Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/1998 Regular Council Meeting MinutesI1. III. Vo MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 Marana Town Hall, April 7, 1998 By Vice-Mayor Bobby Sutton at 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Vice-Mayor Bobby Sutton INVOCATION Led by Captain Paul Ruehl, Sr. of the Salvation Army ROLL CALL Ora Harn Bobby Sutton, Jr. Ed Honea Herb Kai Sherry Millner Michael Reuwsaat Roxanne Ziegler Mayor, excused Vice Mayor Council Member Council Member, excused Council Member Council Member Council Member STAFF Hurvie Davis Michael Hein Jocelyn Entz Dan Hochuli Sandy Graseclose Brad DeSpain Dave Atler Jerry Flannery Dave Smith Town Manager Assistant Town Manager Asst. to Town Manager Town Attorney Town Clerk Utilities Director Town Engineer Planning Director Chief of Police APPROVAL OFAGENDA A motion was made by Mike Reuwsaat, seconded by Ed Honea, to approve the agenda, as written. The motion carried 5/0. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES A motion was made by Ed Honea, seconded by Roxanne Ziegler, to accept the minutes of Regular Council Meeting, March 17, 1998. The motion carried 5/0. VII. CALL TO THE PUBLIC/ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 'VIII. STAFF REPORTS No action taken. MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 IX. GENERAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Resolution No. 98-32 - Adoption of Development Agreement Between the Town of Marana and Norman P. McClelland, Frances H. McClelland and Shamrock Dairy Farms Company for the Purpose of Setting up a Reimbursement Mechanism for Costs of Public Infrastructure Along Hartman Road. Hurvie Davis: This is a zoning agreement between McClellands, normally referred to as the Shamrock Dairy Property at Cortaro and 1-10, for the purpose of reimbursing costs for public infrastructure on Hartman Road. This is has been in the process for about a year. This came about with a number of public improvements that we required of the developer. Mr. Hochuli and I felt before the project proceeded any further, it was necessary to get that development agreement locked up. I have a map that explains what the reimbursement provision relates to. 1-10 Freeway runs along here and this is the Cortaro Road alignment. This is Hartman Road going up between Cortaro and Linda Vista. The parcel in blue is the McClelland property or the old Shamrock Dairy Property. As a result of the rezoning, the Council required the developer to pave Hartman, the distance of their property on Hartman from the north end of the property south to Cortaro, and required them to put in a third lane on Cortaro with a traffic signal at the access to the commercial property which aligns this residential neighborhood on the south side. Hartman from the south side of Countryside is paved up to Linda Vista so that would leave this remaining stretch here between the McClelland property and this area here. The Council's condition of rezoning got the developer to agree to pave this at the time the commercial property is developed because it would generate trips from Countryside subdivision down to the commercial property. They would front end and do this project before they could get the Certificate of Occupancy for the commercial and we would reimburse them the cost from the sales tax coming in from the commercial. I think that was set up on a 50/50 basis. It is a project that we would not have been able to really require the developer to do on this stretch, but since they are putting the commercial in, we got them to agree to do it and we would reimburse the cost when the commercial opened. Mike Reuwsaat: I'd like to make comment. It is very pointed. I think this is a good example where the Town has taken a responsible position in working to make sure that adequate traffic infrastructure is provided by the person providing the impact. It goes a step beyond and provides traffic infrastructure on a really horrible piece of unpaved road that will benefit citizens outside of the boundaries of the Town of Marana. If you have driven up Hartman Road, you know exactly what I am talking about, particularly when it gets rutted. It is bad for alignment and all those other things. I think the Town has taken some bad raps. Particularly, it took some bad rap from some of the neighborhoods there in terms of when it was considering the 23 acres that are now under referendum. That neighborhood is now going to significantly benefit from the infrastructure that the Town is requiring of the builder. I think it needs to be noted that this is a positive step, both on behalf of the Town of Marana, and on behalf of the developers that are putting the infrastructure in. Too many times arrows are shot at us and the good things are not pointed out. This is one of the issues that came up during those earlier hearings and I just want to point out that it is coming to fruition. It is a benefit and it is not costing the neighbors of Marana, it is benefiting them. Dan Hochuli: I guess recently there was some question as to whether the developer, the entity entering into the agreement, was still the owner of all the property. I was going to suggest an addition to the motion that we approve the development agreement upon confirmation, but I was told that the developer has given us confirmation that it stills owns all the property. If the developer sold part of it, it cannot bind that portion of the property and I wanted to make sure we were getting it all. I have not seen that proof, but I understand it is in. If the Council would like the movement, it could add to the motion that we would enter into the agreement on confirmation that the developer owns all of the property. A motion was made by Mike Reuwsaat, seconded by Ed Honea, that that Council adopt Resolution No. 98-32, approving the Development Agreement between the Town of Marana and Norman P. McClelland, Frances H. McClelland and Shamrock Dairy Farms Company upon confirmation that the Developer owns ail the land in question. Motion carried 5/0. B. Ordinance No. 98.07: Reouest for Rezone by Vistoso Verde LP - Consideration of Approval of a Request to Rezone Approximately 33.7 Acres Located Approximately 1/, Mile North of Moore Road and East of the Thornydale Road Alignment in the West V2 of Section 29, Township 11 South, Range 13 East from "Zone C" (Large Lot Zone, Minimum Lot Size 25 Acres) to R-16 (Single Family Residential, Minimum Lot Area 16,000 Square Feet), Assessor's Parcel Number 219-31-02 Through 05 and a Portion of 291-30-07. The applicant is the Planning Center, 450 W. Paseo Redondo, Suite 202, Tucson, AZ 85701. The Property Owner is Vistoso Verde Limited Partnership, P.O. Box 433938, Tucson, AZ 85733, (Continued from 3/17198). Hurvie Davis: This item was continued from the March 17th meeting. I think the Council and the public are probably pretty well aware of this issue. There have been a number of meetings involving staff and the consultants for the developer. I am not as privy to some of that information as Mr. Flannery and other staff members, so I would ask Mr. Flannery to bring you up to date on this matter. Jerry Flannery: As Mr. Davis said, this item was held as a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on January 14, 1998. The Town Council continued it from their March 17th meeting. Shortly thereafter, a request was made by the applicant to withdraw certain portions of this request for zoning. The original request contains 75.2 acres. The proposal tonight before you 3 contains 33.7 acres. If you recall, on the zoning there were three sections. The northern most was one acre lots which is R-36 zoning, the middle section, which was the ridge line and the mountainous portions of the property, was requested for R-144, and the southern portion was requested R-16, 16,000 sq. ft. for lots. The request is now only for the 16,000 sq. ft. lots. The applicant has taken under consideration what the Council has expressed as well as several of the property owners surrounding this property and has come back with this new proposal. I would like to note that there is a modification to the Ordinance that is within your packet. I know that Mr. Hochuli has two new copies. Basically, the language in the Ordinance talks about Moore and Tangerine Road and Thornydale and Tangerine Roads. Those were reversed in the original language. The new information corrects that so that it is correctly sited in your Ordinance. There is an additional comment condition and it is Item No. 11 in the new Ordinance. There are two versions that Mr. Hochuli is giving the Council for you pleasure to act on. One stipulates that there be a five year reversionary clause stipulated on this request and there is a second that stipulates a three year. The five year does not allow for any extension so it is just five years period and it is reverted, if no action is taken by the developer to pursue development. The three year condition has an additional sentence that allows for a three year extension, a one time shot, upon justification by the developer for a good reason, If they are in the middle of a final plat and the three year comes up, they request a three year extension. Those two items are before you. There are a couple of other items that talk about off-site improvements. They are in item 2, and, specifically, the language has been modified to present that sufficient assurances be made to provide for those off-site improvements proportional to the impact of the development and that would be shown through the traffic impact analysis to be done at the platting stage and the hydrology study to be done at the platting stage. Those two items are connected to the proportional off-site improvements that are going to be required, and that would be done through an assurance provision. Other than that, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Are you saying that there is another copy that you need to give to us or just understand that Item 11 is either 5 years or 3 years with the extension? Dan Hochuli: Some of the conditions were changed in the text from what you have before you. What I have passed out is the proposed Rezoning Ordinance as it exists today. The one you have provides in Condition 11 for a five year period. I have another one available that provides for the three year extension. I did not pass it out. Vice-Mayor Sutton: I understand. We will choose one of those. Dan Hochuli: There were some other clarifications between the conditions on the one that I just handed out and the conditions on the one in your packet. We have gone over those. If you would like, I can go over what we were trying to achieve in those, or you can read it. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Was it major changes or basically what we had to read prior?. Dan Hochuli: The significant change is that the one you have before required certain studies to be done, but nothing to be done after the studies. Condition 1 and 2 are the main the changes there. What we have said is instead of just doing the studies, the developer is responsible for following through with those studies. What we have done with the reversionary clause is to make this clear. It is difficult to go in and say the zoning will revert if you haven't started construction because it is difficult to define what "started construction" is. What we have said is, you need to have satisfied these conditions within the "x" period of time, the five year, let's say, and if you have not completed the conditions, then it will revert. For instance, Condition 1, do a traffic impact analysis, do a hydrology study, and in the final plat reflect the developer's obligations to do thaL The theory being that if the developer has gone to the trouble of doing a final plat and has put those assurances in it, it is probably going to go ahead and finish the project. A few of the items that probably will not be completed, such as Items 7, 8, 9, and 10--they need to be on a public sewer, they need protection of development along the ridge, minimum lot size. For those we require that if they have not started development to actually record a deed restriction, so if later this thing is developed 10 years from now, the owner of the lot will know that they must have a one acre lot size, if they are in a certain area, or a 100 ft. setback. So some of these they actually have to satisfy, others they need to record covenants if they have not satisfied them. So the zoning is not dependent upon the start of construction. It is quite possible, if the five year were passed, that five years from now there is not a stick on the property, there is not a house that has been built, and the zoning will have vested, but that is because the conditions will have been satisfied. So you may not see the houses, but they need to take substantial steps. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Jerry could you touch on the items from the Public Hearing, some of the public concerns, what has been done, and what has been changed to address some of those, and then we will have the Council comments. Roxanne Ziegler: I would like to have my comment first. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Would you like your comment first? Would it help? Roxanne Ziegler: No, it is not going to help, supersede in its entirety what I have in here? Does this document Dan Hochuli: It does. The one that we presented you in the packet was presented at that time when we had that information. The new one is intended to be the one that would be adopted. Roxanne Ziegler: And why is it that I am getting this at 7:25 p.m. and it has 4 pages. I am not a speed reader. This is my usual complaint from Planning and Zoning. If there was one or two subtle changes, but I am sitting here $ looking at a document I have looked at for 16 months. Now I am over here looking at a document I have looked at for 10 minutes, so do we have an explanation why we have to consume what is in here. Dan Hochuli: I have an explanation. The explanation is that this matter was placed on the agenda from the last meeting. Just for an example, our packet deadline for your next Council meeting is the day after tomorrow. So when we were at a Council meeting and the Council gave direction and we heard from the public--we did have an extra week so as not to mislead because there was an extra Tuesday last month--but when Council gave the direction, and we wanted to get it on the next Council agenda, staff had to scramble to get something in your packet. At the time that that went in your packet, it was submitted to the Mayor and Council for packet inclusion and at the same time it was distributed to department heads and the developer for comment. Throughout that time staff continued to amend it. One option is for the Council to continue the item in order to have time to fully digest the information I have given. I would say that if I were the developer, I would rather see the one in your packet passed. This has not gotten softer in the past week and a half, it has gotten harsher. Roxanne Ziegler: I would not continue this and I would be unhappy if we do. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Would you like a short recess? Roxanne Ziegler: I would like to have a short recess to digest this. Vice-Mayor Sutton: 10 minutes. The Council is in recess. The Council recessed at 7:23 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:32 p~m. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Are there any concerns with the new Ordinance that we have in front of us? Roxanne Ziegler: No, I appreciate the indulgence to read. Jerry Flannery: I believe, just to reiterate, the question was what concerns the public had throughout the process originally before the Planning Commission and Council when the entire 75 acres was up for rezone. Most of the concerns related to the ridge top development, the development north of this property in one acre lots, and the utilities that would be provided to the area, such as water, sewer, and roads. Access was a major concern for several of the residences, it was nice to have a break. I had a chance to talk to a few people I have not had a chance to speak to recently. Those concerns, I think, in large part, go away with the requested amendment made by the developer in this case, whereby he has eliminated the R-36 and the R- 144 request. The ridge tops will remain "C Zone", which is 25 acres or greater. There is a condition within this Ordinance that stipulates that there will be a preservation of that area, Item 8. The developer shall provide to the Town's satisfaction for protection from development of the ridge adjacent to the rezoned property, and that can be done through a final plat. There are other issues, such as buffers. The southern portion of the property isn't entirely 16,000 sq. ft. lots. As you may have recognized through some of your other material, there is a one acre minimum lot size that abuts the east property line of this property and there is a 100 ft. building set back line. That was taken into consideration for the property owners adjacent to that area. I understand that no everybody wanted infrastructure in this area, and I can respect that, because a number of people wanted to move out here to have a large lot, build a house, and do a number of things. However, several people came to the Commission and, I believe, the Council to express the fact that they are hauling water into the area. With this development, if there is an advantage, the infrastructure would be closer, if approved; therefore, it may not be as costly for some of those residences north of there to extend that infrastructure to their properties. The other concern was for fire flows - to meet the fire flows. As you can see in Condition 10, the property will be required to annex into a fire district prior to the sale of any lots. We did not stipulate which. We have not done that in other properties and we decided to just stipulate that it be in a fire district. The Town had adopted the Uniform Fire Code for 1994 which requires fire flows, and so adequate fire flows would be part of the process when the lots are developed. Therefore, there would be adequate fire protection for any homes that are built in that area. I believe that is most of them. If I have missed any, I know that some of the ladies that I spoke with will point those out. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Council have any questions or comments? We will let some people speak. Lisa Sullivan, 13000 N. Thornydale: I own five acres directly adjacent to the southeast of the proposed rezoning. Most of my issues are not necessarily valid now that we have this new form that just came out, but I am going to go ahead and address some of the other ones. I just recently learned that the developer withdrew the ridge top rezoning which made a difference on how I feel about this. I am still opposed to the rezoning, but there are some conditions on that. We moved to the area primarily to have a rural lifestyle. We are one of the families that do not need the infrastructure. We have our own well, we have our own septic, and we do not have phones and do not choose to at this time, so that does not really matter to us. We do feel that there are some health, safety, and welfare issues that still need to be addressed. They did address the fire issue and I am glad about that. But, there are still some police protection issues, the water agreements, garbage collection, and things like that that I do not feel would be a problem, but they do need to be addressed. I also have some very strong aesthetic issues that need to be talked about. If the Council does approve this rezoning down to R-16, I feel it is going to strongly impact our property values and those on adjacent areas. I would like to see some CCR's in place to protect us as well as the people building within that development. We do not want something similar to Continental Ranch built next to five acre parcels or larger. They do not blend and it affects everybody's property 7 MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 values. We feel that two story homes should not be allowed. It will impact the views of everybody east of that subdivision. I would like to see no more than one story, not to exceed 20 feet above finished floor elevation. I would like homes no smaller than 2,000 sq. ft., because most of the homes in the area are at least 2,000 sq. ft. or larger, and I feel that having much smaller homes will again impact the other residents. I would not like to see any RV, boat, or recreational vehicle parking. If you are going to approve this, I do not want to see cookie cutter style homes. I would like to see more of a custom home development. These can be Santa Fe architecture or something similar, but I would rather not see everything exactly identical that I have to look out on every day. I know that they have granted one acre lot sizes on the east; I would also like to see that on the south. That is our drive in to our property. I do not want to see a huge concentration of homes every time I drive down my easement to my home. I would like to see it no more than 40 homes total. If they have to approve this, I would like to see it with less homes. Also, I would like to ask that no overhead street lighting be permitted, The views at night are phenomenal, and if you get overhead street lighting, it is going to impact our views as well as anybody in the future development. Again, the entry should be gated. I feel that they should fence the perimeter of their development, if they go ahead with it. Everybody in that development will be trespassing onto our property and other adjacent property owners, and I do not feel it is our responsibility to fence our property to keep them out. I feel it should be the opposite. Also, I would like to see it revert back to the "C" zoning within two years, if nothing has taken place. I feel five years is too long, especially if they are just talking about doing a final plat. I think two years is more than enough time to do the studies that they need to do and to get a final plat in place. Tracy Chamberlain, 13650 N. Thornydale: We own 20 acres at this address. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address our concerns publicly this evening. I would also like to express my admiration and respect to the Marana Development Center, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Town Council on behalf of the efforts and interest of those professionals who, I believe, have shown a sincere interest and given every opportunity to the public allowing us to have our concerns addressed and the possibility to be resolved. The original request made by the Vistoso Verde Partners had three different rezonings, inclusive of that. If it were still being brought forward, I would have grave concerns. But if the fact that two portions of it, the north and the ridge have been deleted, I will focus my concerns on the southern, having all my other concerns already documented in your files. I'd like to address concerns still present to myself and possibly many others. The proposed development, the R-16 zoning request, would be approximately 51+ new residences and families. This type of population on approximately 33 acres would seriously affect the existing community and private property surrounding this development. Due to the fact that so much of my letter pertained to issues that are in this Ordinance, I have to come back through my letter, and so much of it is deleted. Concerns will probably still be generated, but because this new Ordinance addresses so many of those concerns, I am in hopes that it will satisfy those. But I still feel the need to bring up the issue of water and access of water for the emergency MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 services to the surrounding community and residences. This type of density in such a small piece of property, in comparison to the surrounding property, and the activities created by family and recreational uses, still give grave concerns to that. The fact that our emergency services are addressed by tanker trucks and that type of fire protection--I would like to see those hydrants available without a lot politics. If there is an IGA or something, how will it be implemented? I would like those issues addressed as soon as possible rather than five years down the road. I would also like to know who will pay for the connecting road systems between Moore and the proposed development as this will affect the refuse and postal deliveries. Will there be any recreation centers or common areas for these residents.? How will the streets be lighted? I would hate to see big overhead street lights. I think coach lights or something like that could be implemented for security, plus those services are needed by the residents. This would be the only lighted area for as far away as North Ranch. Will their entry off Thornydale alignment and will there be perimeter fencing or some sort of boundary established? Additional concerns include increased trespassing, the increased opportunity for crime, such as graffiti, theft, burglary, vandalism, and others. These concerns are generated due to my experience of kids with too much time on their hands and being so far removed from the entertainment opportunities that might normally be accessible to a development with population this represents and the needs for their entertainment. Our existing community is rural in nature and clearly removed from public transportation or public entertainment. I would again have grave concerns as to the unnecessary and unauthorized use of private properties by these residents and the liabilities of these activities to the private landowners outside this development. Again, I did include, as I feel the need, of a Sunset Clause so that we could see how honest and how sincere this development proposal and how far down the road we can see these services being implemented. I did in my last letter ask for a two year clause. Depending how this is brought up in this Ordinance, which I have not had time to look at, five years for studies, I think, is a bit excessive. I do not know to what degree those are. I still feel that that could be shortened within a reasonable amount. I also believe that fencing or some sort of boundary needs to be established to aid in the ability of being able to identify those residents and limits their access to property outside their development. I believe that is all for now. Vicki Brown, 12701 N. Thornydale: I do not how to express myself here tonight. I am really kind of baffled by the baloney with all the paper shuffling and the new little agenda that they have brought out tonight. I came here expecting some closure tonight on this issue. Every time I come up here, I tell you the same thing, that my family and I bought five acres and we have built a lovely home and we like our rural lifestyle and walking in the mountains and looking at the mountains, and how opposed we are to the density of this development, and it doesn't get any better, it just seems to get worse. They have given us the ridge top back, supposedly, but yet, now they want to put three houses per acre. I have not seen anything. I do not know what I am hearing. I am just so very opposed to this. There are all the issues that Lisa and Tracy just addressed and they are my issues too. I am MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 a not good public speaker. I did not write a speech. I thought about it. I brought visual aids. I wanted to tell you how I want to save the mountains for the future generations of my family so I can take them out there hiking too. I really would like to see a closure to this issue instead of all the postponements. I feel like I should come up here and say "May I have a postponement so I can read these issues that they have brought forward tonight and better prepare myself the next time I get up here to address you so I do not look like an idiot not knowing what to say." Pharo Phelps, 14121 N. Seifert Estates: This development that is here before us tonight again, we have been trying to get this thing out of our backyard for a couple years now. Once again, like the last lady said, we do need some more time. Three houses per acre right now where it is zoned 1,000,000 sq. ft. or bigger for one house, it is too crowded. We have all moved up there. I have been up there 16 years and I have never locked my door and I would hate to start locking it now. I cannot tell you how many petroglyphs and carvings are all throughout the hills there. You slam a bunch of kids up there and they are going to go up there and tear the place apart. We need less houses. I do not want to close this thing out. We definitely cannot have that crowded a space up there. We are all different people up there, too. We have been up there a long time. Ruth Cooper, 13035 N. Teal Blue Trail: I live just east of this development. As all of my neighbors have spoken, I feel the same way. It has been a long process. This is the fifth time we have come back here. We are asking for come kind of solid decision for this. It is really hard for us to keep coming back and back and never knowing if we are going to have this finally dealt with or not. I am glad that they are going to protect the ridge top. I would like to know how permanently that is going to be done to protect that. Also, the density is still pretty high. If you go around and take a survey of all the area in a two or three square mile radius of this area, you will find that most homes are on at least five, if not ten or fifteen acres, and then you are asking for 51 homes or so on 33 acres, which I think is a lot. We are just back here asking for a decision, and hopefully we can have some closure tonight. Mike Grassinger, The Planning Center, representing the developer: Hopefully I can put some closure to some of these issues, if it helps. The number of comments that were just raised are easily addressed. First of all, the density that we are proposing for this particular parcel is less than 2 houses per acre, because of the restrictions with the one acre lots and the setbacks, etc. It is going to be under 2 units per acre for that particular piece of property. Obviously, the subdivision design and hydrology studies will determine the amount of final units that we can put on that property. The water issue, the garbage issue, the police issues are all part of the process of going through subdivision platting and that is why the Ordinance before you today assures that those things will be taken care of before anything can be developed with it. We also agree that we would certainly like to have some closure on this thing. The property owner would like to proceed. There have been a number of home builders in the community who are interested in lo moving forward with this property, and we certainly would like to get it going as quickly as possible as well. The three year or five year-either way works with us--as far as the different Ordinances that you have. It is going to take at least a year to get through this platting process and studies. It gives us a little more flexibility with a couple years after that in terms of markets, etc. As to the type of buyer or builder for this particular property, at those densities and at the costs involved in this, these are going to be fairly high-priced houses, upwards of $200,000. I think those type of people, I hate to say that or be that way, but they are going to prefer, enjoy, or respect the type of lifestyle that already exists out there. I think that would be the same reason that they would be wanting to move there. They would certainly like to be able to have five acres. Not everybody that can afford to do that. Finally, I would just like to remind you that there is existing zoning approved adjacent across Thornydale, even farther north, that is significantly higher density than what we are asking for today. We are hoping that this is a pattern we can set with less than 2 rack in this area that other people will be able to follow to maybe offset some that existing zoning that has already been approved in the area. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Roxanne Ziegler: I want to thank the efforts of the developer, and, again, gals, I just saw this as you saw. This is in real time tonight, so I only had the chance to read it, but they have made some very big strides, and I think you recognize that, in taking the houses off the peak. However, again, I have been looking at this since I was on Planning and Zoning and, I think I described to Jack and those guys, it just doesn't feel right. It has not felt right since Planning and Zoning. These people enjoy a lifestyle out there that I wish I could enjoy and you have to preserve, I think, their lifestyle along with the desert. It is a big growth issue. I am not suggesting we start it right here with your development, but, again, it has been 16 months on my mind and I know that it has been on yours, so with that I will just get on to it. A motion was made by Roxanne Ziegler that the Council deny the rezoning request by Vistoso Verde LP pursuant to the Planning Commission's recommendation. There was no second; therefore, the motion failed. Ed Honea: I have a few comments. Back when you folks bought your five acre parcels out in that pristine property, there were a lot of people that were really mad when you bought your land as well, because when you bought it, it was just open, barren land. You went in and bought five acre parcels and put houses on them and brought dogs and kids and everything else into the area. So it is really unfair for you to ask this developer to build five acre lots just to satisfy you. You actually increased the density yourselves when you moved out there, whether it be five, ten, or fifteen years ago. This is an ongoing situation. I have watched it on the northwest part of the Tucson urban area moving down Thomydale. Every time there was a neighborhood built, the neighborhood that was adjacent to it, complained about it. Generally a lot of them got built. When the next neighborhood closer to the mountain got built, that neighborhood complained about them. And when the next neighborhood got built...it just kept going as it went up. Everybody MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 wants to be the last person on the line and then nobody else to build. I do not think it is really fair to do that. I think you have some very §ood points and I agree with you on some of them, but I think it is completely unfair to ask an individual to put five acre lots on a piece of property if they can do a good development with a little higher density. A couple of you talked about individuals crossing your property or walking onto your property, yet there were a couple individuals that talked about hiking through the mountains. How many of you hike off your five acres through this property to go up to the ridge? It is the same principle. It works both ways, if we want to be fair. I would not support building on the ridge, so I agree with you on that. I think there are some very good points in some of your concerns, but I do think we need to be reasonable. I think five years is too long because what this Council has done in the past sometimes was allowed individuals to speculate on property and then set on it for many, many years and maybe turn it over a couple times. I have no problem with making a profit on property - that is the American way - but I would rather see it three years without the extension clause in it. The reason being is we do not know what is going to take place in the surrounding properties in the next three years. Sometimes you will approve zonings, and we have been bitten by this many times, and then ten years down the road somebody decides to do what you approved and it is not appropriate for the piece of property. I am really not against this property. If three Council members here will support a three year clause, without the extension clause in it, I intend to suppod it. I think the owners have been very good. I think that is a very important issue. They have said they will not use septic tanks because you were concerned about the water. I think that is a very important issue. Most of the things you talked about - overhead lighting might deter from their neighborhood as well. I think a lot of the things you want, which is curbside lighting or something of that nature actually enhance their neighborhood and help them sell $200,000 houses. A lot of the things you are asking for are going to benefit them as well as you. I did have two comments on the ridge. I think, Mr. Flannery, you said that the ridge would stay at "C Zone", one unit per 25 acres. Is that correct? Jerry Flannery: That is correct and there is a condition in here stipulating that here be protection for that ridge line. Ed Honea: What I was looking at is something similar to what we did with Los Monteros over on Old Silverbell and taking that ridge line and donating it to the Nature Conservancy. For those of you that do not understand, there is a similar project on Old Silverbell on the other side of Continental Ranch and we did not allow that developer to build on the ridge line as well. What that individual did is that he donated the property to the Nature Conservancy. That way you do not have to pay the taxes or anything on it and it does preserve the property for any individuals that wanted to hike there because it becomes public property to a non-profit organization. I think that is something that we should look at on that ridge line as a possible alternative. That would guarantee that there would be no houses built on the skyline. I agree with that. I do not think they should be built on the skyline The fire issue - the Town just passed an Ordinance making Northwest the sole entity that can apply for fire districts within the Town of Marana, so I think we MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 probably need to note that. I know you left if more vague, but I don't think there are any options. The Town of rvlarana says that the Northwest Fire District is the only district that is allowed to incorporate within the Town. That should be noted. Since this piece of property in this development is directly tied to Four Cities, as far as for infrastructure, Four Cities has an agreement with the City of Tucson that if they built a main line to Tucson's pump station, Tucson agreed to provide them water. But I do not know if that agreement is locked on both ends. The reason I am asking this is the Town of Marana has access to three or four wells maybe about as close as the City of Tucson. Instead of us allowing this project and Four Cities, and I am putting you both together because they are correlated, to go with the City of Tucson and build another main down Thornydale Road maybe consider Marana. There are already three or four pipelines in there and I don't know where anybody is going to put another one. It is my understanding that the other potable water line is strictly for Dove Mountain - most of the capacity is taken. There is not enough ground water in the area to support the project. We are going to have a hydrology study, but a lot of that is just fissure up there and you happen to hit and miss, and if you hit, we certainly do not want to draw everybody else's water out. We believe that the water is going to come from off site. What I am saying is in the development of this project, let us look at the alternative of maybe building the main line to a Marana service for the project instead the of City of Tucson. As many of you know, we have appropriated $1.9 million to try to buy the City of Tucson infrastructure within the Town of Marana because we want to be the sole water provider, and we have assured water supply. If this project were allowed to tie into Tucson, maybe it could complicate the other thing we are talking about. I am not trying to tie it, but I am saying let's look at both options. Vice-Mayor Sutton: I have written down a couple things that we are going to change on the Ordinance and we want to be clear on a couple issues that we talked about. First, I wanted to apologize a little bit and clear up the reason for continuing. I am assuming everyone here, although you have had to come back and it might be a good drive for you, would rather have come back four times and have the amount of issues cleared up. I think this is great progress, instead of coming in the first time and hearing "No", and it being passed with all the zoning on the ridge top the first time. That would have saved you some hours, but because of the effort of you, the developer, and the Town made, we were able to meet all the needs possible. It seems that most of your concerns are being answered. Mike Reuwsaat: I just want to reiterate the same comments, particularly the lighting and the fencing. I want to make sure, and I think the message is very clear to the Planning Center who will be putting together the design, that overhead lighting and things like that are not incorporated. The type of home at $200,000 home is not going to be at 2,000 sq. ft., I am sure they are going to be larger than that. I would like to see the perimeter buffer area, even though it is a 100' buffer area, left as much undisturbed as possible, and if you can work in a barrier fence without doing to much disturbance, similar to what they have done at Dove Mountain on some of their perimeters, I would like to see that done also. I would not want it to be such as when you drive 13 MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 by, you would say there is a prison behind there. I would like to see something that is a little more conducive to the environment out there. It is a tough one. I am going to support it. I do not expect it to stop at this point. I do expect the owner and the Planning Center to work with the group here on its concerns, particularly the water. Some of the infrastructure things will be an asset to most of the owners out there. There is never 100% approval on anything, but there will be some safety benefits and perhaps some conveniences created-not having to haul in water, having a garbage disposal within a closer area, etc. You will have better police protection, guaranteed. One of the things that I will brag on again is the Marana Police Department, and if you look at our per capita police officers, we are way above. That is a testament to the Council's commitment to safety in this community. All you have to do is look at out record and that shows. Vice-Mayor Sutton: I am going to clarify a little bit. Here are the changes or additions to the Ordinance that I have: do not disturb the 100' boundary; the fence or barrier, if it does not disturb it. Is it a possibility? I do not know if that needs to be in the Ordinance or on the final plat. Councilman Honea, if you want to include the land donation to the Conservancy at this time, you need to include it. If you want to work on it later, it should be an easy issue if the applicant agrees. If you want to change the fire annex to say Northwest instead of leaving that vague, add that in. You had also said three years with no extension clause guaranteed. Mike Reuwsaat: I would not want to fie it to land donation. I think that you can run a perpetual easement with the property that will do the same thing and give that flexibility to the developer. It will do the same thing without saying that you have to give it to somebody. Vice-Mayor Sutton: That is one that can be done later. I do not think it needs to be part of this Ordinance. Ed Honea: The one thing that I want to guarantee, there will not be houses built on that ridge. Somehow, I do not care if it is the Nature Conservancy or if we grant an easement through there, I do not want ten years down the road people coming to Mr. Flannery and saying I have "C Zone" here and I want to put four or five houses on this ridge. I want to say that if we approve this higher density below, the ridge will stay clean. Dan Hochuli: Condition 8 reads, "The developer shall provide to the Town's satisfaction for protection from development of the ridge adjacent to the rezoned property." "To the Town's satisfaction" is going to be in the Ordinance. As Council Member Ziegler just pointed out and Mike Grassinger pointed out earlier, that is noticeably vague. It is noticeably vague in our favor. If you were going to clean my house to "my satisfaction", I guarantee, Mr. Vice-Mayor, it would be very clean which may be different than "your satisfaction". We added in the language of the "Town's satisfaction" and I think that clarifies it. We have the next three years, if it passes with a three year limit, to figure out what that is. It may be a donation to the Nature Conservancy, it may be something else, but we have time to work that out. I ]4 think that will adequately protect the ridge. Regarding the fire district, if I may briefly, I would ask the Council to avoid a direct requirement to Northwest because the fire district involves voter rights. Right now that we require it to be in a fire district. It is up to the voters and I think that will be taken care of. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Jerry, if I could, we might be able to clarify this other one - do not disturb 100' boundary. With a 100' buffer, can it be disturbed anyway, or is that what the buffer is for, to make sure there is nothing that goes into it? Jerry Flannery: That language specifically reads "shall maintain a 100' building setback along the same line." That does not imply that it is undisturbed. It can be disturbed. It just means that there no is structure within that area. So if the Council so chooses, they can limit it to that - that it be a non-disturbed buffer. Vice-Mayor Sutton: That needs to be added into the Ordinance or made a Condition. So we are down to the three year with no extension clause and the 100', if we are going to have some kind of assurance on that. Mike Reuwsaat: No overhead lighting. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Would the applicant like to respond to a couple of the conditions that might already be addressed? Mike Grassinger: Generally I do not have a problems with any of the conditions. We never intended to put any overhead lighting in. We agree that we cannot decide tonight how we are going to protect that ridge. That will take some discussion and we are more than happy to work with you. We will, as Mr. Hochuli said, to your satisfaction work that out. The for three years is fine. My understanding is that when you say without any guaranteed extension, if there were some extenuating circumstances or something, we could make a case to the Council for an extension on that. Vice-Mayor Sutton: You can always make a case to the Council. Mike Grassinger: Other than that we are fine. Mike Reuwsaat: Including the 100' undisturbed? Mike Grassinger: It is not problematic. It is just that the 100' will be owned by those lot owners along there, and they are going to walk out there and enjoy that property. We can put in a covenant regarding no structural improvements or disturbance of the natural vegetation, the same type of easement we can do on the ridge top. Again, we will work that out during the platting process so that works fine. Sherry Millner: I would just like to say something to the people who came out here tonight. I was not here for the last meeting, but I did read the minutes, and I think you should all feel very proud that you have a developer that is willing to work with you. He could have just said, "No, I am going to do it my way." I think you should be all feel very proud that you have a developer that cares about where you live and wants to protect that area also. Roxanne Ziegler: Mr. Hochuli, I guess with all of this, I did not quite get the ridge. I did not hear a guarantee that the ridge will never be built on. I do not think this Council can say that or tie up the developer to agree not to do that in perpetuity. He could sell it to someone and that someone could develop on the ridge. Is that true? Dan Hochuli: Never is a long time. The way I anticipate proceeding over the next three years with Condition No. 8 is that there will be something recorded in the chain of title, be it an easement or dedication of proper[y, that says that that property will not be developed. If ten years from now, a Town Council changes their position on that, this Council can never presume to prevent another Council from taking an action. If this Council denies this rezone, you cannot presume to restrict the next Council from adopting it. So, I cannot sit here and say "Never." Roxanne Ziegler: Can the developer--it is his land--so can he come up and say that as long as I own the land I am not going to build on the ridge? Dan Hochuli: Under the conditions that exist now, knowing that we will have it worked out in the next three years, I cannot see any way, even by transferring ownership, that the developer can develop the ridge. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Even if we did, what he is saying is that the next Council could change their minds and build high rises up there. Roxanne Ziegler: I am really responding to Council Member Honea's concern that I want something down that says this doesn't happen, and what I am trying to say is can happen folks. We are not all encompassing. Mike Reuwsaat: Is there some way to vest those development rights in a phrase, either to the Town or the Conservancy or someone, so that even the Town cannot do it. Ed Honea: If it goes to the Conservancy, the Town cannot do anything. Mike Reuwsaat: That is what I mean. That is the ultimate. Mike Grassinger: After a brief discussion with one of the property owners, he says that the commitment is that as long as they own the property, they will not build on the ridge, and they would prefer to do that through an easement to the Town or to the community. We withdrew this portion from the rezoning, but we are kind of de facto rezoning it anyhow through this discussion so there is a little bit of legality. I think this is better dealt with as a separate issue as we go the to subdivision plan. But, yes, as much as I can commit for the developer, right now, and one of them is here, they will MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 commit that they will not develop on the top of the ridge as long as they own it. They cannot commit for somebody else. I do not know that the Nature Conservancy would take something as small as this. One of the reasons that I think that it is a hard one to decide is because they have criteria also. We will work with you to determine how that gets resolved. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Knowing that the finality of the easements and everything will be done before final platting, anyone who is concerned with that can come then and we will figure out the best way to do it in our means. We will not to commit above our means or try to predict what future Councils will do. Jerry Flannery: There are several ways that we could design it as a conservation easement or an open space easement. It could be recorded within the tract boundary and recorded as such. Therefore, any changes would have to come back for rezoning or some similar action that created it. Another way to do it is to create a separate document that says this is a conservation easement. It is recorded independent of any platting process. Therefore, at the end of three years, if and when something is reverted on zoning, that still is in place. Vice-Mayor Sutton: We could go a long time on this. Make sure those two issues are discussed and brought to Council. You will probably figure out with staff the best way to do that. Teresa Chamberlain: I do not think it is unrealistic to ask for a permanent type portion or document being placed on this, in light of the fact that Marana maintains a pre-annexation development agreement on this property, not just with this developer. At anytime in the future they could come back and hold you to that agreement, I feel that it may be an article also to persuade development. I think at this time to state absolutely never will there be development on this ridge is appropriate. Vice-Mayor Sutton: I appreciate that. We have had some issues in Town that one person says something and somebody else buys the property and they do something different. That is what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to get something that is a little more long term, long term in the political sense of new people coming in. it will be addressed to the fullest of our capabilities, I can assure you of that. Mike Reuwsaat: Can we change, just the wording, to say, it is permanent in nature and does not change, whatever the solution is - I don't care what it is - it does not switch with ownership or good times, bad times, and things like that. Dan Hochuli: The problem with that is that I am sitting here thinking of all the cynical parts of this. If I were an evil developer and I transfer ownership, then I say I cannot comply with that because I transferred ownership of the property. My response to that would be, "Well, since protecting that is a condition of your rezone and you have not protected it, you now have a MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 whole bunch of acreage of "C" zoned property. If I am the developer, I realize that I have ten things I need to do and if I don't, I lose my zoning and one of those things is to protect the ridge to "our satisfaction." On behalf of the staff that is here, I think I am hearing you loud and clear, you do not want anything on the ridge. Ed Honea: In order for these individuals to draw building permits and to get their final plans approved and everything, they would have to meet this criteria. We are not sure how we are going to do it, but we will do it. That will be part of the permanent thing. They cannot draw a permit, and they cannot sell off that piece of proper~y and say that we are not held to it because that is part of the rezone and we will take the rezone away from them. It is as solid as we can get. A motion was made by Ed Honea, seconded by Mike Reuwsaat, to approve Ordinance 98.07 that was presented by Mr. Hochuli changing the five years to three years without an extension clause, and that here be a 100" undisturbed buffer so there will not be any permanent structures built in that 100' right-of-way. Motion carried 4/1. Roxanne Ziegler voted no. The Council recessed at 8:25 p.m.. The Council reconvened at 8:34 p.m. Discussion - Issues Relative to Upcoming Election For Direct Election of the Mayor. This Discussion Focuses Upon Resign-to-Run, Appointment of Vice-Mayor, and Filling a Vacant Mayor's Seat. Hurvie Davis: Per your direction, we are proceeding to go to a direct election of the Mayor for the Town and, as a result of moving in that direction, some issues have arisen that we felt it was necessary to come back to the Council and have a discussion on those. Mr. Hochuli is best equipped to discuss these issues, perhaps along with Mrs. Groseclose. i will turn it over to Mr. Hochuli to raise the issues and hope that some direction can be given staff tonight as to how we can proceed. Dan Hochuli: The Council need not take any action on this item if you desire. Staff felt we should bring it to you for your consideration. Some time in the near future, the public will be allowed to vote on whether they should directly elect their Mayor. If that election to make that decision occurs before the 1999 General Election, then the 1999 General Election will be the election at which the first elected Mayor will be elected. There are three issues. I will deal with the easier ones first. The reason that we are bringing these to your attention is that you may want to make a decision prior to the election. You need not, but you may want to make a decision prior to the election so the voters at the time they vote would know. If we are going to have a directly elected Mayor, this is how it will work. It can also be decided after the election if you want to. The first issue is the Vacancy in the Mayor position. The consistent method used and, apparently the proper constitutional method, is a Mayor is elected and that Mayor later leaves office 18 MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 for any reason, the Council would appoint a new Mayor just like you would now appoint a Council Member to fill a vacant Council seat. Regarding the Vice-Mayor position, every other direct election city and town in the State of Arizona provides that the Vice-Mayor is still appointed by the Council. That is an appointed position. You could elect the Vice-Mayor if you want, but everyone else has direct appointment of that by the Council. The biggest area that we researched is the area of what I am calling the "Resign-to-Run" provision. The easiest way for me to explain this is to use an example, if I may. I am going to name two names and I do not mean anything by them. I am just picking two people that I know that are in particular positions. In 1999, Vice-Mayor Sutton's term is up. If Vice-Mayor Sutton chooses to run for Mayor and is elected Mayor, he would be the Mayor. If he chooses to run for Mayor and is not elected Mayor, then he would not be on the Council, he would not be Mayor, he would not serve. Council Member Ziegler's term is not up in 1999. If Council Member Ziegler chooses to run for Mayor and is elected Mayor, she would be Mayor. If she chooses to run for Mayor and is not elected Mayor, she would still be on the Council. So what that does, since we have a four-year term which was decided by the Council before, it makes a certain number of seats more valuable, if you will, than other seats. There are certain seats, if you are elected to those seats, where you have the ability to run for Mayor with impunity, if you will, and other seats where you do not. The other side effect of that is one from the standpoint of the voters, if I am a voter, I say, "If I vote for Council Member Ziegler and the person I voted for wins. Yes, I got to pick my Mayor, but I lost the right to pick a Council seat because now the Council will appoint a replacement to Council Member Ziegler's seat." So, by exercising my vote for Council Member Sutton, I am not losing a vote on a Council Member and by exercising my vote for Council Member Ziegler, in essence, I am. Those are concerns. I asked the League how this is handled and the answer was different jurisdictions do it differently. Some have it one way, others have it another way. So, it is up to the Council to decide how to do that. I checked into the possibility of creating a local "Resign to Run" provision. A "Resign to Run" provision would be part of our Town Code which would say, if you are going to run for Mayor, you must resign your seat. There is some question as to whether that would be enforceable because the State Constitution has its own "Resign to Run" provision. That "Resign to Run" provision in the Constitution says, generally speaking, any elected official who is paid must resign their position to run for another elected office. So that one applies automatically, you cannot get out of it, to paid elected officials. There is some question as to whether if we pass a local "Resign to Run" provision saying you cannot run for Mayor if you are on the Council, whether the Council has the authority because you may be in conflict with the State Constitution. Vice-Mayor Sutton: The correct wording is "can't run for Mayor unless they resign"? Dan Hochuli: So, when I was checking into this, I found out that those cities and towns who wanted a local "Resign to Run" provision simply paid the Council a $100 per month, $200 per quarter, or wahtever. They created pay 19 APRIL 7, 1998 for the Council, That act of creating pay for the Council, automatically and irrevocably, starts the constitutional "Resign to Run" provision and it applies. The only caveat to that is a Council cannot vote itself a raise during its own term of office, so that if this Council adopted a $100 a month salary for the Council Members, or $100 a year salary, that pay would not take effect for three years. It would not apply to the 1999 election and the 1999 election would not have a "Resign 1o Run" provision. Vice-Mayor Sutton: I really don't lean one way or the other, but the more valuable seats issue only affects the people this first election. Anybody else who runs for Mayor knows that if you want to run for Mayor, you do not run for Council, if you do, you have to give it up in two years. So you wait and run for Mayor. After the initial election, I know what you are saying, because some terms will come due two years after. So it does affect current Council Members, but after that, I don't think it is a more valuable seat because if someone is out there running for Mayor, that election is whenever that four year term is up. Am I making myself clear? Mike Hein: Actually the way Dan described it, theirs would be in perpetuity a more valuable seat on those that did not fall for reelection on the on years, if you will. For example, if Council Member Ziegler, in perpetuity, got reelected, she would always enjoy the luxury, if she chose to run for Mayor every time and never won Mayor, of retaining her Council seat. Is there an option on the example of Council Member Ziegler becoming Mayor?. You stated that the Council then appoints the vacant Council seat. Are there any Ordinances or is there a possibility of creating an Ordinance that would then say the next highest vote getter for Council becomes automatically seated? Dan Hochuli: The State took that away from us through the State statutes so we are stuck with the election laws. Do you agree, Mrs. Groseclose? Sandy Groseclose: Yes, and I think also that you have the other Council Members who did not have an election during that time so you would have to go back to the previous years that they were elected, Ed Honea: What happened to our $1 a year deal? David Morales made a motion 8 or so years ago to pay the council $1 a year. Dan Hochuli: I looked into that and that Ordinance, or it may have been a Resolution, but none the less, I think we counted five invalidities in the way that Ordinance was adopted. It was not even close to being valid. Roxanne Ziegler: Mayor - terms. If someone is elected Mayor, can we put a term on it. They serve their four years, I am assuming four years, and then they serve another four years. This is a small town right now and you could get somebody in there that is popular with the people, but I would want a term put on this that you could only run for two four-year terms. Vice-Mayor Sutton: You could run as many times as you like, you can only win twice. Is that a succession? 2o Roxanne Ziegler: The way I am thinking is that you could only run for two terms and that's it. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Anybody can run anytime they want to. You are talking about you can't be seated as Mayor more than two consecutive terms. Roxanne Ziegier: That's true. That is what I am trying to say. Thank you. Mike Hein: There are some issues - I am familiar with charter cities that have their own set of rules outside of the State statutes which provide for term limits, and I just counsel you on setting term limits on one position and not the rest of them could cause some issues. I am not a real advocate of term limits because it tends to limit the vision of the elected official to just that horizon. Let's say you put on a two-term limit, meaning that you could not be Mayor for more than 8 years, there could be the tendency that they work toward reelection and then they are what is celled a "lame duck" knowing they cannot run again. I would just say be cautious that you do not create a system which would encourage shorter term vision. One of the things that I admire about this Town is the longer term vision that the Council and the people that make up the Town have. But I think that in order to have term limits, and Dan can do the research, you may have to become a Charter. Dan Hochuli: I think that is right. I think without a Charter, you cennot do term limits. Sherry Millner: I think Sierre Vista has had the same Mayor for 20 years or so, but they like the Mayor. I have a concern beceuse we have four people who run for reelection and then three people. Let's say that all four people decided to run for Mayor at the end of their term, besides having everyone concerned about running and losing track of what we are here for, one of those gets elected and all of a sudden you have three Council seats that are vacant. That is a lot of people that the Council would pick and fill. Vice-Mayor Sutton: If you are running for Mayor, there is no candidacy for the Council seat, so anyone can run for Council and, if no one opposes them, they get right into the seat. There is still election for Council. So you are saying that if three people run for Mayor, that leaves three Council seats that are open and no one runs, Dan Hochuli: I understand that if we had a "Resign to Run" provision and in 1999... Vice-Mayor Sutton: Are you talking about the "Resign to Run" or this next election? Sherry Millner: When an election comes up. Mike Hein: I believe she is talking about the potential loss of human capital in incumbency, meaning that everybody whose term was up could choose to 2! run for Mayor thus you would have no incumbents except those seated in their current second year. Vice-Mayor Sutton: If there are three people that turn in petitions to become Council Members, they get the three seats. If they are vacant, I can name three people right now that would run. Sherry Millner: After going to Washington, D. C., I found out a large majority of small towns are paid. It is an incentive to get people to run. I have talked to quite a few people who say, "No way." Vice-Mayor Sutton: If there are three vacant seats because you have three people running for Mayor, you will know that because they are running for Mayor, there will be seats available. If there were no candidates to run, members would be appointed by the Council, I assume Mike Hein: We have not researched the State statute, but intuitively, if there is not enough candidates for Council, it would be a vacancy you would appoint. It is very unlikely. Ed Honea: I have another point to put in. What is to keep an individual, such as me, from running for Mayor and for the Council? They are both unpaid positions. I am not being paid. What is to say that you cannot get a petition for both seats and run for Council and Mayor? Dan Hochuli: You can't. I just don't know why, but I will find out. Roxanne Ziegler: Before this goes to the voters, this has got to be clear. A couple of people have said that we can't be doing this. I would just say pull it if we cannot work it out. We can't expect the voters to go and be confused. I do not want anything after the fact. No, "O.K., we will clean it up afterwards." The way we structure this should have a determination on how people want to vote. Secondly, would we still have 7 people on the Council.? Mike Hein: Yes. 6 plus a Mayor. Dan Hochuli: The Council will consist of 6 people and there will also be a Mayor. Mike Hein: We put this on the agenda because there are issues that voters are going to have questions about. Better to flush them out, in our opinion, than go to the ballot. So, if you want to think about it and give staff more direction. Maybe you will you come up with other issues that we have not thought of. I know that Mayor Harn was concerned about it and said let's start talking about these issues. Ed Honea: I think in this election coming up in 1999, if the direct election passes, there is nothing we can do from listening to what Mr. Hochuli says. Basically anyone who wants to run can run, including Council Members with 2 years left. Anyone is eligible to run. But how about, in order to make it better for those who follow us, to put a $10 a month stipend or something like that on the ballot as well for Council Members and the Mayor. Basically, it is a small amount of money. It is insignificant. You tell the voters, this is what we are trying to do. We are trying to make it so that Council Members aren't choosing their buddy, and you have the opportunity to choose who is going to be on the Council. It will not affect this 1999 election, and we are not going to do anything that will make any effect, so why not put a small stipend, just a marginal amount of money and make this paid. Then what will happen in the year 2003 is we won't have that problem anymore. Sherry Millner: First of all, it says in here that the Council can approve up to $100 per year. And again, we were elected to make decisions. If we take every single thing that we have to make a decision on to the voters, why are we here? I also feel that this is big enough and important enough that two Council Members who have been on the Council for a long time should be involved in this decision. Vice-Mayor Sutton: I don't think we are going to take any action unless someone makes a motion. It was on the agenda. We are just talking about it. Sherry Millner: We can sit here and talk about it two hours tonight, but why do that and rehash it all again when the other two Council Members return. Vice-Mayor Sutton: If you will allow me, I will try to provide a little closure. The vacancy in the Mayor position and the Vice-Mayor position--everybody is pretty much in agreement with the way it stands right now. Sherry Millner: I would like to see where the Vice-Mayor position is done like Tucson's. Can we do that, where it is rotated so everyone on the Council is forced to take an active part? Dan Hochuli: The Council could amend your Town Code to provide for that, but then the Council could later amend the Town Code again to unprovide for that because the Council elects. If the Council elected to rotate it, and then decided when it was Council Member Honea's turn that they did not want him to be it, they would just go ahead and remove that position. Vice-Mayor Sutton: I am assuming Council Member Kal and Mayor Ham will be able to listen to or read the minutes to see what we are talking about. What will bring a lot of clarity to this is each one of these items need to be voted on separately. I think that we need to get a vote on each one, like vacancy and Mayor position, and that way every issue is resolved by majority vote and it goes to the voters and is clear. Mike Hein: I think we understand your direction. Any place where there is discretion, let's say for example, our legal research show that you do not have discretion on filling the Mayor's vacancy and things of that nature, we will not present to you, but things where you have options, we will break it out. Vice-Mayor Sutton: If I can give some direction to Mr. Hochuli. There are some "what ifs", this "Resign to Run" provision, could we have a solid answer on that, or, if there is no solid answer, a legal interpretation. Dan Hochuli: You have a solid as I can get it. Nobody has tested it. You can do a local "Resign to Run" and then we will find out if someone wants to test it, but so far, none of the other 87 jurisdictions have wanted to give it a shot yet. Mike Reuwsaat: I will be looking for the salary, a clean way to do that. Mike Hein: On that issue, staff will certainly request some direction from Council on that level, as far as the stipend. Dan Hochuli: We have that in the League manual and I am certain Mrs. Groseclose's department would love to put together an analysis of different pays to the Council Members. Vice-Mayor Sutton: We have had those. I would like to get another copy of the cover sheet that showed the different pay. Are we going to move on? Mike Reuwsaat: This council did not run for a salary so I do not have a problem with $100. I do not think anybody does. I am not real excited about setting a salary for someone else down the line either because that is not why I am here. Ed Honea: The only purpose was to set the clarity up. Mike Reuwsaat: I do not care if it is an average of $350 throughout. Ed Honea: I have one question for Mr. Hochuli. If as Council Member Millner said, you can pass $100 without voter approval. If we pass $100 at the next meeting, are we paid? Dan Hochuli: If this Council adopts a salary, it will go into effect in 2001. An elected official cannot enact a raise in salary during that elected official's term so it would take effect in the next. If Council Member Ziegler were on the Council and it passed, it cannot take effect until her term is up. D. Pima Association qf Governments Youth Art Transoortation Pro_iects for Summer 1998 - Discussion/Direction Hurvie Davis: We come before you to see if you wish us to get another arts project in the community. My recommendation to you is that we tread water until we can resolve some of the issues we have pending with some of the art projects dght now, but it is up to the Council. Roxanne Ziegler: Is the question the horse? Don't we have one of the monuments in storage somewhere? When you say there are some in question, is that the movement of the home and the monument? Hurvie Davis: Yes. We are still determining where to put that horse. Roxanne Ziegler: I just want to make that clear because if we have not gotten that resolved, I do not think we need to add. We are not going a good job on our arts here. Hurvie Davis: That is an issue with PAG. I think they have brought it up with staff, and the other one is trying to get those monuments up and get right-of-way for them and things like that. Vice-Mayor Sutton: There is no action required. I do not think that we need to "No" vote it, but there is no reason for us to take any action to go any further until we resolve that, unless we get a good project down the read that we like. Sherry Millner: I have a question. Last year there were no students in the Town of Marana used. If we were to agree to something like this again, can we put in a stipulation that the students in Marana are to be used? Hurvie Davis: I think so. We can put that stipulation on and, if the criteria doesn't apply, we do not get the award. Sherry Millner: We all expected our own students to be used and they were not. It was too late to do anything. Jocelyn Entz: We did use students from the Mountain View High School. Sherry Millner: They were not in the Town of Marana. Dave After: PAG does not currently have policies that governs where the students come from or the teachers come from. They are working on it as a result of the horse. They will be taking these policies through the process - my level , Transportation Planning Committee, Manager's Committee, and then the Regional Council. There are these issues regarding the quality issues and the quality control, Is this worth $25,000. Questions of that issue, I think, are very relevant to be injected into the process before it gets approved at the Regional Council, such as the jurisdiction in which the art piece is done so that the art piece is done by students in that jurisdiction. Mike Reuwsaat: It is an art program, but it is an employment program more than an art program. If that's the highest criteria, then I think the quality issue needs to fall in line in terms of where that art is going to be displayed. Vice-Mayor Sutton: My recommendation would be to follow the recommendation listed - none. Mike Reuwsaat: I believe that we need to send a message to PAG that we feel it is our responsibility to follow through on the projects also and finish up with the two monuments. E. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Tentative Five-Year Summer 1998 - Fiscal Year t999-2003 Hurvie Davis: The State Transportation Department will be holding a Public Hearing in the Tucson area on April 19, 1998, at which time they will receive public comment on their Proposed Five-Year Program. What we have done for you this evening is to identify the projects that are in the Town of Marana or affect the Town the Marana. Obviously, there is a tremendous void here in that it has nothing in it scoping the Linda Vista/I-10 interchange. I think that is a major void. I do no know if we have an opportunity to get that in or not. Anyway, the projects are listed here for you that they have included in their program. Dave Atler: Just maybe a little clarification on the scoping process. The way that the process works is various district engineers throughout the State put together the list of projects that they would like to see, either through the scoping process which is basically identifying here is what we want to do and here is how we want to do it or from submitted projects, and input from all the jurisdictions within their districts. We have gone through the process. The Linda Vista/I-10 Interchange did make it on the district engineer's list. I think it was number 17, somewhere around there, and the district engineer was hoping to get his top 12. He got his top 10, so we will keep working on this. I think they cringe every time I walk in the room because they know I am going to talk about Linda Vista Interchange. The other projects that you see here are primarily, almost exclusively, the frontage roads. ADOT has been in the process, as many of you have probably noticed going down the freeway toward the downtown area, of reconstructing the frontage roads. They are reverting them to one direction each way and they have been, so far, building concrete frontage roads and acquiring right-of-way and things of that nature. Things not on this five year plan that they are looking for just beyond that period is to widen 1-10. One of the things that the district engineer did not get on his list was adding the 5th and 6th lanes on 1-10 from just south of Ina Road all way to the county line. Right now they are getting the right-of-way acquisition and the design for the frontage roads. Vice-Mayor Sutton: If everyone wants to come up with some ideas or some strategies or some points of view, this is the one that I am going to, and I am assuming Mr. Atler, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Hain. If you have any concerns other than what is on here or any position you want us to take on behalf of the Council, let Mr. Atler, Mr. Hein, Mr. Davis or myself know. Roxanne Ziegler: is this the list that we talked about several months ago and we sat up here and prioritized what we wanted to see or is this another list? Was that another list? What list was that Linda Vista on... Vice-Mayor Sutton: That was the bond issue. Roxanne Ziegler: When I look on here, I see nothing in the Town. I guess I am not familiar with this five-year plan. Is this not where we pick up funds to do infrastructure? Dave Atler: No, these are state federal funds that ADOT expends. They are the ones that choose the projects. They do it based on input, feedback, and nagging from the local jurisdictions. Roxanne Ziegler: So what will our input be? What should we give to Bobby to take forward and represent us? Hurvie Davis: The ADOT program is not our total transportation program because we have our own in the Town in concert with PAG, the regional agency. With ADOT the 1-10/Cortaro Interchange was not on the original program. We were successful in getting that, not only in the five-year program, but brought up to the first and second year of their five-year program because of the cooperative effort that we had. These projects do help us, of course, to some extent--the frontage road at Ina and so forth. We do need to get that done because the frontage road does provide a lot of relief for local traffic, and we have the constrains of the absence of river crossings so the continuity will help us considerably. My major concern is that we need ADOT involved to help us on the Interstate. I firmly believe that the 1-10/Linda Vista Interchange is a critical factor to us in our transportation network. At Ina and 1-10 there are no provisions, to my knowledge, right now. Right now we have a capacity problem at the Ina Road Interchange with the Interstate and ADOT has every lane that they can squeeze under the underpass. I do not see anything to widen that out. What they are doing at Cortaro is to bring Cortaro up to the same thing that Ina has today. I will submit to you that it will be just a couple years before both of those are overcrowded and you won't be able to get through. You see them backed up on Ina Road now because of the signal and all the traffic coming off the Interstate. What we really need is the 1-10/Linda Vista Interchange with a grade separation with the railroad. We need a sufficient width interchange underpass under the Interstate or over the Interstate to allow us to get traffic in and out of our community a lot better from both the east and west sides. I know we have talked about widening Cortare Road, and that is needed too, but the biggest constraint on the Cortare, Silverbell, Continental Ranch is not the river crossing. In my opinion, it is the left turns off of Silverbell onto Cortaro. You can only get so much traffic turning left and a left turn movement is a lot slower than a through movement in an intersection. Even if we build four lanes on Cortaro, until we do something significant and I mean something more significant than a dual left off Silverbell onto Cortaro heading to the Interstate, that is going to be the bottleneck right there unless we have an outlet to the north of Continental Ranch. With Continental Ranch building out and Saguaro Springs coming on line, you cannot feed all that traffic down to Cortaro, even with dual left turn lanes from Silverbell onto Cortaro. So something on that north end would be helpful. Perhaps we 27 have to come up with some seed money again like we did on Cortaro to get into the ADOT process and to move it up on the priority list because we are participating locally to help fund that. Then comes the problem of what do we feed into Linda Vista. We have a problem on Camino de la Manana since ADOT is making the frontage road one way northbound. People on Camino de la Manana have to go up to Avra Valley Road turn around and come back into Town. I have given some thought of trying to put some seed money in with ADOT to get that interchange going at least on a preliminary basis and even looking at taking some money and doing a two lane crossing at Twin Peaks across over to the frontage road. Even in the absence of the interchange, we could demonstrate the need for it and traffic would come over Twin Peaks across the Santa Cruz and take the frontage road down to the interstate rather than everything going down Silverbell and having to turn left off Silverbell onto Cortaro. Vice-Mayor Sutton: If you remember the meeting we set up with a lot of the builders in the area, we had some pretty good verbal commitment from them to come up with some creative ways to seed that project. With the bond project coming through, it was lost, but we did have verbal commitment for seed if ADOT would do something. Maybe we can approach that at this meeting and see about a design build type program like we did on this one and get it moved up. You're the transportation guy, I always go with you because you know what the Town needs. I am just going to represent the Town. You are guys are going to be doing everything. If you need direction from the Council or if you know what we are going for and it is solid or you want to bring up some more things, just direct us. Hurvie Davis: Having dealt in that process for many, many years, it is the old saying that, "you ain't going to get it if you don't ask." If we ask for something to get started, like Linda Vista, Twin Peaks Interchange, that is not going to preclude us from asking for something else as well. But I think it is very crucial that when we get the widening of the mainline going into Town, at the same time that the State upgrades those underpasses at both Ina and Cortaro - widen them out so that we have dual left turn lanes in every direction. Right now on Ina and Cortaro it probably will be the same way. East bound there will only be one lane going straight through. On Ina today you see that backed almost down to the Santa Cruz at times. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Shall we ask for it all or shall we pick our battle here. I am sure that we are not going to be the only ones there asking ADOT for consideration to be put on the five-year plan. Hurvie Davis: I have not been privy to any conversations that have taken place regarding the mainline, so I would ask Dave what has been discussed in the Transportation Planning Committee relative to the mainline widening. Dave Atler: Bill Higgins, the district engineer for the local ADOT District, has been really pushing for the additional lanes on the mainline. The way that ADOT approaches these things is that they look for capacity response on the mainline, meaning if they are having congestion and slow downs on the mainline, then they will react. If they are showing congestion on the surface streets or under the interchange, they do not consider that to be a capacity problem for the Interstate. They have an interchange policy that determines how they throw money at interchanges and it is not based on grade crossings with railroads, it is not based on short ramps and lack of frontage roads, all of which has a direct impact on how far back the traffic will back up on the mainline. Now what they are doing, if you will notice, with Cortaro Road and the same thing with Ina Road, they are lengthening that off-ramp so you can have more parking space so it is not backed up on the mainline. That is how they are responding to it. These are the kind of conversations that we have had, and, again, ADOT policy comes from Federal Highways. It comes from the legislature and from a number of other groups. They set those policies and they do not have growth responses the same way we do, They look at the right-of-way and if they are having problems in that right-of- way, then they will do something about. Ed Honea: I have some questions. I was doing some rough math, $2 billion over five years. Maricopa County has 70% of the state population, 20% in Pima County, and 10% in the rest of the state. 20%, or even 10%, of $2 billion is $200 million and they are saying that we get almost $158 million for Pima County projects. What this tells me is, even though 20% of the people in the State of Arizona live in Pima County, we are going to get about 7-7 ~% of the money available for major projects. Is this appropriation already set firm? I think we ought to go up there and say 20% of the state population lives here and you are giving us 71/2% of the money over the next five years. I am not saying that we should get exactly 20%, but it really seems like we are really getting thrown a few crumbs and we are not getting anything. If we got our 20%, we could get $400 million instead of $158 million. We are getting a third of what we should get if you look at it urban population wise. Vice-Mayor Sutton: I think that it is the same reason that we lose everything else, not only is the population there but 70% of the legislative vote is there as well. Hurvie Davis: I think what we see here is the work of the Priority Planning Committee in ADOT in Phoenix. This is the outgrowth of that Committee's work. What the ADOT Board is doing is going around the State now holding public hearings to receive input from the local jurisdictions and this is the time to do that. The Priority Planning Committee has a lot of clout, believe it or not. They have tremendous influence on the five year program and while is looks bad now, if you go back some years ago, it looks a lot better than it did years ago. What ADOT will tell us is that you go back to the previous year and you had $287 million on 1-10 for the widening on the frontage read. It is not necessarily the same each year, it could vary. The product you see here is the Priority Planning Committee recommendation and the ADOT Board will make the ultimate decision along with the ADOT Director. Vice-Mayor Sutton: So if we talk about a couple of our projects, they could be considered. We can mentioned that our Council Member feels we should have more money. 29 Ed Honea: This $158 is for five years, the $2 billion is for five years--I am assuming the $158 million for Pima County is for five years as well. That means for five years we are going to get 7 ¼%. We are really coming out on the short end of the deal. F. Pima Association of Governments Re_oional Council Meetin_o Ao_enda - Review for Discussion and Direction Hurvie Davis: We did not include in the packet tonight the agenda for the Management Committee meeting because we did not have it in time for the packet. I could pass you copies, in this case we have not had the Management Committee Meeting yet, and we certainly do not have the agenda for the PAG Regional Council. Thursday is the meeting for the Management Committee. In looking this over, I do not really see anything significant on it that will require a crucial decision. Item No. 7 is a report on FHWA, Federal Highway Administration, and FTA, Federal Transit Administration, review of PAG's 1998-99 overall work program and recertification review. As you might recall, I think all of you got letters about the meeting today, the lPG, Intermobile Planning Group meeting with PAG and the Federal officials was today. I was down to the morning session and went back for the afternoon session and met with the Feds. We had one elected official there, Council Member Jerry Anderson, City of Tucson, and Katie Dusenberry, to review whether or not whether we will be certified in this region and continue to receive Federal funds. There is nothing we can do now. We will receive that report very soon once the Federal government makes a determination. That is the most important thing I see on that except for high speed rail passenger study. I think we have reported to you about and the potential stop at Orange Grove on that link. G. State Legislative Matters - Discussion/Action/Direction Hurvie Davis: I do not have anything. I do not know if the staff has anything or not. Ed Honea: What about HB25197 Mike Hein: Rumor is basically really all you hear. You read things in the paper. It was attached to a Senate bill 1268 in the House Ways and Means and waiting to be heard in the House Rules Committee. To the best of my knowledge, it is parked somewhere, maybe in the President of the Senate's desk. (Forever?) Yes, if you don't think Education Finance will get results. Basically, Educational Finance has taken priority out of a lot of things. I believe there has been some contact with Senator Freestone's office and I believe he sees some concerns of jurisdictions outside of Pima County as well as jurisdictions other than Tucson and has been somewhat sympathetic. 30 MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MARANA TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 7, 1998 Vice-Mayor Sutton: Is this item, in your opinion, big enough to be a bargaining chip with this Education Finance bill? Mike Hein: No. Vice-Mayor Sutton: Good. I did not think so either. Mike Reuwsaat: What about the lawsuit? Dan Hochuli: The amicus brief? Mike Reuwsaat: Yes. Mike Hein: To impress upon the State Legislature what our position is, we have been instructed to file an amicus brief. Dan Hochuli: I am pleased to inform that that amicus brief was filed Friday, April 3, and I got a copy yesterday. I am giving each of you a copy. The amicus brief lists five parties asking to file the brief, the City of Phoenix, Oro Valley, Marana, Yuma and Sierra Vista. We have filed and we are in the Court of Appeals. The best part is that it cost you very little because the City of Phoenix did our work for us. H. Mayor and Council's Report Mike Reuwsaat: On my way here I stopped and picked up a "Do Not Park In This Area" sign in front of La Tumbleweed. It was, maybe, one of those that Bill was talking about being run over. it is in the back of my pickup, so if you would like to confiscate it out of the back of my pickup, Mr. After, I would be happy. Vice-Mayor Sutton: I will not be here for the first meeting in May, if anybody needs anything from me before then. I have a lot planned this week so my next report will be extensive. K. Manager's Report Hurvie Davis: Two significant actions took place today. The Board of Supervisiors approved the Town's request to designate a portion of the Town as a "colonia." Also, Stan Gladden, Gladden Farms, signed the right-of-way agreements for the Santa Cruz Levee today. We only have two remaining, Mrs. Beard and Granite Construction. Roxanne Ziegler: Thank you Mr. Hein for doing the "colonia" follow-up. know you were involved in that. Mike Hein: just love to say that Supervisor Extrom made the motion, Supervisor Grijalva seconded, and it was unanimous. 31 Hurvie Davis: This Friday evening there is a reception for Jim Peterson, who is retidng from Oro Valley. Jim Peterson has worked with us on water issues and chaired the Northwest Water Alliance that Council Member Kai and Brad DeSpain have served on, This Thursday at 3:00 p.m. is a CDBG event down at Mission Road and San Juan Trail. I had the pleasure along with many of you to attend a TRICO dinner at the Triple C on Saturday. They had a large turnout, It was my first time there in 23 years in the Tucson area. Last Fdday, I attended the D.A.R.E.graduation ceremony at Coyote Trail School and I was very impressed with 150 participants in that program. I think Officer Tinsley did a tremendous job on it and there were a considerable number of parents that attended. I attended the Little League Opening of Windmill Park "substitute" just recently, They did not have the Windmill Park opening, but it should come up soon. FUTURE AGENDAITEMS Roxanne Ziegler: Are we going to hear from Mr. Kennedy and gravel pit. Is there something coming in front of us soon? (No.) O.K. Mike Reuwsaat: Can we get a note to the Council Members what the cost will be for Old Marana participation into the Northwest Fire District. XI. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Ed Honea, seconded by Mike Reuwsaat, to adjourn. The motion passed 5/0. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are the true and correct minutes of the Marana Town Council held on April 7, 1998. I further certify that a quorum was present.