. She added
that if they were willing to commit the Downtown funding money toward s the Downtown streets, she believes it would
be helpful in getting the voters to approve a bond issue. She stated that this is a great plan and it is certainly something
that they would like to see going forward but to her it is going back to the priorit ies and she is afraid it might put a
damper on approving a bond issue among some of the voters.
Councilmember Dickey agreed with not using the monies for another purpose and said that it is a pact in a way. She
added that since the full amount is already budgeted they could do a budget transfer if there are concerns about going
over into another fiscal year. She further stated that if they put $800,000 or $900,000 from Capital Improvement into
reducing the amount of the bond that is still putting "skin in the game." She stressed the importance of having enough
faith in the community to know that the bonding is for the roads and this is a separate fund. She noted that when they
did the survey 367 responses came back and not everybody commented but of those comments, the ones who just said
"Don't do anything," represented a minority, 10% or so. She said she hopes they can try and move forward.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 6 of 18
Mayor Kavanagh commented that she would like to know how the results would have come out if it had said only
Downtown funds would be used and did not mention capital improvement funds because that seemed to upset a lot of
people.
Mr. Mood advised that the preface of the questionnaire did say that the funding was $1 million from the Downtown
Fund and $800,000 from the Capital Projects Fund. He reported that there were 185 written responses and 35 of those
talked about using some of the funding for roads (18.5%).
Councilmember Dickey noted that everyone had an opportunity to comment so it is more like 11%.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that she would be in favor of looking at a way that they could do this without touching the
Capital Projects funds and without making any changes to the Downtown Development Fund.
Councilmember Elkie said that it sounds as though Option B or some variation of that option is what they are talking
about here. He added that if it becomes a situation from a legal standpoint where they could only use $1.7 million from
the Downtown Development Fund and they have to do $200,000 from capital or something like that, he hopes that that
would not defeat the whole idea (because they have to dip into capital a little bit).
Councilmember Hansen asked if street improvements would be an allowable use for Downtown funds.
Mr. McGuire noted that Councilmember Elkie has raised the same question (what were the general uses) and staff will
provide an answer to that question as soon as they can. He added that the information is not available at this time so
some research will have to be conducted.
The Mayor commented that they might find that they talked about it more as a concept rather than a specific dedication
issue.
Councilmember Elkie asked if a staff member could possibly locate the information and bring it back before the Council
in the meeting.
Mr. Buchanan advised that he thinks he has those minutes but he would have to go back up to the office and retrieve
them and he would be happy to do that.
(Note: At the end of the meeting Mr. McGuire provided whatever information was found on this issue.)
Councilmember Yates commented that a healthy economy is more like a pie -- it is a lot of pieces -- so to pick out any of
these projects and say, "Well, that probably isn't all that important" is not the way to go. He said that they have to look
at this holistically and everyone will probably support some variation of this and he encourages that. He added that he
also knows that there is probably some value engineering that can be done here and depending on how conservative they
are in the bid (he is assuming 10% to 20%) he thinks that there are some definite savings that they can go though to
make these numbers work. He stated that this is part of economic development, just like roads and streets and any one
project should not be weighed against something else -- they need to look at it holistically.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
REGARDING: (i) CHAPTER 1, DEFINITIONS; ii) CHAPTER 6, SIGNS; (iii) SECTION 19.05, PUBLIC ART
REQUIREMENTS, REVISING OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPER DONATIONS TO THE PUBLIC ART FUND;
(iv) CHAPTERS: 12, 16 AND 18, REVISING THE PERMITTED USE SECTIONS TO ALLOW
RESTAURANTS TO HAVE OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS IN COMMERCIAL OR LODGING ZONING
DISTRICTS AND ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS BE FENCED
IF NO ALCOHOL IS SERVED OR SAFETY ISSUES EXIST; AND (v) CHAPTERS: 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15 AND 18,
REVISING REGULATIONS TO STREAMLINE THE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AND ELIMINATE
UNNECESSARY OR DUPLICATIVE PERMITS.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 7 of 18
Senior Planner Bob Rodgers addressed the Council relative to this agenda item and noted that four actual ordinances are
going to be coming up so he was hoping to go through each one in numerical order, do some questions/answers, and
then go on to the next one rather than wait until the end to do the questions/answers on all of them.
Mr. Rodgers highlighted a PowerPoint presentation relative to this item and discussed the Sign Ordinance, which he said
is probably the one most people are interested in (a complete copy of the entire presentation is available on line and in
the office of the Town Clerk). He explained that this is Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance and said that the Council was
becoming frustrated with the general compliance issue in a few areas of the Sign Code and directe d staff to form a
Committee, review and study all the issues, and then come back and present some recommendations. He advised that
the Sign Ordinance Review Committee met weekly, reviewed the entire Sign Ordinance for over a year and provided a
variety of recommendations. He reported that a majority of the changes are primarily typo fixes (department names,
consistency changes, etc.) and the main changes include the fact that all of the definitions have been pulled out of the
Chapter and moved to Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance in an effort to make the Ordinance easier to use by businesses
and the general public. He added that the other section that contains most of the changes is Section 6.08, where all of
the regulations for the various types of signs are located (they renumbered the index table at the beginning to reorganize
it, a few missing sections were added to make it more user friendly, A-frame signs and the fact that this will allow
businesses that front on more than one street to have more than one A-frame sign -- one per street frontage and would
allow them to be placed within the public right-of-way). He said that any liability issues should be discussed this
evening. He noted that the A-frame signs would be allowed to be placed within one foot of the curb or if they had some
balloons or some similar attachment they would have to be pushed back to at least three feet back from the curb. He
added that they would delete the Section that says, "A -frame signs cannot be used for directional purposes." Another
main issue that is going to be addressed is banners and they would allow grand opening banners to be up for 30 days
rather than the current 14 day limit and they would delete the requirement that event displays be brought in each night
and put up again in the morning.
Mr. Rodgers further stated that they are going to talk about some contractors’ signs and said that they are currently not
allowed to have banners on their fences when they are working and the Committee recommended and Planning &
Zoning (P&Z) also agreed that banners for contractors could be up when they are on-site doing a job. He added that
garage sale signs have been addressed and they will be consistent with the A-frame regulations being proposed. A few
different materials have been added such as corrugated plastic and they have added a few notes to try and keep the
general clutter of A-frame signs down on the weekends when they are out. He reported that they have removed the
restriction that neon signs be used only for "Open" or "Logos" and explained that that was deemed to be a content issue,
which may or may not be legal so they can be used for any type of business signage. Real Estate signs are going to be
addressed and will be consistent with the standard Real Estate Sign Section and the Open House Section and will also be
consistent with A-frame and garage sale Sections. If the signs do not present a safety hazard, the intention is not to
regulate their spacing from street corners (currently they are required to be at least 150 feet back from a street corner).
Open House signs cannot be clumped all together in one bunch.
Mr. Rodgers advised that there are going to be some major changes in the Political Signs Section in order to comply
with new State Statutes (they are going to be bigger and they are allowed within the road right -of-ways). Projecting
signs, the ones that stick out perpendicular to the wall, will be allowed to be used more often when appropriate. They
are going to classify the Open House Signs as portable. The goal was to make all the small portable signs consistent
with each for ease of use by the public and general business community. Staff made recommendations relative to the
Lodging District Signs and they would now allow those developments to go under the normal Sign Regulations. Sign
Walkers have recently become a bit of a problem but the discussions dealt with when appropriate, allowing them all
weekend long, Friday, Saturday and Sunday and to remove the time limits.
Mr. Rodgers stated that upon completion of the review, the Sign Committee held three Open Houses where the
recommendations were presented to the public. Staff and the International Sign Association also provided some
recommendations and P&Z held a public hearing. In addition, the Town Attorney has provided a number of
amendments to clean things up and what was presented tonight was a brief compilation of the proposed changes. P&Z
will hold a second public hearing and their final recommendations will be forwarded to the Council for their public
hearing in November. He indicated his willingness to respond to questions relative to this item.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 8 of 18
Mayor Kavanagh thanked Mr. Rodgers for his input.
Councilmember Dickey asked whether "events" are defined anywhere and Mr. McGuire stated that there is no definition
in the general definitions of Section 1 or in the Sign Ordinance that has now b een merged with 1. He said he was not
sure whether Section 2 has one but he would check on it.
Councilmember Dickey commented that so much of what happens with the temporary signs and the banners has to do
with events and now that they are changing it to be from the beginning of the event to the end of the event she was
wondering if there were any limitations (what would define an event?). She noted that they could occur every day.
Mr. Rodgers said that there is a section in the Sign Ordinance that talks about allowing them for 60 consecutive hours
per month or once every 30 days (it is not in the definitions but it is in one of the regulations). He said that section was
not specific to banners; it was for every type of event that a business wanted to hold.
Vice Mayor Leger noted that Mr. Rodgers had used a matrix that indicated what the current ordinance looks like and
what changes were proposed and asked if that was available for viewing this evening.
Mr. Rodgers stated that he did not have that information with him this evening and it was used as part of the public
hearing process.
The Vice Mayor commented that the matrix made it very simple to view the proposed changes at a glance. He asked
what the rationale was for allowing sign walkers to walk with their signs on Sunday when 50% or more of the
businesses are closed on that day.
Mr. Rodgers advised that a lot of the sign walkers are out on the weekends and doing auctions for the houses, etc. He
noted that Code Enforcement is not out on Sundays and since the sign walkers were out there on the weekend, the
discussion centered around allowing them to be out there all the time. He said that staff pushed back on that and said
perhaps that was a little too much for this first go around and the propo sal represents a compromise. He added that if it
was cost effective for the businesses to have the sign walkers out on Sunday they would allow them to do so. He said
that staff would monitor this and see how it works out.
Vice Mayor Leger commented that Sunday is the one day of the week that he would prefer not to see sign walkers on the
streets. He stated that his rationale is that the majority of businesses are closed. He said he believes, in reading the
statutes, that the primary work of sign walkers is to be walking versus sitting and asked if that was correct.
Mr. Rodgers noted that they are allowed to spin signs and the Vice Mayor pointed out that they have one "sign walker"
who is a "sign sitter" and when he is not sitting no one is babysitting the chair, which is quite unsightly. He stated that if
they are not allowed to sit then this chair needs to go.
Mr. Rodgers informed the Council that he does not believe the statute states that the person has to specifically walk
although they should be bringing their chairs in with them when they are not using it (instead of leaving their chairs and
signs out there).
Mr. McGuire advised that he will try and look up the statute to see what it specifically states.
Mayor Kavanagh said that she too questioned the use of sign walkers on Sundays and added that she thought this was
geared more towards the business community. She stated that it does state "reasonable" in the court case that came out
of that so in light of the business community she was just wondering if there was a real benefit for businesses to have
sign walkers on Sundays. She advised that she didn't think it mattered that Code Enforcement does not operate on
Sundays and they should just allow it to occur on the days they really want and need it. She added that maybe they
could get someone to go out there on Sundays if they had to. She questioned whether for the businesses it would be
considered "reasonable" to have the sign walkers out on just Fridays and Saturdays.
Mr. McGuire noted that "reasonable" is what this legislative body decides and with respect to Town local ordinances or
codes, the seven members of the Council decide what is reasonable and what is not. He pointed out that when it was
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 9 of 18
approved, the sign walkers' provisions were considered to be a reasonable. He further stated that for the purpose of this
statute the definition of sign walkers simply says, "A person who wears, holds or bounces a sign."
The Mayor asked if staff had discussed the possibility of allowing businesses to have sign walkers on a different day
other than Sunday when they might want to have a special sale.
Mr. Rodgers responded that they did have discussion on that and the Committee went back and forth on this issue. He
noted that if someone wanted to have a special event or a sale then they could do the 60 consecutive hour long weekend
type of event.
Councilmember Yates commented that the rationale behind this was "let the market prevail" and said that no one is
going to pay sign walkers $8.00 to $10.00 an hour on an early Monday morning unless there is a need or a demand. He
stated that the market will somewhat tell them when the need exists. He pointed out that for restaurants/bars, sports
events are a big deal on Sundays.
Councilmember Hansen agreed that different businesses are open at different times and said she thinks that including
Sundays was part of the compromise (giving an additional day even though it wasn't what a lot of the businesses were
wanting). She stated that the businesses wanted the flexibility to use sign walkers if they had something special planned
for a Tuesday for example.
Mr. Rodgers informed the Council that he has not had anyone come in or call and ask about the sign walker regulations.
Councilmember Elkie noted that the proposal is to allow sign walkers on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays without
limitation as far as the hours (assuming they will be going in when it gets dark) and asked if they can do it for other
special events.
Mr. Rodgers replied that as a general rule those are the three days for sign walkers but if businesses want to hold a
special event on another day of the week then they can obtain the over-the-counter permit that is issued for 60
consecutive hours.
Councilmember Hansen suggested that an option may be, if they are talking about three days, to allow them to select
which three days.
Mr. Rodger confirmed that anyone who wants to hold a special event can pick the consecutive days.
Councilmember Hansen clarified that she is saying instead of tying it to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, allow sign
walkers not more than three days a week and it would be up to the businesses to determine which days they are utilized.
Mayor Kavanagh asked if permission has to be granted in advance and Mr. Rodgers responded that right now no.
Mr. Rodgers advised that if they went to a program like that then they would have to put some type of process into
place.
Councilmember Elkie stated that he would support something that made staff's job easy -- easy to interpret and easy to
apply. He also agreed with Councilmember Yates' comment about allowing the market to dictate their use. He added
that if there is abuse in the future and there are sign walkers all over the place then they could readdress that (he would
rather not use Town resources to chase and track people). He also agreed that every day of the week should be open
without restriction and he doesn't think they are going t o see a big glut of sign walkers all of a sudden (they would have
seen that already).
Councilmember Dickey advised that she agrees that it should be allowed to occur on any day and she is more concerned
about the hours.
Mr. Rodgers said that a compromise was reached because the goal was to limit the overall sign clutter.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 10 of 18
Councilmember Dickey stated that she understands that and hopefully they are addressing that with some of the other
limitations. She said it is okay with her to have it on any days of the week.
Vice Mayor Leger commented that he would be most comfortable allowing the sign walkers on Mondays through
Saturdays and reiterated that not many businesses are open on Sundays. He further stated that he believes it is
reasonable to require a sign walker to walk rather than sit and if they are the legislative body that makes that decision, he
would like to make it clear that they walk. He added that the chair is rather unsightly and it is one of the first things
people see when they come into Town. He pointed out that he has seen them erect tents and signs in other communities
and he would not like to see this get out of hand.
Councilmember Brown advised that the business referred to by the Vice Mayor has been sold and they haven't seen
anyone sitting out in the middle of the median (they are on Saguaro now). He noted that when they first wrote the sign
walker provision into the ordinance eight years ago, everyone was scared to death that what Vice Mayor Leger talked
about would happen. He said that so far, except for the "sitter," the sign walkers have not offended him at all but he too
would rather not have them out on Sundays.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that she doesn't have a problem with having them every day and referred to Councilmember
Yates' comment about the bars and restaurants being open on that day during football season. She added that perhaps
they could add some sort of restriction that people can stand with a sign and that's it -- no tents or anything else. She
pointed out that the person who was sitting did block vision. She said that she doesn't think that people will do this a lot.
Councilmember Elkie agreed with the Mayor and stated that then they are creating two different sets of rules -- one for
businesses that operate Mondays through Saturdays or Mondays through Fridays and then one for the businesses that
conduct most of their business on the weekends. He agreed that during football season some of the bars and restaurants
probably do a lot of their business on Sundays and week days are less important to them. He further stated that the high
schools routinely hold car washes and fundraisers like that with members of the football team standing out on the
corners holding up a sign saying "car wash - donations" and asked if that would constitute a sign walker. He questioned
whether they would be prohibited from doing car washes on Sundays and stressed the importance of thinking about
unintended consequences. He added that if they see that the rules are being abused they can address that. He further
stated that he thinks it would be good if they could write something into the regulations about the sign walkers'
appearance (clothing, dress, etc.).
Councilmember Yates said they have to take into consideration enforceability.
In response to a question from Councilmember Dickey, Mr. Rodgers replied that the annual deadline applies only to
banners and A-frames. He explained that if this did get out of hand they would have to do a zoning amendment.
Councilmember Dickey agreed that to date that have not really experienced any major problems but if there is a way to
put some type of restriction in there, as suggested by the Mayor, she would support doing so.
Mayor Kavanagh advised that they would move along and discuss the fees at this point. She said that she is aware of the
fact that the fines have changed and she is a little bit concerned about that. She stated that she understands why they
were raised (non-compliance) but pointed out that the Town really has not been doing any sort of enforcement and the
whole idea is to get a good, workable document that the business people can live with and then go from there and see
how the compliance goes. She expressed concerns about the amount of the fines and impacts on small busine sses that
are just hanging in there especially during the slow summer months. She stated the opinion that this may now be too
restrictive and she wishes they could go back to the original fines and then with the new ordinance in place along with
the new compliance/enforcement regulations, they could see if it works rather than "going right away with the stick
rather than the carrot." She added that she knows they talked about an extensive education program for the business
community -- the Chamber and the Business Alliance both volunteered to help with that. She said she is just wondering
if they could just stick with what they had before and see how that works with the business community. She pointed out
that for a first offense, to have a sign that maybe cost a few hundred dollars like some of the A-frames be confiscated
and on top of that have a $100 fine assessed against the business seems a little outrageous (they could forget to bring it
in one night).
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 11 of 18
Mr. Rodgers commented that the process does not call for assessing a fine the first time -- typically the Code Officer is
going to go talk to the business owner first, discuss the problem and ask them to fix the problem before he has to
actually come back and give them a citation.
Mayor Kavanagh advised that she realizes that that is the intent but pointed out that it really doesn't say that in the
regulations. She added that they (the current members of the Council) may not be here years from now and it does say
"first offense not to exceed $100 and the confiscation of the sign" so anyone who wanted to apply that at the time of the
first offense could actually do that.
Mr. Rodgers explained that the confiscation clause is actually in there now and the only things that had been
recommended for change were the amounts of the fines. He noted that that was done at the P&Z hearing but ultimately
that is a policy decision that the Council can decide on (the amount of the fines).
Councilmember Elkie requested that Mr. Rodgers explain what would happen if someone was found to be in violation
(step by step).
Mr. Rodgers advised that for an A-frame sign, the Code Officer would go to the business owner, explain why the sign
was in violation, what they could do to take care of it, give them 48 hours to rectify the problem (maybe longer
depending on the violation) and then he would come back and check on it in a couple of days depending on what the
time limit was and if they had not complied, that would trigger the citation.
Councilmember Elkie asked if the first part was codified (as pointed out by the Mayor) and Mr. Rodgers replied no, it is
more of a procedure within the Code Enforcement Division.
Councilmember Elkie stated that he would feel more comfortable having that language in there as well because although
he likes having an element of discretion as far as enforcement, he would like to see some type of warning spelled out in
the Code itself at least for first-time offenders. He added that from there, people can't claim they didn't know. He said
that the warning should be documented in some way, similar to what police officers/sheriffs sometimes provide. He
noted that in this way staff will have something that the offenders have signed off on after having the violation and
methods to remedy it explained to them.
Mr. Rodgers advised that business owners are typically not happy being cited and they are not going to sign anything.
Councilmember Elkie stated that if they don't sign anything that is fine but it gets delivered to them and on the back side
they could have the pertinent codes and a telephone number to call if they have any questions (it would serve as another
educational tool).
Mr. Rodgers pointed out that the penalties are imposed by the Judge (offenders can pay the ticket or go and talk to the
Judge who can reduce it if he so desires). He added that he cannot remember a time when staff has actually confiscated
a sign.
Mr. McGuire noted that the ordinance, as it is being rewritten, is going to refer the process over to the Civil Ci tation
process -- and that is a Notice of Violation, if that is not complied with then a civil citation would be issued and then
there is a provision that kicks it over into criminal after a bunch of different civils. He asked if this is intended to be in
front of those processes so that prior to a Notice of Violation there would be a warning.
Councilmember Elkie commented that he thinks the Notice of Violation, at least in his mind, is sufficient. He said they
would be giving them the notice without any type of particular financial penalty or seizure of property and he thinks that
that would satisfy at least what he was thinking.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that that seems to be the same thing as a warning and Mr. McGuire agreed and said there is an
opportunity to correct the problem before the issuance of a citation.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 12 of 18
Vice Mayor Leger advised that he would agree to the codification because they have actually had this discussion before
and when he looks at the penalties and their amounts they do seem rather harsh. He added, however, that when you take
into account the fact that there is a process in front of the fining then all of a sudden this is not really all that
unreasonable. He pointed out that people have choices and it is his understanding that these were proposed by P&Z to
be even higher when they had the meeting the fine amounts were reduced. He further stated that the reason why they are
here and the reason why the Sign Sub-Committee, which did a fabulous job, was formed was in response to non-
compliance issues. He said that despite providing additional information to the business community, non -compliance
increased and expressed the opinion that the proposed fines are not unreasonable. He added that when they are done
with this process there will be enforcement, which they pulled back on because of the economic climate. He stated that
at some point in time he thinks they need to say, "Here's your warning, your warning serves as education."
Mayor Kavanagh said that she has a big problem with the $500 fine and the way it has jumped from $50 to $500 and
noted that the third one jumps from $100 to $700, which is a huge increase. She added that if the Council wants to do
some kind of an increase she thinks they could arrive at a lower amount.
Councilmember Brown asked how the Committee felt about these numbers and Mr. Rodgers replied that this is going to
go back to the Committee on the 27th of this month with all the new items (they have not seen the proposed fine
increases). He added that the entire Committee was not present at the P&Z meeting when those changes were made.
Councilmember Hansen advised that the ones who were present were quite taken back.
Councilmember Yates stated that when they gave it to P&Z for review it was more standardized and the hope was
“Don't get to part two or part three but do a little bit of a sting.” He said obviously if they are messing up, they need to
fix it but questioned what the reaction of the owner of the small business or restaurant is going to be. He stressed the
importance of keeping this in context with what they are trying to accomplish. He added that he agrees that compliance
was and is an issue but he believes they can get that by just going out and making contact and educating the public. He
stated that if somebody for whatever reason does not comply and if it is blatant non -compliance, there is a trigger in
there to get it before a Judge to address this. He added that to throw out a $700 fine or wherever this goes he thinks is
ludicrous and it sends the absolute wrong message out there. He expressed the opinion that there is a way to express
their goal without taking a week's salary away from somebody because their A-frame sign did not comply.
Councilmember Brown noted that this has been worked on for over a year and asked how the goal can be accomplished.
He pointed out that compliance was the number one problem when the Committee started and compliance is still the
question and enforcement is still the big issue.
Councilmember Yates advised that they are a one-man shop and grossly understaffed, which played a big part in this.
He said that they did not have an education process in place to let everybody know. He added that he appreciates the
fact that if you give people an inch, they will take a mile, but again he thinks they are taking the wrong approach here
with assessing a $700 fine. He stated that he agrees there should be a fine and there should be a process but they have to
think about what they are doing.
Mayor Kavanagh commented that as far as the compliance issue she thinks a lot of it just got out of control when they
were not doing any enforcement (people saw someone with a sign and then they wanted a sign, etc.).
Mr. Rodgers interjected that that is recent -- within the last year or so -- but pointed out that prior to that the Council had
come back three times and each year they extended it for another year but they were asking for compliance, which they
were not getting, especially as far as A-frame signs.
Councilmember Hansen said, as it was pointed out, one of the goals of this whole process over the past year, was to
come up with a document that was going to make it easier for business owners to be in compliance. She pointed out that
the way the Town is laid out there were some business owners who would be in non-compliance just because of the way
the ordinance was written. She stated that she thinks that is what they were trying to achieve with the changes. She
added that "staying the course" first with the current fees and then giving the ordinance a try would be the way to go.
She noted that if it is still a problem then the fees can be adjusted because that can be done at any time.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 13 of 18
Vice Mayor Leger said that with all due respect, and he will probably be touted as being non-business friendly, he has
been on the Council for six years and they have been down this road three times and compliance has always been the
issue. He added that frankly, if someone couldn't understand the Sign Ordinance prior to this then he doesn't understand
how that person could run a business because it really is not that complicated. He noted that many warnings were given
and education was provided (that was the purpose of the $5.00 permit -- to create a face-to-face scenario for the purpose
of education and that was done). He said that after multiple non-compliance issues the Council just said pull back -- just
stop enforcing it. He added that he doesn't want to punish business owners and he would be happy to propose that they
cut the proposed fines in half but he still thinks there needs to be a reasonable number in place because if past behavior
is the predictor of future behavior, something needs to be done. He would support cutting the $100 to $50, cutting the
$500 down to $250 and reducing the $700 fine to $350.
Councilmember Dickey commented that when they say compliance was an issue she doesn't remember the exact
percentage but it was like 90% non-compliance. She agreed that they have to set the fees high enough so that they don't
become a cost of doing business because she knows from experience that there are areas in business where that cost is
just built into the business plan (if the benefit exceeds the penalty then maybe it is not such a bad penalty). She advised
that she doesn't know what that number is but she has seen it (paying a penalty for a certain violation) just become a part
of the cost of doing business.
Councilmember Brown stated that he doesn't think it matters whether the fine is $50 or $100 if someone is not going to
get in compliance they will just not follow the rules. He noted that in the past they would try and enforce it but there
were so many non-compliant signs the Council didn't have a leg to stand on. He added that hopefully, after a year and a
half with eight business people on the Committee, they have established ambassadors who can go out and help the
Council and the Town guide the enforcement and help educate the rest of the business people. He stated that he will go
along with what Councilmember Hansen said -- $25, $50 and $100 for right now but he wants it to be enforced, he
doesn't want to "soft shoe" it and if that doesn't work they can come back and readdress this issue and the numbers.
Mayor Kavanagh concurred with Councilmember Brown's recommendations and stated that she would like to present a
document in good faith to the business community and say, "Now is your chance to comply with this, the Committee
worked so hard on putting this together." She stressed the importance of having a fair document in place and she said
she would like to just see how it goes. She added that as Councilmember Hansen said, at any time they can chang e the
fines so they should work on the compliance and see if they can do this is a business friendly manner.
Councilmember Elkie said that he has served on the Council for two and a half years and each time that they voted to
extend the sunset on this they have reiterated the need for businesses to comply with the ordinance that was in place at
the time and it just didn't happen. He stressed the importance of having some "teeth" in the ordinance and stated that the
$25, $50 and $100 fines might annoy some of the business owners and those amounts could be increased later if
compliance remains an issue. He added that he would like staff to let the Council know immediately if compliance is
not improving and he would hope that the business community would help educate itself. He noted that having had a
seat at the table and having served as partners in this whole process, there should be more acceptance and more
compliance. He added that he would go along with the $25, $50 and $100 at this time and see what happens. He said
that he hopes this will be the end of it and they can just "put it to bed" but if it isn't, then they will have to look at other
things.
Mr. Rodgers informed the Council that the one issue he wanted to be sure everyone was aware of was liability issues and
asked if the Council was okay with having the A-frame signs within the public right-of-way.
Mayor Kavanagh commented that this came up because a lot of businesses have big parking lots in front of their stores
and want to have an A-frame but they would defeat the purpose of having an A-frame if they put it right in front of their
business so they wanted to put it on the little median that separates the parking lot from the street. She said that now
they would be permitted to do that.
Mr. Rodgers advised that this is one of the biggest violations associated with A -frame signs and this would allow those
signs to be in the public right-of-way within a foot of the curb. He added that if they had balloons or something similar,
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 14 of 18
they would be pushed back three feet. He noted that this could result in some liability issues because they would no
longer be on the business properties and so staff needs Council direction on this issue.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that they have a lot of businesses with large parking lots so if the Council didn't allow them to
put the signs out there that would affect a lot of businesses.
Councilmember Brown said that he supports allowing the businesses to do so and said he doesn't believe it will present
any hazards.
Mr. McGuire clarified that the current provision, as written, would not allow the signs to be in center medians that
divide portions of pavement or paved roads so the landscaped median along Saguaro will still be off limits.
Councilmember Elkie asked if this would include the improvements on Avenue of the Fountain and Mr. Rodgers said
no, because that is a parcel and not a public right-of-way.
Mr. Rodgers noted that another issue is the banners and it is being proposed that the time limit be extended from 14 days
to 30 days for event banners. He added that currently churches are allowed to keep them up for 30 days and the idea
behind this is to be consistent for both churches and businesses.
Councilmember Dickey moved on to 6.08® - Political Signs - and asked whether the Town is looking into have a sign
free zone, which is allowable according to the statute.
Mr. Rodgers responded that staff has not looked into establishing one to date.
In response to a question from Councilmember Dickey, Mr. McGuire advised that the sign free zone is allowed for an
area that is defined as entertainment, hotel/hospitality, etc. He reported that it is limited to three square miles and the
communities that have established them include Paradise Valley, which did a very long, skinny version of it to be able to
hug the right-of-way along Lincoln to allow all the resorts along there to be covered by it. He pointed out that Fountain
Hills is significantly more compact as far as uses so the three square mile limitation probably would not be difficult to
find. He added that they would need to have a determination by Council ordinance to determine that this is an area that
has those characteristics and will be sign free. He noted that it is mainly related to aes thetics and whether signs in a
particular area would economically or aesthetically harm that area (i.e. Fountain Park).
Mayor Kavanagh asked if they could designate an entertainment district or something like that and pointed out that that
is basically what Scottsdale did but then they didn't do anything about the non-compliance.
Councilmember Elkie asked what the distance is from Saguaro at Shea to Saguaro out at Palisades and Mr. Mood
responded approximately three plus miles. Councilmember Elkie commented that that is the distance but as far as the
square -- how far west could they go towards Fountain Hills Boulevard because that would be an interesting three square
miles.
Mayor Kavanagh said that if the Council is interested in doing something like th at they could ask staff to look at that.
She added that she would want to include the park in that.
Councilmember Yates commented that they could probably include the entire Town Center in that.
Vice Mayor Leger noted that the State provision clearly provides for a sign free zone and he too would be very much in
favor of directing staff to look into this (definitely between Saguaro and Palisades because that is their Town Center and
their tourist area with the park plus there is a hotel in that particular area).
Mr. Rodgers asked if that would include the Town Hall (the parking area where most of the signs were erected) and the
Vice Mayor said that staff will have to research that and come back with some recommendations. He noted that this
could occur in a couple of Downtown areas.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 15 of 18
Councilmember Hansen brought up Election Day as well and discussion ensued relative to the fact that the Council
could make an exception for that particular day.
Mayor Kavanagh advised that she had a question about garage signs and noted that she read that they have to be
constructed of wrought iron, sheet metal, plastic or wood that is at least three-eights of an inch thick.
Mr. Rodgers pointed out that that requirement is currently in the ordinance (they only added plastic).
The Mayor said that she was just wondering if there was any way they could make that a little easier so that people did
not resort to using boxes and Mr. Rodgers stated that boxes are not allowed. Mayor Kavanagh advised that she is aware
of that, however, they do use boxes because people having garage sales typically don't go out and purchase special
materials to make their signs -- they use what they have in their possession. Mr. Rodgers stated that staff will actually
provide -- free of charge -- a sign that residents can use for their sales as long as they return it after the sale. He reported
that they have four or five of them.
Mayor Kavanagh reiterated that she would like to make that a little bit easier so that people have an easy way t o put up a
sign and be in compliance. She asked for input on this.
Mr. Rodgers agreed that the cardboard boxes are the ones that staff gets the complaints about because they wind up in
the middle of the street.
Councilmember Elkie commented that there are some things that they will just not be able to control.
The Mayor asked if they are just looking the other way when it comes to this and Mr. Rodgers stated especially on
weekends because they do not have a Code Officer working then. He added that whe n the Officer does receive a
complaint he does go out and talks to the people and explains what the problem is but it is usually too late by then.
Councilmember Dickey referred to lighting and said they have a lighting ordinance and wanted to know if that was what
governs whatever signs have lights (as far as how bright they are, etc.) and Mr. Rodgers stated confirmed that it was.
Vice Mayor Leger referred to Chapter, 6, Page 18 of 34, Banners, Balloons & Pennants, and read that for grand
openings no permit is necessary or for Chamber ribbon-cuttings. He added that when there is a change in the ownership
of a business no permit is necessary to use banners, balloons or pennants but noted that for church events a permit is
required to utilize those items. He asked what the rationale was behind that.
Mr. Rodgers informed the Council that that has not changed but clarified that permits must be obtained in order to use
banners for all of those uses. He added that over-the-counter reviews are conducted on the events that do not require
permits to ensure that there are no safety issues. He noted that if a church was having an event the same type of permit
that would be required -- over-the-counter administrative approval. He said that feather signs fall under the same
category as banners and all signs are supposed to be in good condition.
In response to a request for clarification from Vice Mayor Leger, Mr. Rodgers confirmed that Shea Boulevard is a sign
free zone in general and if someone has a banner on Shea Boulevard or in the right-of-way in front of the Target center
that would constitute a violation. Mr. Rodgers added that there is a setback, he thinks 150 feet, and if they abided by
that they would be okay.
Mayor Kavanagh pointed out that the Farmer's Market was allowed to erect a large A-frame sign on Shea and asked if
they can continue to do this.
Mr. Rodgers responded that that is not something that was covered under this ordinance; that was under a Special Event
Permit. He confirmed that they could place an A-frame sign on Shea as long as they obtain a Special Event Permit that
includes the off-site signs, like The Great Fair.
Councilmember Brown complimented Mr. Rodgers and the entire Committee and said that he thought that the work
done on the Sign Ordinance was very well done.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 16 of 18
Mr. Rodgers went on to discuss Ordinance 12-04 - Public Art and explained that this ordinance amendment is being
done as a result of a request from the Building Safety Division. He outlined the responsibilities of the B uilding Safety
Division in this particular area and explained that the requirement that Public Art contributions be made at the time of
Occupancy Permit approval of commercial, industrial or multi -family development projects has proven to be
problematic for the Building Safety Division over the past few years. He noted that on occasion, Building Safety staff
has had to hold back Certificates of Occupancy after a building has been constructed due to the applicants not having
met the public art requirement. He added that this requirement has occasionally slipped through the cracks and
Certificates of Occupancy have been issued in error due to the current permit tracking software's inability to flag this
requirement in this system.
Mr. Rodgers further stated that since the responsibility for collecting the public art donations rests with the Building
Safety Division, they have requested that the ordinance be amended to require that the donations (either cash or actual
art pieces) be made at the time the Building Permit is issued. He explained that at the request of the Planning & Zoning
Commission, the ordinance has been amended so that if the cash donation is selected, the funds would be held separately
until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. He noted that the Public Art Committee expressed their support for the
proposed amendments in an e-mail dated June 25, 2012. He added that any cash contribution or actual art donation
provided at the time of the Building Permit issuance may be refunded if the project fails to begin construction for some
reason. He said that this change is administrative in nature and only the process is being changed. He requested input
from the Council relative to this item.
Councilmember Dickey asked if the Public Art Committee would not be able to expend any funds until they knew for
sure the project was going forward and Mr. Rodgers replied that Finance Director Julie Ghetti would have to set up two
accounts, one that they could draw from and one that they could not until the Certificates of Occupancy were issued.
Mr. Rodgers addressed Ordinance 12-05, Outdoor Seating, and explained that the proposed amendments would revise
the permitted use sections to allow all restaurants to have outdoor seating areas in commercial or lodging zoning
districts. He added that the amendment would also eliminate the requirement that outdoor seating areas be fenced if no
alcohol is served and noted that there are no public safety issues. He reviewed the Staff Report on this item and
informed the Council that staff receives numerous inquiries from restaurants regarding whether or not they can create
outdoor seating areas for their customers to use during the cooler months. He explai ned the current regulations and said
that the proposed text amendments will provide all restaurants that are already permitted uses and located within any
commercial or lodging districts the option of creating on-site outdoor seating areas for their customers without the
requirement that they obtain a Special Use Permit or enclose the patio area.
Mr. Rodgers further stated that restaurants that do not serve alcohol will be provided the option of not installing a fence
or similar barrier around their outdoor seating areas and restaurants that do serve alcoholic beverages will also have the
option unless required to enclose their outdoor seating areas under their State Liquor License. He added that exceptions
are made in cases where public safety would be compromised and in such cases the Town will require the seating area to
be fenced or otherwise protected. He stated that the safety determination will be made during the Concept Plan approval
and/or the Building Permit process. He noted that in cases where no approvals for physical improvements are required,
the Zoning Administrator will make the determination. He added that ADA (Americans with Disabilities) requirements
would not be affected and would remain a requirement.
Mr. Rodgers informed the Council that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted at their June 29, 2012 regular meeting
to forward the recommendation to the Town Council to approved the proposed text amendments to Chapters 12, 16 and
18 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to Outdoor Seating Areas and said that staff also recommends approval.
There were no questions from the Council relative to this ordinance.
Mr. Rodgers discussed Ordinance 12-06 - Temporary Use Permits, and reviewed the Staff Report. He explained that the
proposed amendments would revise the zoning regulations relating to Temporary Use Permits (TUPs) to amend,
eliminate and/or redefine these sections in order to streamline processes and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy or
duplicative permits. He reported that the TUP regulations currently reside in seven chapters of the zoning ordinance and
occasionally duplicate a number of other permit requirements and sometimes create unnecessary and time -consuming
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 17 of 18
procedures. He briefly highlighted the ordinance sections which contain TUP regulations and the effect of the proposed
amendments on those sections. He reported that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted at their June 28, 2012 ,
regular meeting to forward a recommendation to the Council to approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance,
Chapters 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 18 as they relate to TUPs and staff also recommends approval.
There were no questions from the Council relative to this ordinance.
Mayor Kavanagh thanked Mr. Rodgers for his presentation.
In response to a question from the Mayor, Mr. McGuire advised that he had a chance to skim through the minutes in
response to questions posed earlier in the meeting and said that it appears that Ordinance 00-12 from August of 2000,
was approved with pretty broad discretion (relative to the Downtown Fund). He said that the discussion following this
was 99% on the mountain side of it or the tax side of it (whether or not to tax) and there really was not much discussion
focusing on Downtown as opposed to the mountains relatively speaking. He stated that he does not believe that there is
an encumbrance upon the Council and they would have to go back and pull Ordinance 00-12 to specifically amend it or
appeal it depending on how the Council would like to deal with it and he believes this is totally within the Council's
discretion.
Councilmember Yates thanked Mr. Buchanan and his assistant Shaunna Williams for pulling that information together.
Councilmember Elkie commented that he echoes what Vice Mayor Leger previously stated -- when this was passed the
voters were told that the monies were going to be used for a specific purpose and he would have a problem with undoi ng
what was previously promised despite the fact that the Council has the discretion to do so.
Councilmember Hansen pointed out that they are not talking about changing anything now -- they are talking about what
the allowable uses of the Downtown Fund actually are. She added that that is still kind of hanging out there as to
whether those funds could be used for paving in the Downtown area.
Mayor Kavanagh commented that it is just the way the money has been used since then and she thought that there was
something that designated the Downtown area. She said she knows that the Chamber was always talking about a
designation for the Downtown area -- there were the districts that were set up -- and she has always thought from just the
way it has been handled that it was considered the Downtown.
Vice Mayor Leger stated that he would agree with Councilmember Hansen that they probably do have the latitude to go
back and perhaps redefine and make this a little clearer but he looks at history and he looks at precedent and they have
almost set a precedent by how they have utilized that money in the past and if they did it differently he thinks that would
be changing it. He referred to the Swaback project and said that he believes it was supplemented with Downtown funds
because that was a Downtown project (for the purpose of developing Downtown) and he cannot recall using that money
for pavement or sidewalks in the past. He expressed the opinion that their past behavior has set that precedent and
despite the fact that they do have some flexibility he would like to honor the commitment that was previously made.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that she thinks the money was used for the sidewalks and the shade structures that were erected.
Vice Mayor Leger concurred and said that was on the north side of the Avenue.
The Mayor reiterated that she too would like to honor the precedent that was set.
Councilmember Dickey said that she believes Councilmember Hansen is not saying let's not use it for Downtown, she is
asking if the intersection can be considered Downtown (the roads). She added that the reason this came up was to
determine whether they were willing to put money into the roads and whether it comes from the CIP or the Downtown
Fund, it shows that the Council is showing a willingness to put some money into the roads.
Councilmember Yates requested that Mr. McGuire pull the ordinance and provide the Council with his interpretation
and Mr. McGuire said that he would be happy to do so.
z:\council packets\2012\r10-4-12\120911wsm.docx Page 18 of 18
Vice Mayor Leger said that he forgot to mention when they were having the discussion on the median that he was at the
presentation the other day that staff had and he heard a couple people toss around some different terminology -- they
were referring to this as an Events Mall. He stated that rather than saying they are going to spend $2 million to enhance
a median, they might want to discuss how they talk about this because it really is about creating some synergy in the
Downtown area.
Councilmember Yates interjected that it is like a Mall on the Avenue.
Mayor Kavanagh thanked staff for displaying pictures in the Chambers commemorating the anni versary of 9-11 and
stated that she thinks they have all had a day of remembrance. She added that if anyone has not already paused to think
about all the people who lost their lives that day she would encourage them to do.
AGENDA ITEM #3 – ADJOURNMENT.
Councilmember Brown MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Yates SECONDED the motion. The
Work Study Session adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By ______________________________________
Linda M. Kavanagh, Mayor
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:
_______________________________
Bev Bender, Town Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of t he minutes of the Work Study Session held by
the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 11th day of September, 2012. I further
certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 4th day of October, 2012.
___________________________________
Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk