Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__06-10-24_0638_614       NOTICE OF MEETING REGULAR MEETING FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION      Chairperson Peter Gray  Vice Chairperson Rick Watts Commissioner Patrick Dapaah Commissioner Clayton Corey Commissioner Vacant Commissioner Dan Kovacevic Commissioner Scottt Schlossberg      TIME:6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING WHEN:MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2024 WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Commissioners of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town’s Council,  various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Commission meeting. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Commission are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived.    REQUEST TO COMMENT   The public is welcome to participate in Commission meetings. TO SPEAK TO AN AGENDA ITEM, please complete a Request to Comment card, located in the back of the Council Chambers, and hand it to the Executive Assistant prior to discussion of that item, if possible. Include the agenda item on which you wish to comment. Speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Commission. Verbal comments should be directed through the Presiding Officer and not to individual Commissioners. TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM IN WRITING ONLY, please complete a Request to Comment card, indicating it is a written comment, and check the box on whether you are FOR or AGAINST and agenda item, and hand it to the Executive Assistant prior to discussion, if possible. REGULAR MEETING        1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE – Chairperson      1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE – Chairperson Gray     2.ROLL CALL – Chairperson Gray     3.CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Commission will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual commissioners may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Commission agenda.     4.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2024. and May 13, 2024. APPROVED   5.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: annual report on the implementation of the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020. APPROVED   6.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, REVIEW, AND CONSIDER: Rezoning 11044 and 11052 N. Indigo Dr, located on the west side of Indigo Drive north of Kingstree, from R1-18 to R1-10A to allow the construction of single family homes. DENIED   7.COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff.    8.SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director.    9.REPORT from Development Services Director.    10.ADJOURNMENT     CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the Town Clerk. Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2024. _____________________________________________  Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5199 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Commission with this agenda are available for review in the Development Services' Office.    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of June 10, 2024 2 of 2 ITEM 4. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 06/10/2024 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2024. and May 13, 2024. Staff Summary (Background) The intent of approving meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action that took place at the meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's website and maintained as permanent records in compliance with state law.   Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approving the meeting minutes of the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2024 and May 13, 2024.   SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2024 and  May 13, 2024. Attachments April 8, 2024 Summary and Verbatim Minutes  May 13, 2024 Summary and Verbatim Minutes  Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2024 1 of 3 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Chairperson Gray called the Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on April 8, 2024, to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence. 2. ROLLCALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson Peter Gray; Vice Chairperson Rick Watts; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Patrick Dapaah; Commissioner Susan Dempster (telephonically); Commissioner Dan Kovacevic; Commissioner Scott Schlossberg Staff Present: Development Services Director John Wesley; Senior Planner Farhad Tavassoli and Executive Assistant Paula Woodward. 3. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None 4. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning March 11, 2024. MOVED BY Vice Chair Watts to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning March 11, 2024. SECONDED BY Commissioner Corey. Commissioner Kovacevic recused himself. Vote:6-0 Unanimously 5. CONSIDERATION OF a preliminary plat for approximately 3 acres at the NEC of Palisades Blvd. and La Montana Drive, subdividing three commercially zoned parcels into four lots. PRP22-000001 The following resident addressed the Commission: Lori Troller MOVED BY Commissioner Corey to recommend the Town Council approve the preliminary plat for approximately 3 acres at the NEC of Palisades Blvd. and La Montana Drive, subdividing three commercially zoned parcels into four lots, PRP22-000001. SECONDED BY Commissioner Dapaah. Vote:7-0 Unanimously Commissioner Corey Aye Commissioner Dapaah Aye Commissioner Dempster Aye Commissioner Kovacevic Aye Commissioner Schlossberg Aye Vice Chair Watts Aye Chair Gray Aye 6. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance 24-05 amending Zoning Ordinance Section 5.13, Community Residences. Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2024 2 of 3 The following resident addressed the Commission: Larry Meyers Lori Troller The following residents provided written statements: Liz Gildersleeve MOVED BY Vice Chair Watts to recommend the Town Council approve the Ordinance 24-05 amending Zoning Ordinance Section 5.13, Community Residences with recommendations to include the verbiage modifications and the numerical values of each type. SECONDED BY Commissioner Kovacevic. Vote:7-0 Unanimously Commissioner Corey Aye Commissioner Dapaah Aye Commissioner Dempster Aye Commissioner Kovacevic Aye Commissioner Schlossberg Aye Vice Chair Watts Aye Chair Gray Aye 7. REVIEW AND DISCUSS issues related to the provision of wireless communication facilities. Discussion only. The following residents addressed the Commission: Lori Troller Larry Meyers The following residents provided written statements: Liz Gildersleeve 8. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. 9. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director. 10. REPORT from Development Services Director. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gray adjourned the Regular meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on April 8, 2024 at 7:57 p.m. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Chairperson Peter Gray ATTESTED AND PREPARED BY Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant Planning and Zoning Commission April 8, 2024 3 of 3 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on April 8, 2024. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this day of April 8, 2024 Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 53 Post-Production File Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 8, 2024 Transcription Provided By: eScribers, LLC * * * * * Transcription is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. * * * * * TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: All right. Let's call the meeting to order. If you all would rise for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. ALL: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you. All right. Roll call, Paula? WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Here. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Here. WOODWARD: Chair Gray? CHAIR GRAY: Here. Thank you. Paula. Call to the public. Paula, any speaker cards? WOODWARD: No, Chairman. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you, Paula. Agenda item 4, consideration of possible action on the March 11th meeting minutes. Commissioners, comments, or a motion, please? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Motion to approve. COREY: Second. CHAIR GRAY: Motion by Commissioner Watts for the record, seconded by Commissioner Corey. All in favor? ALL: Aye. KOVACEVIC: I'm going to abstain on that. I wasn't present last month. So just for the record I'm abstaining. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 53 WOODWARD: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you, Commissioner. WOODWARD: Six-zero. CHAIR GRAY: You didn't watch the video? KOVACEVIC: No, sir. CHAIR GRAY: It's your first offense. All right. Agenda item 5, consideration of preliminary plat for three acres at the northeast corner of Palisades and La Montana, subdividing three currently commercial zoned parcels into four lots. Case number 1. It's a new case format. TAVASSOLI: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good evening. As you said, Mr. Chairman, what you have before you is a proposal for a preliminary plat. The subject property is at the northeast corner of Palisades and La Montana -- just up the street here. Currently, there are three commercial parcels. It's zoned intermediate commercial. Currently, the home for HonorHealth, Southwest Designs, and Dutch Bros. Also the former home of the Asian Fang Restaurant, which sits vacant, and one undeveloped pad. The request, again, is to convert these three commercial lots to a four-lot commercial subdivision. This is a detail of the preliminary plat that you have in your packet. And in the following slide I kind of, quite simply, prepared a side-by-side comparison of the lot lines and how they will be adjusted assuming approval of the preliminary plat or ultimately the final plat. So what you see here again, is three lots being converted to a four-lot subdivision. The proposed lot number 3, as you can see here in these two illustrations here, the lot line is being adjusted slightly by moving to the west a little bit, and a new lot will be created for the Dutch Bros coffee shop as well. A while back, the parking lot was originally a 45-degree angle parking lot configuration, that has since been converted to a 90 degree configuration. And also, I should mention that buildings 1 and 2 here, used to be connected by a few other units. That has since been demolished and in its place some additional parking has been provided. And the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 53 parking is actually more than adequate for this center. So staff's recommendation is approval of the preliminary plat. One thing that staff will require prior to final plat approval -- which would go directly to town council -- is a shared parking agreement among the owners of the four lots. And with that, I'll conclude my presentation. I'll open up to questions. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioners? Commissioner Corey? COREY: Chair. Farhad, can you just go back to that image real quick? And just to clarify, the lot 1 and lot 4, are still -- the parking is still connected there? TAVASSOLI: Correct. COREY: Correct. So you can still drive through those without the lot? TAVASSOLI: Correct. COREY: Okay. And then -- TAVASSOLI: It's one contiguous parking lot. COREY: Okay. And then it looks like lot 3 is also extending to the south a little bit; is that true? TAVASSOLI: Lot 3? Maybe -- yeah. Actually, it looks like it's slightly extending to the south a little bit. And lot 3 is actually, I should mention, the -- where I mentioned would be the vacant pad. COREY: Yep. Okay. Thank you. TAVASSOLI: Um-hum. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: The parking -- I can tell what parking goes with lot 1, but the rest of that parking field is that with lot 2, 3, or 4? Yeah, that's where your cursor is. That parking, is that part of 4? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that is for lot 4. KOVACEVIC: And Dutch Bros is -- do they even have any seating? CHAIR GRAY: They do. A little bit. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. But I mean, not 20 spots worth? TAVASSOLI: No. Certainly not that much, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner. I think they TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 53 just have seating underneath the -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. TAVASSOLI: -- patio cover there. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. Okay. I mean, I just -- I'm curious as to why they didn't put the parking with lot 2. Because the -- I mean, there are a lot of owners, Triple Net owners that would love to have that Dutch Bros. And the center owner would want to -- I would think, want to keep the parking if they were going to sell off the Dutch Bros. I mean, that's obviously not their intent. But I just want to point out it doesn't -- I mean, I don't have a -- I don't have a problem with it. It's their property, but that's now how I would do it. TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I could only speculate. Maybe, for tax purposes, property tax. Otherwise, I don't have a good answer. CHAIR GRAY: I think there's also the opportunity cost of what if it's not Dutch Bros, then it would be really difficult to park that parcel if that went into a revitalization. The other, I guess, insider caveat that makes this interesting to me is lot 1, every space that's associated with lot 1 is tied up in the lease with lot 1. So it's not really even subjectable to a shared parking agreement. So I question whether this site balances after that. Commissioner? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Farhad, I -- it really doesn't look like there's dramatic changes being made but is it in anticipation of something in the future that you may be privy to at this point? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I have not received any inquiries about any interest in any additional businesses wanting to locate there. The only thing worth noting, as far as I'm concerned, is lot 3 and the fact that there is a vacant pad there. It certainly has potential to be developed soon. But I haven't received any inquiries about any additional businesses wanting to locate there any time soon, at least. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So these three owners got together and just decided that they're going to make it four instead of three? TAVASSOLI: Correct. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: Incorrect. It's one owner. VICE CHAIR WATTS: It is one owner now? CHAIR GRAY: One for the whole -- the whole plaza is one owner who's parceling off to flip individual pads. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: It's going the other way. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Interesting. Okay. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Dempster, any thoughts? DEMPSTER: Well, I guess with the other questions now I'm confused. Because I thought that just for the final approval, it's based upon a requirement for shared parking. So the proposed split -- those parking spots within each lot are just for that particular lot. What would be the shared parking? Why is parking an issue or whose lot it's in if it's shared parking? Can you clarify that, please? CHAIR GRAY: Put slightly -- question a different way. Which of the four lots are under- parked in isolation? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I don't believe any of the lots are under- parked. I actually might be a little concerned about under-parking for what would potentially be building 3. As you can see, there's probably -- I don't know -- about ten or so parking stalls there and depending on the use they may need more. And so that may have to bleed over into the -- at least, a couple other lots. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Yeah, Farhad. So approval now does not mean they can go ahead and proceed with development, right? They are -- we're just approving for this to be four lots but they would have to submit a future development plan if they were to proceed with developing it? TAVASSOLI: Right. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Dapaah, this doesn't establish -- the preliminary plan will not officially establish a four-lot commercial subdivision. The purpose of the preliminary plan is just to make sure that this will work from the standpoint of things such as utilities, drainage, ingress, egress. It gives staff a comfort TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 of 53 level for proceeding to a final plat subdivision which will go straight to the town council, and, if approved, be recorded. And prior to that -- prior to going to town council, we will require that that shared parking agreement, which will have to be recorded as well. DAPAAH: Right. TAVASSOLI: Yeah. DAPAAH: Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: So are those two rows of parking to the north, are those with lot 2? TAVASSOLI: Commissioner, you're talking about these two? KOVACEVIC: No. TAVASSOLI: No? KOVACEVIC: That's -- yeah, those. Right there. Is that lot 2 or lot 4? CHAIR GRAY: 2. TAVASSOLI: This is lot 2. KOVACEVIC: Okay. TAVASSOLI: And I apologize. I should have probably highlighted the proposed boundaries as well. But this is roughly the boundaries for lot 2. CHAIR GRAY: So there's two layers of parking? One layer didn't get turned off, so you're -- it's on -- you're looking at two backgrounds? KOVACEVIC: Yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I figure that's going to change. KOVACEVIC: And -- CHAIR GRAY: Go to this one. The next page. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. I was under the impression that the whole parking field was lot 4. But building 3 is definitely under-parked. Lot 3. There's not enough parking there and that's who needs the shared parking. Lot 2 may or may not be under-parked. Yeah, that's a -- what? 2,000 square foot restaurant there? TAVASSOLI: Potentially. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. So that's 20 -- that's 20 spaces, right? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. It's also under -- TAVASSOLI: Yeah. So -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. TAVASSOLI: -- Chairman, Commissioner, currently pad 2 of building 2 is vacant. So it's just the southwest design. So currently, as it stands, it may -- the parking may be adequate but if a new tenant were to move in any time soon, especially if it were to be a restaurant, then there will certainly be more parking demand. KOVACEVIC: All right. Okay. I've got the -- the only one up here, but there's only -- there's only half a dozen spot to the south, and then there's another -- there's eight spots to the east of lot 2. So they've only got 14 spots. And there's two handicap spots too. So it's 16 spots, which -- and you've got -- that building's 26,000 square feet and it's got a restaurant in it. I don't think that -- I don't think that's labeled correctly. I don't think that restaurant's 16 -- TAVASSOLI: It's not. It can't be. KOVACEVIC: But -- well, I just -- I stand by my earlier comments. If I were doing this, this isn't the way I would do it. But I would -- lots 2 and 3 would get more of the parking and because 4 is the one -- 4 and 1 are the ones that they can turn into quick cash. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: So Commissioner Gray, I guess I should ask you, so it sounds like you know. So as far -- as it stands currently, there's one owner of this plat, and he's getting ready to combine these into four and sell them off separately; is that correct? CHAIR GRAY: There was one owner. There's now two. So lot number 1 was sold off already. I don't know the fate of lot 4. It may also have been preemptively sold. I don't know. TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, if I may? I actually checked -- I happened to check the ownership this morning and as of right now, what is proposed to be -- well, the area proposed to be lot 2, 3, and 4 are under one ownership. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. And then there's egress -- ingress and egress? Two on La Montana, two on Palisades? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 of 53 TAVASSOLI: Correct. Thank you for bringing that up. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. TAVASSOLI: Two ingress/egress points here on Palisades, and one off of La Montana to the north. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Corey? COREY: And I'm just noticing on lot -- so lot 3 is actually like we talked about earlier, it's getting a little bit bigger. And we know lot 2 and lot 4 are already established there. So I think it will be significant when they give us the parking agreement of where those -- the parking agreement, to see where any overflow from lot 3 would go. It looks like there's parking but they kind of have to move over into that main area. But I think the significant thing here is that we -- we demolish that building in-between lot 1 and lot 2, right? You said that was a restaurant previously and that's been flattened, and that's now that parking lot in the top section, correct? TAVASSOLI: Actually, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Corey, the restaurant was here where building 2 currently sits. There's two units here. It was the one on the right. The building that connected, I guess, you'd say the structure that connected building 1 and building 2, I believe there was a mattress store. COREY: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: And a consignment. TAVASSOLI: And a consignment center, yeah. COREY: Yes. Okay. TAVASSOLI: So those are -- COREY: I miss that consignment store. TAVASSOLI: Yeah. COREY: So yeah, okay. So there was a building that connected them. So I think that that dynamic has kind of changed the way that this all laid out now. But I think some of the things here -- is this going to impact traffic, would be one of the things I would look at. And like Scott mentioned, there's ingress/egress on both sides. There's two on TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 of 53 either side, right? Is there two on La Montana and two on Palisades? TAVASSOLI: Actually, Mr. Chairman, there's -- COREY: Or one on La Montana? TAVASSOLI: There's two on Palisades and one on La Montana. COREY: And that's not one right there? TAVASSOLI: And that's not. COREY: Okay. TAVASSOLI: It is? Oh, I beg your pardon. I stand corrected. COREY: Okay. TAVASSOLI: There is one off of La Montana right here. I couldn't quite make out the lines there. COREY: Okay. TAVASSOLI: Yeah. COREY: Thank you for clarifying that. So it looks like it wouldn't impact traffic too much -- any congestion in that area, because they're pretty far away from that intersection. So that's good. And then, like, compatibility with the neighborhood, it seems to me like it's still compliant and compatible with the existing neighborhood, so that's not really a concern. And is there any major impact to local infrastructure? It doesn't seem like those are any issues there. So as long as it meets our land use and I think that I would recommend approval and have them move forward with -- going forward with their agreement -- their parking agreement plan. It makes sense to me. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: One more question about parking. That building 2 or pad 2, which is where that Asian Fang was originally, I believe. What's the requirement for parking for a restaurant, assuming that's going to stay a restaurant? Because that QSR, Quick Serve Restaurant (ph.) looks like it's identified to remain. Do they have sufficient parking now? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, if there were to be a restaurant back in where the Asian Fang was, at -- if we look at lot 2 alone, there may not be. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 of 53 VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's what it look like. TAVASSOLI: I believe it's -- I want to say 1 to 50 square feet. But hence the need for shared parking agreement. But no, lot 2, wouldn't be able to -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: As a standalone it wouldn't be able, right? TAVASSOLI: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: To support? It didn't look like it. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: So Farhad, I got to ask you. I'm with Commissioner Corey in the most basic sense of interpretation, but then I also find myself probably a lot more in Commissioner Kovacevic's bucket, because I wouldn't do it this way either. So my question to you is, yes, the underlying here is just a subdivision -- it's just a zoning case, but it's also our downtown corridor, right? And if we perceive there to be a better way to do this, that's more inviting, something that better serves that downtown corridor, how do recommend we weigh that here as we deliberate this? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would throw it back at you and ask what elements or what features -- CHAIR GRAY: Well, I just -- the boxes are in the wrong spot, right? There's alternate ways to lay this out to where -- if lots 2, 3, and 4 are going to coexist with a shared parking arrangement, you can shuffle them. Albeit maybe at the expense of building the building that's on lot 2 long long-term. But there's a way to shuffle them to improve the presence along Palisades and internalize that parking; to put that parking towards the back of the parcel. That is just, in my opinion, would be a significant improvement on this and you couldn't do that with the way these lots are currently laid out. So I assume Dutch Bros got built on the basis that, yeah, there was enough generalized parking across lots 2, 3, and 4 to support it. So to me that's still a fluid chess piece for the developer. But I go back to Commissioner Corey's perspective. As a zoning case it's just a lot subdivision, it's not -- it's neither here nor there, right, so. Commissioner Kovacevic? He had it on first. Your mic? KOVACEVIC: Yeah. And I'm not saying I disagree with Commissioner Corey or Chair Gray, it's just -- I mean, as -- to my way of thinking, and I've been in this business, I don't TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 of 53 understand all the parking going with lot 4 when that's the piece that can be -- that is most readily sold. And so it just -- it doesn't make sense to me. But as a zoning -- like you were saying, as a zoning case, I mean, it's their property, and it fits the zoning, it fits the plan of the town. But -- CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. But just because we -- just because an RV storage can go there too, doesn't mean we should ever let an RV storage go -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. CHAIR GRAY: -- there, right? Sometimes I think you've got to step out in the roadway a little bit and say, I don't know about this. Take another look, maybe? Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, that's exactly what I was trying to find out, was the gameplan. But I think you solve your problem for parking if you take lot 2 before you get to that diagonal, so you capture those that are on La Montana. And you take lot 3 and jag it over a little bit and pick up those that were on the side of lot 2 back over on 3. Then you've got all of these down below and those up in there for 2. You picked up some for 3, 4 stays as it is, and 1 doesn't lose any parking, it just gives up a little bit of ground. That make sense? CHAIR GRAY: Sure. That's one option. I'd go a different route. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: So if we're going to pontificate the whole thing, I'd file for a variance on lot 4. Let Dutch Bros go with six spaces as a part of a shared parking agreement with the idea that if Dutch Bros goes away in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years, that that parcel in and of itself, can be self-parked in the future. And I'd retool lots 2 and 3, and the residual parking off of 4, to be highly functional versus maybe not. KOVACEVIC: I mean, what we're doing here is de facto CC zoning, which I'm on record and my opinion on that. It's just the shared parking is -- I mean, I don't like it, but. Yeah, it's -- for what it's worth. CHAIR GRAY: Let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Paula, we have any speaker cards? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 of 53 WOODWARD: Yes, Chair, one speaker. Lori Troller. TROLLER: I'm going to plead the Fifth on intelligence on this. So as a resident, if I go in and go to 3, and all those spots are taken, and I park somewhere else, is there a chance my car is going to get towed with what we're talking about? I mean, it's not like it happens in town, right? But -- TAVASSOLI: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'll try to answer Ms. Troller's question. If there were to be a shared parking agreement validated, recorded, then no one should expect any parking tickets or towed vehicles or anything like that. And that's certainly something that we staff would make sure that we receive prior to even taking the final plat to council. TROLLER: Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Paula, any more speaker cards? WOODWARD: No, Chair. CHAIR GRAY: All right. Commissioners, I think we probably deliberated this enough. Any final thoughts or -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. I do have two questions. Do we get another look at this when -- for final? CHAIR GRAY: Only if we continue it. KOVACEVIC: Oh. TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Kovacevic, actually -- so the preliminary plat will move forward to town council meeting next month. But the final plat, as is written in the subdivision ordinance, will go directly to town council. KOVACEVIC: Okay. And next question. When you -- assuming this gets approved and petitioner comes in to build lot 3, are you going to do parking calcs to make sure that there are -- that they have enough -- that there is enough parking for -- TAVASSOLI: Yeah. KOVACEVIC: -- to build on lot 3? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, yes. We will look at what use is being proposed and also take a look at the existing businesses that have been established TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 of 53 there, look at those collectively and make sure that there's adequate parking. KOVACEVIC: If they build lot 3 before lot 2 gets leased and they put a restaurant in lot 3, I don't know that you have enough -- that you're even close to enough parking for a restaurant -- two restaurants there. TAVASSOLI: Right. It's, for lack of a better phrase, it's basically first come, first serve. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. TAVASSOLI: If both buildings want to establish restaurants, then we want to make sure -- and I mean, a lot of it depends on the property manager or property owners making sure of that. KOVACEVIC: That's all for me. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner? VICE CHAIR WATTS: One last question about parking, I hope. When you do the calculations in your shared parking agreement, is the shared parking agreement taking into consideration the whole? All of the buildings and all of their required parking, so there's no duplicity in the parking spaces? TAVASSOLI: Correct. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. So they can never exceed the sum of what all of them are required, but they can share the existing parking spaces? TAVASSOLI: Correct. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: And that calculation would also account for any dedicated spaces that are conveyed with a lease? TAVASSOLI: Correct. Yes. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner? COREY: I would make a motion. But I want to call out that I'm glad that Lori came up and talked about that shared parking. I think one of the important things is that we make sure it's really easy for people to park around here and wherever they want to go, they think, hey, they might not know that there's different lots. They just know this is a parking lot, and there's a bunch of different places around here. We want to make it TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 of 53 easy for them to park wherever they really want to, and then they can visit the different businesses. So I think that's really important. The only time I would see, like, the dedicated signs for parking is if you're to-go food or something, or where you're right in front of that business getting a delivery or something. So I think that that's important. And I would -- I think sounds like there's some agreement here. And I would recommend approval on the preliminary plat for the three acres at NEC of Palisades Boulevard, La Montana subdividing the three commercially zoned parcels into four lots PRP22-1. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioners, a second? Paula? Oh. You're just getting ready? Ramped up. Commissioner Kovacevic? What are you guys doing with your mics on? DAPAAH: I will second. CHAIR GRAY: Are you ready, sir? DAPAAH: I will second that motion, sir. CHAIR GRAY: All right. So Commissioner Corey has made the motion to recommend approval to the town council. Commissioner Dapaah has seconded that motion. Before we take a vote, I'd like to propose one amendment to it. And that's just that we also, within that recommendation, recommend that the council use their resources available to them to evaluate this as it relates to the town-planned downtown corridor and the overall character and feel of that. Because I think, as we talked about here, several of us see maybe a different way to do this. So once this thing gets in place, it's here for the next couple generations. So that would be my proposed amendment. I think we need to take a vote on an amendment also. It's more of a comment that goes with the motion, but I want to make sure it gets in the record that way. WESLEY: Chair, if you are okay with just doing that, Paula can make sure it's in -- CHAIR GRAY: Okay. WESLEY: -- that motion. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. So it will get -- it would get to -- it would be sure to get in front of council for at least a discussion point? WESLEY: One of the -- sure. One of the staff report categories is the report from this TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 16 of 53 commission. So that we put in that, so the council will see that. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Thanks, John. Okay. Roll call vote? WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Aye. WOODWARD: Chair Gray? CHAIR GRAY: Aye. WOODWARD: Seven-zero. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you, Paula. Agenda item 6, public hearing, and possible action on ordinance 2405, to amend section 5.13 community residences. Mr. Wesley? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioners, good evening. This is an item that's being brought back to you from your February meeting. At that time, we presented this text amendment in an effort to provide for additional inspections of community residences. There were some comments, suggestions for additional modifications that came from the P&Z Commission. The item wasn't noticed generally enough for that to happen. So we had to re-notice and come back this evening. So that's what we're here for this evening. The council has requested the modification to increase the ability to provide inspections of community residences that come into the town. The current ordinance was approved back in May of '22, so about two years ago. So this evening, we have the original proposed modification, which is on this slide TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 17 of 53 and the following slide. So with regard to the initial inspection, we let the applicants know that we can conduct any other inspections if we feel there's a belief -- concern that code requirements aren't being met. You see, there's some noncompliance. And then adjusting the reregistration language a little bit to then provide for a little bit more detailed inspections that can occur with reinspection. Under the revised code, any new homes that come into town are required to have an annual inspection -- or annual renewal of the registration, which then kicks in this opportunity to inspect. Are there any questions about this piece? If not, we can go on into the changes that come from the discussion at the last meeting. The direction from the commission at that time was to address the language with regard to the business licenses. And so you can see the changes made here. "Owner and/or operator", that was what Commissioner or Vice Chair Watts was wanting to add. Would be required to get the business license, taken out the "if applicable" there. And then down later, under the registration piece, taken out, "if applicable." So making it clear that the business license is required for the operation. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Can we go back one slide, John? The right to it -- maybe it's two slides. "The right to inspect" seems a bit ambiguous. What are the conditions to inspect? Would they have to -- certain thresholds? Occupancy that's excessive? Do we have anything that we can be more specific about or was it intentionally left vague? WESLEY: So Vice Chair Watts, so the things we could inspect would be against the requirements of the ordinance. So we could pull up, if we needed to, Section 5.13 and look at all the criteria that had to be followed in order to have the home be legally registered. Those would be the things we could inspect for. As far as the statement here, yes, it was left somewhat vague. The reasonable belief -- concern being if we start trying to list specific things we could inspect for, something's certain to come along that we didn't include in the list, and then we couldn't inspect for it. So anything within that list that causes a reasonable belief that there's noncompliance with that item, would allow us then to inspect. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So code enforcement has to be aware of Chapter 5 to make sure TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 18 of 53 they understand all the nuances in there. And then being vague, you've left it open if there are something that is not listed in there but is still egregious enough, you still have the opportunity to go and conduct an inspection based upon something that's valid? WESLEY: Yes. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. Thank you. WESLEY: And then the other item that came up -- I noted this at one point. It had kind of fallen off my radar, but as I went back after the last commission meeting and revisited the totality of the ordinance, I remembered that there was an error in the approval of the code back in '22. Brief history. As we brought this code to the P&Z Commission, one of the items of discussion was whether or not to allow for the waivers that are common in a lot of these codes. If these homes are -- somebody's wanting to put them closer together or have more residents, there's an opportunity -- a waiver provision. The commission took that waiver provision out and then amended the number of residents who could go in the homes. We got to council, they put the waiver provision back in, but I failed to note that in this waiver provision; it still used the old resident number. And so the proposal here is to change this so that we're consistent with the number of residents. Because the code allows six residents, including staff, for a transitional home. Eight residents, including staff, for a family home. The ordinance says ten. And because that was based, again, on the old number of ten. So this will fix that, so we don't have that conflict or confusion. CHAIR GRAY: John, just for clarity and declaration purposes. In the discussion a year and a half, two years ago, when we were going through all of this, we used the term "reasonable accommodation" because that had appeared -- I don't know if that appeared in our code or -- appeared in a lot of the research from other municipalities. Is there any difference in definition between "reasonable accommodation" and "waiver?" Because just on the surface, waiver sounds softer and more inviting to me than reasonable accommodation might. WESLEY: Chairman, the best I can recollect that series of events, in a lot of codes you probably see the full term, "waiver for reasonable accommodation" or "waiver of TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 19 of 53 reasonable accommodation." And so that caused confusion because isn't this already a waiver or creating a reasonable accommodation? We even put the code in here to allow it. And so having all that string of words caused confusion. And so the choice at that time was made just use the term "waiver." CHAIR GRAY: But we would not administer that any differently than -- WESLEY: No. CHAIR GRAY: -- than the long form definition of it? WESLEY: Correct. And so it still has -- again, the criteria that are listed out in the code and the committee that would meet to review information submitted to try to receive a waiver and the whole process is all still there. CHAIR GRAY: And then the second -- I'll call it a minor tweak to this language, and maybe this isn't appropriate because it's not really on the agenda this way -- but that last sentence where we say for the type of residence or reduce the separation for financial or therapeutic reasons, my concern is that that's almost inviting a pathway. Well, it is. It's doing that by design. With the waiver being in, it's saying you can request a waiver on these two terms. I'm not suggesting -- although I would like to -- I'm not suggesting that we take that out, given, I know we have to provide a pathway. But I would like to add to the tail of that something to the effect of, if self-governing. With the idea that when there is a case made for burden or therapy, it's typically in a self- governing model or it's almost all -- it is -- all the cases that I ever remember finding were a self-governing model. I don't want this to be interpreted in a way that says, my my pro-forma isn't working the way I want it to, and that's a financial burden, so I seek my waiver on that basis, and your your code prescribes me the pathway to do that. I worry that that could be taken maybe a little bit out of context. Not today, not tomorrow, but at some point in the future. WESLEY: Chairman, I have to think through that a little bit more. But most of the homes we currently have, and I would expect to be in the future, are for senior residents. And they're not self-governed and probably won't ever have that type of home. Being a self-governed model, like I think you're you're considering with the sober TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 20 of 53 living homes and the Oxford House model where they're self-governed, that's a -- you know, a very small percentage of what -- in fact, we don't even have any now and don't know if we ever will have any. But our full range of types of community residences, we have need to have this waiver opportunity. CHAIR GRAY: I get it. But it worries me a little bit. Let me think about it. Mr. Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: John, help me understand. We had something in our recommendation to council. Council took it out and put their own verbiage in there. And where is it in the ordinance that talks about the four and the two and the six and the four? Should we cite that here, so we have a point of reference, so there's no ambiguity? WESLEY: So that would be another option here in terms of wording. I could have said no more than allowed in the transitional residence of this, meaning no more than the community residence of that number, which is eight. But to simplify the language here because it is in the definitions when you look at them, in case they change one place, we don't have to worry about changing in another place. This seemed to be the long-term, cleaner way to do it. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I think from a -- WESLEY: That is the intent. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- from a clarity standpoint, there's an awful lot of room on this slide to add that verbiage. WESLEY: Sure. We could do that. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I would like to see that verbiage, so it was clear -- WESLEY: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- and there was no confusion because it sure had confused me. Okay. DEMPSTER: I agree with that because I was confused, too, when I read the verbiage. Thank you. COREY: Yes. Thank you, Chair. I just had a question on the license. How do we coordinate and make sure that the state and the town, that we have the licenses TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 21 of 53 accounted for on both ends? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner Corey, the state looks for the town's approval before they will issue their license. And as per the code, we can give our tentative approval for up to 90 days while they go through that state process to get their state license. And once they get that state license, they need to give us a copy. If they haven't within the 90 days -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- then we would let them know they need to give it to us, or they need to move out because they're no longer approved. COREY: Okay. Thank you. And the waiver -- so you mentioned the committee or the waiver committee that -- who's part of that committee or what business unit are they a part of? WESLEY: So as set up in the code, it consists of three individuals. The chair of the P&Z Commission -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- the chair of the Board of Adjustments and the development services director. COREY: Okay. Okay. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Public hearing. Paula, any speaker cards? WOODWARD: Yes, Chair, two. The first speaker is Larry Meyers. And then on deck is Lori Troller. MEYERS: Chair, commissioners, I don't like this waiver language because in the ordinance, we specifically called it reasonable accommodation and we used the definition of what reasonable accommodation was. And we beat it to death to get it to where it is. And the reasonable accommodation doesn't have it -- has to do with many things, none of which is a waiver. It's a reasonable accommodation based on the committee hearing what the licensee wants to change of our ordinance for their accommodation, which doesn't include anything financial and must include the care. Which is why we set the occupation -- the occupancy limits, because we lowered them TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 22 of 53 so that there would be more care and from the current -- the past levels. And the second part of this is, I don't see anything in here -- I don't see any penalties. What if you start operating without a business license and you get caught? Are you then allowed to operate? Oh, I tried to do it without a business license, and now you caught me. So I get a business license now with no ramifications? I thought that was talked about in the last meeting and I don't see anything about that. And we may even have had a house open. And as far as what might happen in the future -- Oxford House, no Oxford House? These people have already created, on the transitional side of things, they've already shown you that they will slide through any crack you provide. And we wrote a pretty good ordinance over years and much discussion amongst y'all. And then dragging the previous council like a dead horse across the finish line, to the point where they changed part of this. And thankfully, John noticed what they changed because it's a big deal what they pulled out. So I would like to see not the words "waiver" because that does -- to me, if you offer me a waiver, that gives me an invitation to get a waiver. If you tell me I have to have reasonable accommodation, then I got to go figure out what your definition is and bring it to you. Thank you very much. TROLLER: I did a lot of research -- what he said -- let's start out with that. Whatever he said, he said. I did a lot of research on this. When it comes -- I read I don't know how many cases -- the vernacular, the nomenclature typically used to make a change to a legal precedent, and you have an exception to it, in the legal world, it's always reasonable accommodation. It's never -- you'll never read in a court case that there there was a -- what do we call it? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible). TROLLER: What we're switching it to? So it's always reasonable accommodation. If you look in court cases that's the vernacular. So that's just my two cents. So. WOODWARD: Chairman, there was a written submittal from Liz Gildersleeve and her comment was that she supports -- excuse me just for a moment. I'll read this. She supports the agenda item, but she says, "However, addition of the follow-up inspections TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 23 of 53 may be conducted upon a reasonable belief of noncompliance. This seems ambiguous. What triggers a reasonable belief and who does the inspections?" CHAIR GRAY: And here I thought you were going to give us a basketball score. All right. Let's close the public hearing. Commissioners, final thoughts? I end up with two -- I do tend to agree with Lori there. I read "waiver of reasonable accommodations" so many times when we did this that I think we should extend that all the way back out, leave the word "waiver" in but "of reasonable accommodation." And then, obviously, the correction of the maximum number of residents for the type of residence but move the period there, which would eliminate the wording "a reduced" or "reduce separation for financial or therapeutic reasons." I just think that's leading a horse a little bit more than what I'm comfortable doing. But I'm fine with the rest of it as is, as long as that were to that omitted. And then, just so I can say it, I really don't see the reason to require a business license of the residences, but I'm not going to let my belief there stand in the way of the majority. So Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: John, I thought there was a penalty clause in the actual ordinance. WESLEY: Yes, sir, there is. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I thought there was. So there is something out there -- WESLEY: Yes. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- that says if you don't follow the rules, here's the penalty and it escalates. WESLEY: Yes. CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. And the irony of that is, is that the penalty for registration is far higher than the penalty for not obtaining the business license. Right? VICE CHAIR WATTS: I don't know that. I just shared that. CHAIR GRAY: I thought the -- I thought it was like 300 bucks for no registration and 50 bucks for a business license violation? WESLEY: Chair -- yeah. Yeah. In terms of the violations that are not or how those business license and so forth -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 24 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. WESLEY: -- I don't have it in front of me. I think the registration fee for community residence is 350. A business license to register, that, I believe, is 50. Penalties for not doing so, go up from there. If I may, Chair, on a couple of items? One of which has already been brought up. I just highlighted in here the specific pieces of the code that we were changing, everything else is staying the same. So I just didn't include it. It's here, we're really pretty focused. So that caused some confusion, I'm sorry. But there is a whole violation and penalty section that's in here. On the waiver of reasonable accommodation, that's no problem changing that language. That's actually what we started with before, and it got reduced for whatever reasons I don't remember now. But there are a list of five items that have to be met. B is just one of those five items that you have to go through, and you have to meet all of them in order to receive the reasonable accommodation. Chair, I would disagree with your moving of the period, at least to some degree. I think "separation" we need to keep. You could put it after "separation" if you want, if you want to take out the, "for financial or therapeutic reasons". Not to belabor this too much, but I believe that was wording you added previously when this code first came through for review. CHAIR GRAY: I'm older now. WESLEY: You're much wiser, I can see. But sure, we're glad to make any of those changes. To change the title from "waiver" to "waiver of reasonable accommodation," that's no problem. We can make that going forward. I can put the exact language in here instead of the maximum number. Put the full language in at this point, that's no problem, okay, Commission. VICE CHAIR WATTS: One more. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Oh, I thought you were going to go. I think it does bring up an interesting point, though. $300 or $500 for a fine for a organization that thumbs their nose at following the rules, seems pretty minimal. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 25 of 53 WESLEY: The fines start at 750 -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: I still think it's -- WESLEY: -- go up from there. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- pretty minimal. They get 20, $30,000 a month per. So I think at some point, not tonight, I don't want to do that. But at some point, I'd like to look at those fines and the legitimacy of saying -- making them more aggressive than they currently are. So just a thought. Thank you. COREY: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. John, just to clarify the -- so you were telling us that council asked to bring the reasonable accommodation waiver back on the ordinance. WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner, that wouldn't be quite correct. They brought us -- they asked us to insert the requirement for the inspections. As part of reviewing this -- COREY: I see. WESLEY: -- I recalled and remembered we had this little error here where that ten -- a holdover from the original code which still allowed ten -- didn't get addressed in the final version. And so this is one I brought forward in order to make this consistent with the rest of the ordinance. COREY: It was the inspection? Okay. So but you also mentioned that -- but -- I'm sorry. But as far as the waiver and the reasonable accommodation part is concerned, they asked that that get put back in here as well? Was there anything specifically part of that that they were looking for? WESLEY: So Chairman, Commissioner Corey, so when I say that, I'm talking about two years ago when P&Z made their recommendation on an ordinance to council. COREY: Yeah. WESLEY: The P&Z Commission struck all the language with regard to the reasonable accommodation. At that time, when council considered it, they determined it needed to be in there and put it back in. So that was two years ago. COREY: With no specific direction, exactly, what they were looking for? Just to bring what we had taken out back in? WESLEY: No. There were changes that they made also, based on some of the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 26 of 53 comments that had been made at the commission level, in order to satisfy some of the concerns with the language that the commission looked at, and making a final decision on what that waiver committee would be. COREY: Okay. So are we hitting what they were looking for? WESLEY: So it's all staying the same as what they recommended, what they approved two years ago. The only change in the whole waiver of reasonable accommodation being recommended, is this one change in language to get rid of the ten because that's no longer applicable because we changed it to six and eight. That's all this is changing. COREY: I see. WESLEY: Otherwise, it's the ordinance as it exists today. COREY: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Dempster, any comments before we go to a motion? DEMPSTER: No, I'm good. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Commissioners, all comments in? Looking for a motion. Commissioner Watts. VICE CHAIR WATTS: If I could remember everything that you said. I'd like to move forward and approve the motion as submitted, with the recommendations to include -- to modify the verbiage as we discussed, and to include the numerical values for each of the types. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Commissioners, a second? KOVACEVIC: I'll second. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Okay. Commissioner Watts has made a motion to approve with modifications as stipulated. Commissioner Kovacevic has seconded the motion. Paula, roll call, please? WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 27 of 53 DEMPSTER: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Aye. WOODWARD: Chair Gray? CHAIR GRAY: Aye. WOODWARD: Seven-zero. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you, Paula. All right. Number 7, review and discuss issues related to the provision of wireless communication facilities. This is not a public hearing, its discussion. So we'll hear any public comment cards. Other than that, it's a chance for a sounding board with John based on the materials -- all 333 pages of them -- presented. VICE CHAIR WATTS: (Indiscernible)? CHAIR GRAY: What sign part? VICE CHAIR WATTS: There was a section in there for signs. CHAIR GRAY: In the full packet? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. CHAIR GRAY: So let's go ahead. Let's do the public hearing -- or not hearing -- let's do the public comment cards first, and then we'll likely hear from Commissioner Watts. WOODWARD: Chair, there's two speakers. Lori Troller is the first speaker, and Larry Meyers will be on deck. CHAIR GRAY: Walk slow, Lori. Scott's pulling up the score real quick. TROLLER: Who's playing? Sorry. Who's playing? I'll probably get shot for asking that. CHAIR GRAY: Purdue and UConn. SCHLOSSBERG: 25. CHAIR GRAY: 25 Purdue, 30 UConn. All right. TROLLER: Does that get everybody in a good mood? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 28 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: That did not count against your three minutes. TROLLER: Okay. Good. Okay. I was really hoping to hear what John had to say first. And all 300 pages he has, believe me, that was just like nothing -- CHAIR GRAY: Hold on one second, Lori. TROLLER: -- I know all 300 pages. CHAIR GRAY: Paula, we're going to tee her up for six, right? WOODWARD: Okay. Yes. TROLLER: Okay. So I really would like to hear what John has to say before I start. But when I was getting ready for this meeting, I looked at the agenda and looked at the attachments, and I can kind of figure out where he's going to go. So based on that, I'm going to make some comments. I may need to recant them after I hear him speak. But the other thing is I did send everyone, you too, Susan, information. It was my bad. I was sending to each one of you thinking you all had individual email address, and nobody got anything because I didn't send it to the one. I will send that. You're going to be getting a lot of stuff from me. I was sending it over time it was released and that didn't work out. So when I was looking at what John listed for this, at the bottom there's towns, their name: Farragut Tennessee, Davis California, Malibu California. I know those were included because I have been speaking to those in particular unless he found another reason that they were special. And then included is: Flagstaff, Sedona, Bisbee, Paradise Valley, Peoria, and Scottsdale. I will tell you that for the ones that are here in state, I've worked with most of those cities helping them get rid of towers. They have a tower come in, it doesn't follow whatever code they have, they -- people know that this is what I do. And they say, how -- tell me where in the code, where is this wrong, let's point this out. I'm just saying that if we're going that way, if we're following the Arizona suggested ordinances, which is, I think, what John's going to be saying is, I'm already fighting those towers. And we've gotten rid of -- it's not that we've gotten rid of them, it's they're not being applied for properly. This is a huge problem. So these towns that he has listed as perhaps an example for us, they're looking for our -- everybody knows TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 29 of 53 we're going through this process, and everybody is waiting for this beautiful ordinance to come out because they want to correct theirs. And I'm telling you, I'm helping them with theirs. So the other thing I wanted to point out or mention is the map that John used in this meeting. The map before that, I think it was the February meeting, showed where Cox and Verizon already have underground fiber. I have concerns about that. I don't want to take up the time for that. But I want you to realize there's the two maps. Please look at the map, I think it's in the February one, because it shows more of the layout. I don't know why that wasn't included in this presentation, but he may have an explanation for that. So let me go with the assumption that John is continuing with a tower ordinance. And I'm just going to --- I'm going to go with this. This is going to be a little harsh. I'm sorry, but this is near and dear. I still don't see what the benefits are to require service to be underground -- built underground. I'm concerned that Mr. Wesley is not aware of the town's liability in the situation of a lawsuit from a resident. It's not to say -- it's not, or -- I'm sorry. It's not only the town's liability, but it's yours as well as individuals who may favor the construction of antennas. The town can't get insurance. It doesn't exist. Which leaves the decision-makers, you guys, vulnerable. Again, there are so many aspects to this, all of which are nonissues if the infrastructure built is underground. I continue to be confused by why the -- sorry. I continue to be confused why it's towers Mr. Wesley is pushing. It goes against our strategic plan. It devalues our properties. It pollutes our town with more emissions. It uses a tremendous amounts of energy -- people don't really speak about that. It provides slower service than what would be provided if it were underground, and it is going to be disturbed by any storm or any dust storm -- rainstorm or dust storm that we have. And the bigger fact is, is that we already exceed FCC limits in the town. So we're adding to it. We're not even thinking about it, we're just adding it. We're writing an ordinance to add to it instead of looking at what we have. So as a resident, if I get a tower in my yard, what do I do? I have to rely on the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 30 of 53 ordinance. I go to the ordinance. I take that to my lawyer, my lawyer, and I go up against the industry and say, here's the law that protects my home. So if this ordinance is not strong, it's letting down every resident who may be affected by this. So again, it's the first line of defense for residents when we -- if we wake up and we have folks in our yards building a tower. So it has to be extremely detailed. A lot of the failures of all these other towns, they say, oh, it has to meet aesthetics, and they stop at that. We need to define them. So there's other areas besides aesthetics that we need to be extremely definitive, and we can get into that with the electronics, and I'll do that at a later date. So again, our founding fathers left us with a clear vision for Fountain Hills, and why there are only -- and why, when there's two choices to install this product, we're going with towers. I don't know why it's underground. Nobody's explained that to me. So I just ask that you table or continue to table this until you get your experts in. I had a video for you guys to see an example of what you can get from experts. I'll get that to you tonight. But thank you. MEYERS: Chair, Commissioners, I'm going to stay away from the details of 5G and speak to a more broader issue, of which 5G seems to be falling into the pattern of the government of this town. So I believe that we can all agree everywhere that the overriding objective of the town government should be transparency of information -- I think we can agree on that -- careful research guided towards listening and protecting the property values, the vision of the town, and the rights of the citizens. So with that in mind, a majority of its citizens, not a vocal, loud, and mostly ignorant minority -- and some of their ignorance comes from people that sit on the dais who at the -- one of the council meetings waved around their cell phone -- because we're not talking about cell phones. When we're talking about 5G, we're talking about broadband communications. So shame on her for doing that and shame on the people who listen to her, because that was ignorant. So for transparency, the latest two examples -- and I was suspicious of this in the last great debate over the Target redevelopment -- a councilwoman directed some of the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 31 of 53 very documents requested by this commission to her personal email. I suspected those things were happening, and that came to light as the email and the documents were eventually made -- came to the light of the public. And then we have -- this is another great debate, definitely changing the shape of the town and the way it was intended by the founders. Staff is asked for documents, and -- or commissioners have asked for documents, and staff has refused to give them under the guise of privileged material. I object. I'm a taxpayer. You're a taxpayer. We paid for that material, and that material belongs to us to use in our research. I suspect that there's probably some really good information in there that we deserve to hear. And you're not hearing it because it's being hidden from us, just like the documents that were sent to the private email in the last great debate we just had. And so I suggest you get those documents. They belong to the people. And that was an expert that we hired and paid a retainer. So I think -- just give me like 30 seconds. There's more collective brainpower in the body public on this particular issue, and I'm including some of you on the dais, then there will ever be inside the walls of the Town of fountain -- Town Hall of Fountain Hills. I'm sorry. They don't have the time nor the expertise to pull this off. And so I suggest you get the information from the town attorney by hook or crook, even if you have to go to the Attorney General to do it, and then see what that consultant has to say before you move anywhere forward on this issue because it's of monumental consequence. Not just for today, we're talking about forever. So thanks for the extra time. CHAIR GRAY: Thanks. Paula, I know we had a couple come in electronically. WOODWARD: Yes. One of them -- they're both in your packet. One was a lengthy email. The other one is from Liz Gildersleeve, and her comment is, "In order to protect the town residents and neighbors, the ordinance must insist that the infrastructure goes underground. Period. If the ordinance does not contain the underground verbiage, then I am not in favor. Putting the infrastructure underground is the most important aspect of this ordinance." That's all, Chair. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioners, the other email came in this morning. Everybody get a TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 32 of 53 chance to see that? Who was the originator of the longer one this morning, Paula? WOODWARD: Ms. Lori Troller. CHAIR GRAY: No. I thought there was another one that we read? There's one at 9 or so this morning. WOODWARD: There was two from Liz Gildersleeve. One is, Liz Gildersleeve commented on agenda item 7 and agenda item 6. CHAIR GRAY: Who put the article in their email? WOODWARD: Lori Troller. CHAIR GRAY: Was it Lori? TROLLER: It's an attachment. CHAIR GRAY: Was it? I read it. TROLLER: Yeah. CHAIR GRAY: I just don't remember it was from you. All right. Let's close the public hearing -- and I keep saying that -- the public comment. Should we bring John up for a few questions? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Just a few. CHAIR GRAY: Mr. Wesley? I'm going to start because I know you're going to be long, and I don't want to be asleep by the time you're done. So John, I just had a question on House Bill 2365, and then this is just a procedural. The way my mind works versus the way legislative writing works, but it seems to me this should kind of work like a wedding cake, where the language that's in Title 11, which allows for the exclusion of towers in residential districts, is not included in Title 9, which is the area of the code that deals with cities and towns. Shouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it's in 11, and then it should then be available to the town to incorporate in their own local ordinances? WESLEY: No. CHAIR GRAY: That just seems so backwards to me. WESLEY: No. They're totally independent. Title 11 of the state statutes regulates things for the county -- unincorporated areas of counties. Title 9 are the rules and regulations TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 33 of 53 for cities and towns to follow. And while they're very similar, and in some places identical, they are totally separate. And so if what -- what's in 11 doesn't apply to cities and towns. CHAIR GRAY: So this is 9? VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's House Bill 2365. That's the one that was codified by the legislature. CHAIR GRAY: Oh, okay. And then the second question I had was on the TCA of '96, Title 1, and Title 2, can you define what a notice of proposed rulemaking? That's a public comment window, right? That's not something that becomes ratified? WESLEY: Chairman, yes. I can't go into too much detail because it's not an area I deal in too extensively. But yes, the FCC is looking at where broadband should be classified, whether it's Title 1 or Title 2. They've had enough evidence come to them to decide that they need to look at it and then possibly make a change. So they've put forth this notice of potential rulemaking, whatever that exact title is. And so sometime in the future -- and estimates are that it will be fairly near future -- they will close their comment period and make a decision on whether or not to move it. But it hasn't happened yet. CHAIR GRAY: But the comment period was opened in -- WESLEY: October. CHAIR GRAY: -- October. To the 25th? Okay. Okay. Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Hard to know where to start. Hard to know where to start, but I turn my mic on, I get help. Yeah. The NPRM goes to a vote April 25th, and they've been fighting this -- "they" being the public -- since 2004, 2005, 2008, '10, '14, '15, '16, '18, '19, '20, and '23. So the odds of it passing shouldn't preclude us from being able to create an ordinance that protects the public. So this I don't think the NPRM is a given; that it's going to pass and become law in the immediate future, so consideration. But I also wanted to make a statement about the consultant's work. And this isn't to disparage the efforts of the town staff, but I don't believe that the town staff has the level of expertise necessary to do justice to the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 34 of 53 residents. And I think that the consultant that was engaged originally has that and continues to have it and continues to write recommendations for various towns across the country. So I'm frustrated that we mention consultants in even the information that you provide again, and for some reason, we're not allowed to have that information, even though the town residents paid for it, under some privilege of information which makes no sense to me. If we pay for it, we should be able to see it, and we should be able to use it, and hopefully, that the staff is able to benefit from it as well. So that's probably my -- that's my first and second comments. And I want to -- some of the things the -- she says a -- there's a laundry list. So I'm not sure if we want to go down your list and then I can comment about those individually, or how would you would like to proceed. And let me make one more statement before you do that. I think that the ordinance that you cited and provided, provides some insight. All of them don't address all of the issues, but some of them address the underground component, some of them address compliance, some of them address output, some of them -- each of them collectively, if we could consolidate all of those components, we might end up with a pretty good ordinance. So I commend staff or you -- whoever put it together -- that those half a dozen -- dozen citations were good, but not individually. Collectively, we weave them all together and we make a solid good argument for protecting the public: public interest, public properties, and so on and so forth. So along the way, I'm going to do what you do. I'm open for comments anywhere you want to go with it, or I can keep going. CHAIR GRAY: I don't think -- you don't have a formal presentation of sorts today. WESLEY: Right. That's correct. I'll make a very brief statement here, just kind of summarizing the start of the staff report. Over the last couple of meetings comments and questions have been made, attempts made to define and clarify various points, and sometimes seem like they helped, and sometimes, maybe, I left being a little bit more confused than before. So I thought maybe it'd be helpful, I went back and listened to the two previous meetings, tried to pull out from those things different comments that TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 35 of 53 were made and tried to clarify them. Hopefully, I did. If I didn't, we can continue that discussion. That's what we're after; is trying to come to clarity here about where we're trying to go, what we can and can't do. So we can move forward in a reasonable and appropriate way for the town. I guess I will make one more comment a little bit based on Ms. Troller's comments a moment ago. If -- we have an existing ordinance for towers and antennas for the aboveground things that are here. If there isn't -- I guess, I keep getting the sense that that's fine, it is what it is and we're really wanting to regulate something else. And so if we need to leave Chapter 17 alone and not change anything there, maybe that's the direction. And maybe there's something else we should be doing besides that because if we -- because that isn't an underground broadband ordinance, it's a towers and cell -- it's towers and antennas ordinance, and that's what it's there for. So I'll just throw that out too, if we can get clarification on really what the goal is. CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. I think you're probably right to go down that path. But I don't think it's that we should walk away from the antennas section either. I think that there's probably some complementary lens that we need to take between the two, which is going to complicate it, but I don't know if you can have one discussion anymore without the other. VICE CHAIR WATTS: And I would agree with that. I think that we don't have a big argument about cellular internet and what those are comprised of, as much as it is the broadband component. So I think somehow we ought to be able to weave that into 17. I'm not sure exactly how. So I appreciate this opportunity to have the conversation about it. Continuing, though, I think I want to address a couple of the things that were in -- CHAIR GRAY: I think -- before you -- sorry. But before you get too far down your list, can you give us an update on last month's request to view that consultant's work and what the process might be to facilitate that, or I guess, where it might be in process? WESLEY: So yes, Chairman. The town manager and I believe, with the assistance of the town attorney, have provided some comments to the town council and asked them for TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 36 of 53 direction on how they want to respond and, at this point, have not been given any direction to do anything different than what we've done at this point. CHAIR GRAY: Is there a mechanism available -- I guess we made our formal request for it, right? WESLEY: Yes. CHAIR GRAY: And town council heard that, presumably in an executive session, and abstained from direction to allow us access to that? WESLEY: So Chair, they didn't hold an executive session on it. Town manager though, did communicate to the council. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. So we're, I guess, at this point, we're waiting -- WESLEY: We're waiting. CHAIR GRAY: -- for council feedback and direction? WESLEY: Yes. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Strange. I mean, there's probably nothing in there, but it's strange. SCHLOSSBERG: It almost makes me want to believe, because it is being kept secret, that there's something was found in there that we're emitting dangerous levels of something. And that there's -- I mean, that's all I can come up with. I mean, why would it be -- CHAIR GRAY: It's strange. SCHLOSSBERG: -- held up? I just -- I don't understand. CHAIR GRAY: Doesn't make a lot of sense. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Doesn't make a lot of sense. CHAIR GRAY: We're not letting anything off of this desk go forward until we know concretely what happens there or why. If we can't see it, I need to know why. I'm sure there's nothing in there. But even I now wonder, why can't we see the document? WESLEY: Right? DAPAAH: Yeah. Chair Gray, are we -- I'm wondering, are we just to focus on land use and not get into -- is this why they're keeping that from us -- from us seeing what the consultant's reports are? Are there parameters that they want to keep us within or -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 37 of 53 WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Dapaah, we, the town council, received a work product from an attorney. And after reviewing it, for whatever reasons, determined that it didn't meet the needs of the town. And it's a work product. It's not a final product. And so they have chosen to keep it at that level. CHAIR GRAY: Makes you want to know even more, doesn't it? SCHLOSSBERG: And now it makes me want to (indiscernible). It was 20,000 bucks, right? VICE CHAIR WATTS: 8,500? SCHLOSSBERG: 8,500? (Indiscernible), okay. Maybe the 8,500 was wasted, and they don't want to -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, then, I want my tax money back. SCHLOSSBERG: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Ready? CHAIR GRAY: Go ahead. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So a couple of things that were in your presentation that isn't a presentation but, nonetheless. The NEPA requirement is only an initial requirement. It isn't a semiannual requirement. When I get to another component, there is a semiannual recommendation for confirmation of output from these towers or from whatever. And that has to be through a spectroanalysis. It has to have computers hooked up to dataloggers and so on, and it has to be calibrated. So that should be in the application process. And that should be something that the provider provides and pays for because it just validates that their output is within a certain range. We've yet to establish the exact range, so we're good there. And just as an FYI, not only is the Environmental Protection Agency by way of NEPA involved, but also the ADA has requirements. So we want to include that to make sure we're compliant with ADA. CHAIR GRAY: How is that relevant? VICE CHAIR WATTS: It's relevant to a side issue of not -- of health. So we were talking about property values initially and what it can do to a neighborhood and diminish the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 38 of 53 property values, but there's also a health component. If the proximity to some of these towers -- if, in fact, we end up with towers in lieu of putting it underground -- produce inappropriate -- or the output is too high -- much like a Faraday screen on a microwave -- the reason that that screen is there is to contain the microwave energy, and we want to make sure that we do that with towers as well. SCHLOSSBERG: I agree. After reading everything I read, I'm kind of freaked out about what I didn't really think was a big issue before, but now I'm thinking, well, maybe it is an issue. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, it's much like mold. If you think about mold, even though the earth's biomass is 25 percent mold, people have different tolerances to mold. And I think people have different tolerances to output that radio frequency -- the electromagnetic component -- that's spectro, so I think we need to be aware of it. Because if the tower's at a height emit a -- what's effectively a cloud, and it has a range. And we want to make sure that we're far enough away so that it doesn't impact people, public gathering places, schools, residences and has that kind of an impact. So I want to make sure we consider that as well. I think some of the things that you've identified is the noise standards. Some of the -- some of the good things are encouraging co-location, requiring security fencing, requiring landscaping, setting noise standards. I think we need to define noise. And I think I mentioned this last time. Noise can be electronic noise, much like fluorescent lights. If you drop a communication cable over an electric light, you can get transients. Transients hop on and then they cause effectively static. So I think noise has to be defined. The structural certification is good. The property line and the heights. I think we've referred to table 1 for that and I think that has got some decent input on it. 300 feet from a residential zone property, I think, is way too low. I think we need to consider between 1,000 and 1,500 feet. I certainly don't want a tower in front of my house and I'm, I think, at least 300 feet from the right-of-way. So I think we need to increase that. CHAIR GRAY: On that one, based on the education you've given me on this, and the way TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 39 of 53 that frequencies are emitted from these, do we also need to consider a vertical separation too, right? So if you've got a tower -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Right. CHAIR GRAY: -- if you've got a tower here and you've got a home here. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Exactly. Yeah. So you have to have that as well. And it has to be from that point. It's like line of sight. Again, when we talk about community homes, corner-to-corner property, so this has to have a point of origin, and the point of contact has to be that distance because of that effective cloud that is generated. Okay? WESLEY: Chair, if I may? Vice Chair, on the comment you just made about the 300 feet. This isn't a finalized map yet, it's still in some process. But today, to put up a tower, it can't go in -- or in order to go in residential or to go within 300 feet of residential, requires the council to approve a special use permit. You're outside of that, then those long ones that could go in just administratively. So looking at this map, we can see -- we start up here, this commercial area up here is all within 300 feet. In the town center area, we have some area in here that would be outside of that 300-foot where a tower could go without requiring a special use permit. By the time you get down here, there is a thin band, but there're already towers. And so there's a separation distance between towers that would cause it to have to go to council. When we get down to this area of industrial and commercial, again, there's some small area here that's outside that 300 feet that could potentially go in administratively, but because of the existing towers and the separation between towers, again, it probably couldn't. This one's not really drawn correctly. It should just be the Fry's area itself. And so there may be a small point in the middle there where you could put a tower without going through council, and it'd be pretty small. And similarly, up here, this was drawn wrong, it should just go around the lodging-zoned area. So again, maybe there's a small area right there that could get a tower with administratively. So those are the only areas currently with 300 feet where towers could go in administratively without going through a public hearing process. It's not going to take much of a change to get that. So you couldn't go anyplace in town without going through a special use permit, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 40 of 53 and that's certainly an option if that's the way the commission wants to go. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, I -- these towers, though, if I'm not mistaken, are primarily cell towers -- cell phone towers. WESLEY: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. They're not broadband. They're not emanating broadband frequencies. So there's a difference there. And again, I, we really have no control over cellular -- where the cellular towers go. We would like to see them as far apart as possible but still as close as possible for best coverage. So we're not trying to eliminate anything, just kind of manage it. WESLEY: So if we are able to distinguish a tower or, more importantly, an antenna that is just emanating broadband, you're wanting to take that even further from residential? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yes. WESLEY: And so again, 500 to 1,000 feet? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yes. WESLEY: So again, at that point, you might as well say they all require special use permit because there really wouldn't be anything left. Maybe, a couple of very small areas. VICE CHAIR WATTS: The ideal situation, though, is to put it underground. WESLEY: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: One of these or -- I guess, there's a couple of them that -- the examples that you provided were very specific about putting all the broadband underground. That's the route they went, and apparently, they haven't been challenged on that. There is some cost, but that cost is burdened by the providers, not necessarily the town. WESLEY: Which communities were those that did that? You don't remember. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I went through them and I didn't write them down, but I know there were two or three in here that -- they specifically talked about being underground. So I think that would be the best solution if we could come up with that. WESLEY: I haven't seen that in the codes yet. So I missed it when I read that. No. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 41 of 53 VICE CHAIR WATTS: So the 300 feet, I think we should look at that with respect to broadband, to 500 or 1,000 feet, whatever. And I think there was one in here that had 1,000 feet. And I'm assuming that you gave me examples that were not challenged in court. So I assume they -- no? You don't know. WESLEY: So again, Chair, Vice Chair, the three out -- three or four outside of Arizona, as Ms. Troller mentioned, I got those because they were ones that had been mentioned at previous council meetings. And then, the ones in Arizona, were just random ones that I picked. As I said in the report, generally speaking, several of them are ones known to be a little bit more progressive in what they do. And then others just for some comparison. So no, I did not do any checking of their codes to see if they'd had any legal challenge. VICE CHAIR WATTS: The ones that I did -- the ones in Hawaii, the ones in California -- California is probably one of the most progressive states to protect their residents. For all the things that go on in California, this is a good thing that they did. And it's hard for me to say that, but it is. I think the drive-by test is flawed. I think that's where it comes back to using the spectroanalysis; when you have somebody that's certified in the operation of that to make sure that the output is recorded, then it's matched against the provider's data. The provider has specific data that says, here's my peak -- it's kind of like a bell chart. And they know when their peak times are, what their drop calls are, what their -- all of the details. They're very granular in the data. So we compare that to what their application says as far as their output range, to make sure they're within output. And if you're asking for more, is it a matter of changing hardware? Is it a matter of adding additional hardware, or what is it? But we need some -- we'll go back to that reasonable accommodation. We want to make sure we provide service, but we don't want to compromise anybody. So more to come on that. And if you need some guidance on where to acquire and which spectroanalysis machine to provide, I've got it for you. The certification is a little bit different, and the calibration is really important, much like radar guns. So that's more to talk about that. The semiannual certification, I just mentioned that and the ongoing maintenance operation. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 42 of 53 And now I'm going to have to go through all of your pages. Each one of them has some notation on it. But I still want to talk about -- what you provided, I think, is a good framework. If we can weave all of the components of each of the ordinances together, I think we can come up with a good solution. So I'm going to relinquish for a minute, and if anybody has any questions, please. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner? SCHLOSSBERG: Yeah. I want to go back to the underground and the broadband underground and the -- I guess, is the provider going to refuse service based on the cost? And is the (indiscernible) going to be a big deal here with the trying to put some of this stuff underground and the legalities of -- I mean, if we're creating the ordinance, then they have to follow it? And if they choose not to, then they just don't provide service here. Is that it? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Cox and phone company are already doing it. They're already pulling cable underground. Technology is pulling it, not trenching it. Old technology is trench, now you'll pull the cable underground. And it's probably much easier with a fiber optic cable than it is with some of these big coax cables. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I'm still waiting for me, huh? CHAIR GRAY: It's your show. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I don't want it to be my show. SCHLOSSBERG: Commissioner Corey said something. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Corey? COREY: I do. Just playing devil's advocate, which I usually do. Just hear me out. And I understand health and safety are a key primary focus here, and I completely agree with that. And I do wish we could see that report, so we know that there aren't any issues. But one of the things -- one of the advantages to 5G broadband, as I understand it, like we talked about a couple meetings ago, is that it is wireless. So in my home right now, I have Cox internet, and I got to get a router and I have to get a modem, and I got to plug it into the wall, and wherever that outlet is, it's stuck right there. Whereas the 5G box TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 43 of 53 that these providers can give me means I just plug it into the wall and go. If I move to another house, I keep my internet. If I want to be mobile, I can keep my internet. Maybe I'm a business that has 5G, and I'm doing something out on the Avenue of the Fountains or something, I can bring my 5G box with me. I believe you just plug it in, and it works. So when we think of like -- I don't know -- phones used to be on the wall, we had to turn the circle and call somebody and now they're all wireless. Internet seems to be like it's heading in that direction too. So I think this 5G broadband is a new technology that people are probably going to want. I think these 5G wireless internet boxes are pretty popular. I'd like to get one myself, and I can't because there's no service. But I remember in speaking with a couple of people here, we want to try to bring this as close to getting the signal as close as possible without broadcasting it just throughout the entire community. So I think it was like the last mile was the plan, right? Try to get as much underground as they can? But ultimately, having the wireless is the benefit because then you can just plug in and go. So that's kind of my devil's advocate to that system. If we are all 100 percent underground, then we got to go plug it into the cable and the modem and the router and everything. So that's just my feedback on that part. I think that people are going to look forward to having that in the town. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So -- can I going to interrupt you? CHAIR GRAY: Can we? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Is it Commissioner Dempster? CHAIR GRAY: No, it was Larry. MEYERS: Larry. CHAIR GRAY: It was Larry, but his time has expired. VICE CHAIR WATTS: It sounded like Commissioner Dempster, so. I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Cellular communication, we're not talking about that at all. So 5G cellular -- 5th generation cellular is that. It's just the newest technology and the newest box, the newest product. If you think about a spectrum -- here's a radio frequency TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 44 of 53 spectrum. And this part has 5G cellular and this part has broadband. They're uniquely different. They talk different. They communicate different. They broadcast differently. So you'll never lose your cellular. I wouldn't be an advocate for that because I love my phone. COREY: And I'm not referring to cellular. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But that's what it is. But broadband is huge amounts of data, so it requires huge amounts of energy and output and input. So you've got -- it's not the same thing. So apples and oranges, I want to be sure we don't mix those. COREY: Sure. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Because we're supporters -- I'm a supporter of 5G cellular, 5G internet. COREY: I have 5G cellular at my home, it works great. I don't have 5G broadband at my home. I'd like to get that. CHAIR GRAY: He wants to mine cryptocurrency at Fountain Hills Park. COREY: I want to get online without having to plug it into the router. VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's not going to get you online. Broadband is not going to get you online the same way. Think about something that requires an enormous amount of data, like the Waymo cars and the self-driving cars. That's huge. COREY: Yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So there are certain areas that maybe a cell tower that was managed properly, had the right output, the right validation and calibrations would be appropriate in those areas. But the residential areas where you don't need it and it can work off of the internet as it is today, 5th G, 10th G, whatever the latest generation is going to be, wouldn't be affected by it. Broadband is different and it works on a different frequency. COREY: I am aware of that, and I believe -- my point is still true. Unless Larry wants to come up and -- MEYERS: I just -- one sentence. COREY: Yeah. Can he? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 45 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: He can't. But go ahead. MEYERS: So Verizon's (indiscernible). COREY: MEYERS: Right now, off of the cell tower, it will be three times as fast as your Cox and (indiscernible) if you're (indiscernible) the middle speed. COREY: Yep. MEYERS: And it's a box. You can plug it in anywhere you want to go. And there -- that's your broadband. It's there now. It's on the big towers. And there's only two reasons to have the bandwidth and speed of higher than we have now, A, multiplayer gaming. And I made those multiplayer games. I'm talking about people all over the world. CHAIR GRAY: Larry, come up to the mic. MEYERS: I was trying to stay away from it -- COREY: We still heard you, but I think for everybody else. CHAIR GRAY: You said one sentence. Susan didn't hear you, so start over, please. MEYER: Okay? So you can get the Verizon Cube right now. COREY: Yeah. MEYERS: 300 -- the middle speed of Cox is about 100 down and 10 up for $100 a month. You can get the Verizon Cube for less than $100 a month. It's 300 down and about 30 to 50 up. That's very, very fast. SCHLOSSBERG: Not consistently. I've got it in my office. MEYERS: It's not consistent? SCHLOSSBERG: Not that consistent. MEYERS: Because I'm in a canyon and I tried that thing, it blazed every day. So I think it depends on your proximity to a tower. SCHLOSSBERG: It's good. MEYERS: But I -- COREY: I got it too, and it wouldn't work. And I called them and they said, I don't have the service. MEYERS: Okay. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 46 of 53 COREY: I don't have the wireless. MEYERS: From the tower? COREY: Yes. MEYERS: But that cube is not going to work off of these small wave towers. That's the point. That cube has nothing to do with small-wave broadband. With regard to the speed that you wish to have and what Commissioner Watts was saying about self- driving cars and the like. In your house, there's only two reasons to have speed of that nature bandwidth. Multiplayer gaming, which is players from all over the world playing a game, massive amounts of data coming in, and your massive amount of data going out, so that everybody plays the game in real-time. And maybe if you're streaming five or ten different movies to different devices in your house all at the same time, otherwise, you couldn't possibly use the bandwidth. So there's no reason to put a tower in front of your house. Stick a bunch of fiber that pads up at your street, and you'll have blazing internet without wireless. The only reason you need the wireless is if you want to play a multiplayer game sitting in the Fountain Park on your phone, you might need a small wave tower or a Waymo car, is really about it. That's it. I'm not going to -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: So I would challenge you on one thing. You could have broadband at your house by way of a fiber optic cable. You would have a point of demarcation in your house, much like you have a router today. It would be different technology, and you would have wireless anywhere in that area. So you could create the same environment -- MEYERS: Yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- if you wanted to. MEYERS: Right. In your house. VICE CHAIR WATTS: In your house. Out in the environment, you might drop down to the 300 down and the 100 up. MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So that's a possibility as well. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 47 of 53 MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But fiber optics underground gets you -- still to your house, if you want it, and it gets you that point of demarcation, and it gets you just like you have cellular today. MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But you get broadband frequency instead. MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: And I'll bet you at some point in time they'll combine some sort of a combiner, a multiplier, broadband, internet, the whole nine yards, into one device as opposed to having two different routers. But right now you could do it with two routers. MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. MEYERS: Right now I have it in my house, two routers. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. MEYERS: Broadband and cellular. In my house because I'm in a canyon. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. MEYERS: And so I bought my little wireless tower in the house. Bores a hole in the internet, private, to the tower. And that's how I make cell phone calls. Otherwise, I call you, my call drops. So -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: And I'm in something of a canyon, but I've got T-Mobile -- MEYERS: Thanks. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- instead of Verizon. And my T-Mobile is lightning fast. And I don't have any problems whatsoever. I've never had to reset the thing. COREY: Okay. Well, thank you for clarifying that. I was under the assumption that that was the 5G broadband, but it was clarified to me that that is the 5G wireless. So my last question would be then who, ultimately, is the customer of the 5G broadband, if it isn't residents? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Whoever wants to buy it. It's business that's primarily heavy data TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 48 of 53 users. SCHLOSSBERG: You said Cox and (indiscernible)? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. They'd probably be buyers of it, but I don't think it's -- I don't think it's necessary in -- I thought I was off again -- necessary in a residential environment. Residential environments, I'm concerned about property values. Somebody sticks a tower in front, and the statistics tell you that you've got a 3 to 20 percent degradation in the value of your house. I'm concerned about health, although health is much more difficult to prove or validate. Because it's -- like I said, with mold, some people are sensitive, some people are not sensitive. Asbestos is another one. So there's different levels of sensitivity when it comes to radio frequency and electromagnetics. COREY: Yeah. It's very interesting and I'm not knowledgeable enough about it. I think that it would be interesting to know who is looking for this technology right now in the town. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I'll tell you that a lot of countries in Europe have outlawed it -- the towers -- because of health hazards. And I don't want to go down that rabbit hole because that's extremely difficult to prove. We can prove value -- residential value degradation. That's the statistics that I got from the national retailers or real estate. I can't remember the acronym for it. But that's provable. The health one is a concern, although we haven't been able to validate it yet, other than the ADA saying that there is a sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, so. But other than that, I think I've covered all of my points. I hope it helps a little bit, or at least things to consider. CHAIR GRAY: We let Larry come back, we got to let Lori come back. COREY: But Larry only had three minutes. VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's true. CHAIR GRAY: True. TROLLER: It's so hard to limit it to one. You were talking about the build out and funding. There are huge programs. I mean, there's huge -- I didn't -- I was asking Dave if TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 49 of 53 the town -- Dave Pock -- if we ever took advantage of something called the Arizona Rural Broadband Development Grant. All of these -- these are all grants that the town can take advantage of to build our own underground infrastructure. So you got to look at that a little differently because then we would have the liability of owning -- I've never even introduced this thought before. But in 2019, the federal government imposed a tax on everyone for I don't know how many years. And that money came together, and I don't have the name of that. I don't like to speak without those facts. But there were funds, and it was literally to put broadband on copper wire underground in every town. It's to help bring broadband everywhere. So just like that, there's these other grants. There's the Arizona State Library Technology and Act grant, there's the Arizona broadband educational incentive, there's the broadband equity access and -- this is so small I can't read it -- and deployment band. There's $43 million in that one. All of these are hugely funded. The Arizona broadband statewide middle mile strategic plan, the Arizona Statewide broadband strategic plan. These are all multimillion-dollar funded grants that we could take advantage of and build this ourselves. So you know, Anthem, they're all underground. But they had the the ease of plowing the whole place over and then building up the community. So it was really easy to get it underground. But there is this option too. So I never pitched this before. That's a big deal, I don't know that that's something we can do, but there's that as well. And just so anybody listening and everybody here understands broadband, everybody thinks they need it, but who can define it? What is it? It's just data really fast. So every -- the last -- for the last 15 years, it was defined at 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps -- or three Mbps up. It just changed last month to 100 down, and I think, 10 up? I don't know if it's 10 up or 30 up. But it just changed. Now the FCC does that definition, but it was fine for the last 15 years. I don't know what anybody else is doing that now requires all this extra stuff. It's not me. And I work in the data industry and I move a lot of data every day -- a ton of data. So does my son. I can't say who he works for but his requirements are enormous, and he's what -- the service we have is just fine. But that's the definition of broadband, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 50 of 53 it's just data at a minimum speed. And right now, that's 100 up and 30 -- or sorry -- 100 down, 30 up. If it doesn't meet that, it's not called broadband. It's just your data service. So I just want to make that distinction for people. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But to Lori's point, in order to push that much data, it requires a different part of the bandwidth. It requires more -- TROLLER: It requires different equipment. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- and I'll call it energy because we -- energy causes all of this data, the 1s and Os move and push at a certain rate because of the energy we apply to it and the output from those towers. TROLLER: Yeah. Think of a pitcher throwing a ball. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. Same thing. TROLLER: I mean -- SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. So you're concerned. Obviously, safety is your biggest concern, I'm guessing, from putting the broadband above ground versus below ground. TROLLER: It is a factor. There's reasons you don't typically hear me discuss that. You rarely hear me discuss that, and there's reasons for that. I will go to the hill on property values. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. TROLLER: As a whole, if we -- if every house has service and we don't have a single one of these towers, meanwhile, the rest of the Valley, there's people getting affected by this, and people are going to start looking for areas like Anthem where there's no towers. You know what we just did for Fountain Hills, by putting it underground? You just increased our property values tremendously, because we're going to be one of those few areas that's not -- doesn't have excessive emissions. But I'm telling you right now, we already do. With all of this we have going on, this little map John has, scares me. You got to understand -- so this, I guess, these are 300-foot circles. You got to understand, some of these towers are emitting 25 miles. I feel so bad for the homes that are so close to these, but -- there's so much I can get into. I don't -- it's obviously not healthy, but I'm going to argue to the hilt on property values. We can actually TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 51 of 53 increase the value of the entire town by not bringing towers in, and by bringing it in underground. So that's where I stand. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I got one parting comment and this is just food for thought to ponder. Has anybody -- I'm sure everybody here has read the terms and conditions of your cell phone service and your cell phone manufacturer, right? Everybody read all that? COREY: Oh, man. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: Ten bucks says you did? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Ten bucks, you're right. So you know it has a warning in there about radio frequencies and keeping it five millimeters away from your body because of electromagnetic exposure? There's two warnings in there, and it talks -- iPhones do it, Samsung -- all the phones do it. They all have warnings. So I think it's something to consider. But I do think that even though some of these towers that have cellular information are only 300-foot or 25 miles, the frequency on the bandwidth is the problem. It's the power. And when we talk about adding power, that's the problem. And when you get into the broadband areas to push so much data, the power of the output -- it's so important to control it, to manage it, to validate it, and to control it within limits, and then minimize the amount of towers that you can have out there from residential areas. So with that, I'm done. CHAIR GRAY: Well, it is rate limiting power an option under the current state scheme? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. You can -- yes. CHAIR GRAY: It would just, in theory, mean more towers? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. Yes. And then you get back to the property values because now you're placing them everywhere. If you have more output, it has more range. If you have less output, you have more towers. So they're inversely proportional. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. All right. Let's move on to agenda items 8 and 9, commission discussion and summary of commission requests. John, anything for us? Anything for TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 52 of 53 John? DEMPSTER: Yes. Guys, I have. And I had a few comments too, but I can send them via email to John, about item 7. But I have something for John and for the commission to consider and look into. I got a call last week from an investor wanting to purchase one of my listings. And so this is a new craze, I guess. A new thing coming on with co-living. There is a new company called PadSplit, P-A-D, split. Where these investors come in and buy homes, and they modify the living space into more bedrooms. So they may take a three-bedroom, two-bath home and turn it into a five- or six-bedroom and maybe add a bathroom, and then have individual leases for each bedroom and have cohabitants in each home. I found it very interesting. And if you go on their website, you can see an actual floor plan where they do this. And some of the rooms are so tiny, it's crazy. But I didn't have a chance to look at our definitions of households. And I mean, one, I think this would -- could be an issue with parking at the property. But I just thought this was very interesting as something new that's coming this way. They said if that didn't work with the house, that they worked with insurance companies, and they would buy the house for insurance companies for families to temporarily live while work was being done in their house. And then they also worked with -- they called it co-living, which is group homes. And he said flat-out that we make so much more money because we can charge an -- have an individual lease per room. So I just wanted to bring everybody's attention to this new option of PadSplits. So John, I wanted to bring this to your attention. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. Susan, can you spell the pad? P-A-D-? Can you spell the second word, please? CHAIR GRAY: Split. DEMPSTER: Split, S-P-L-I-T. KOVACEVIC: Thank you. DEMPSTER: Like that. CHAIR GRAY: Are you in the market, Dan? DAPAAH: Yeah, Chairman, this is something that's very popular on the East Coast. New TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 53 of 53 York is doing this all the time. I mean, it might be new here, but it's big on the East Coast. SCHLOSSBERG: Like a place where they -- crash pads? Yeah, this sounds (indiscernible). DEMPSTER: Yeah. There were several states that it seemed to be very popular. CHAIR GRAY: Great. All right. Thank you, Susan. DEMPSTER: Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: All right. Folks, we are adjourned. Planning and Zoning Commission May 13, 2024 1 of 3 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 13, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Chairperson Gray called the Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on May 13, 2024, to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence. 2. ROLLCALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson Peter Gray; Vice Chairperson Rick Watts; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Patrick Dapaah; Commissioner Susan Dempster; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic; Commissioner Scott Schlossberg Staff Present: Development Services Director John Wesley; Senior Planner Farhad Tavassoli and Executive Assistant Paula Woodward. 3. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None 4. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning April 8, 2024. This item was continued to the next scheduled meeting due to an incorrect date in the meeting minutes. 5. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, REVIEW AND CONSIDER: Ordinance 24-10 allowing patio covers in front and street side yards. MOVED BY Chair Gray to recommend the Town Council approve Ordinance 24-10 allowing patio covers in front and street side yards with stipulations. SECONDED BY Commissioner Kovacevic. Vote:7-0 Unanimously Commissioner Corey Aye Commissioner Dapaah Aye Commissioner Dempster Aye Commissioner Kovacevic Aye Commissioner Schlossberg Aye Vice Chair Watts Aye Chair Gray Aye 6. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: annual report on the implementation of the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020. The following residents addressed the Commission: Lori Troller Larry Meyers Planning and Zoning Commission May 13, 2024 2 of 3 MOVED BY Commissioner Kovacevic to continue discussion to the next scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, June 10, 2024. SECONDED BY Vice Chair Watts. Vote:7-0 Unanimously Commissioner Corey Aye Commissioner Dapaah Aye Commissioner Dempster Aye Commissioner Kovacevic Aye Commissioner Schlossberg Aye Vice Chair Watts Aye Chair Gray Aye 7. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance 24-08 repealing and replacing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17, Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Antennas. The following residents addressed the Commission: Lori Troller Larry Meyers MOVED BY Vice Chair Watts to continue Agenda Item #7 to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, July 8, 2024. SECONDED BY Commissioner Dempster. Vote:5-2 Commissioner Corey Nay Commissioner Dapaah Nay Commissioner Dempster Aye Commissioner Kovacevic Aye Commissioner Schlossberg Aye Vice Chair Watts Aye Chair Gray Aye 8. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. 9. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director. 10. REPORT from Development Services Director. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gray adjourned the Regular meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on May 13, 2024 at 8:40 p.m. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Chairperson Peter Gray ATTESTED AND PREPARED BY Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant Planning and Zoning Commission May 13, 2024 3 of 3 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on May 13, 2024. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this day of May 13, 2024 Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 67 Post-Production File Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2024 Transcription Provided By: eScribers, LLC * * * * * Transcription is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. * * * * * TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 67 GRAY: All right. Let's call this meeting to order. This is the May 13th version of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission. If you would, please, stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. ALL: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. GRAY: Thank you. All right. We're going to kind of speed things along. So Paula, all commissioners are present here on the dais this evening. We'll move on to Agenda Item 3, Call to the Public. Do we have any speaker cards? WOODWARD: No, Chairman. GRAY: Thank you, Paula. Agenda Item 4, Consideration and Possible Action on the April 8th, '24 regular meeting minutes. Commissioners, any discussion or a motion, please? Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 8th, 2024. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: I'd ask that we look at the date on those minutes. I think they're February 12th. DEMPSTER: February 12th. WOODWARD: Sorry. We won't be approving those. WATTS: Yeah, that's my point. WOODWARD: I didn't notice that myself. Thank you. WATTS: It happened twice. It happened once before as well, so -- WOODWARD: Thank you, Vice Chair. WATTS: Yeah. I'm sorry. WOODWARD: Appreciate that. WATTS: Sorry. GRAY: Why you got to call Paula out like that? WATTS: I didn't want to do that. GRAY: Okay. So -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 67 WOODWARD: In the future, if you notice that prior to a meeting, I would welcome an email so I could change it and send it out. Thank you. GRAY: And there's Paula taking you to school. WATTS: Yeah, I got spanked. I get it. GRAY: All right. So we will bypass Agenda Item 4 and pick that up in the June session. Agenda Item 5, Public Hearing to Review and Consider Ordinance 24-10 regarding patio covers in front and street side yards. Mr. Wesley. WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioners. Welcome this evening. Got a little text amendment here that came to our attention over a month ago to get your consideration and recommendation on. As you know, the zoning ordinance sets setback standards and lot coverage requirements for each zoning district. In most districts, there is a requirement that buildings be set back to maintain, you know, good sight visibility and openness along the streets, but we had a request to consider amendment to the code that would allow patio covers to encroach into street and -- front and street side yards. So this resulted in a couple of places where we're proposing to make some modifications. One is to add two new definitions to the ordinance. One to define what a patio is, and then also define what a patio cover is so we know what we're regulating later on in the ordinance. And then Section 5.06(d) of the zoning ordinance sets out various exceptions or allowances for encroachment into yards. We're proposing to add a new Number 4 to that particular section, and I'll go through the different requirements or standards that are within that. The first one is that the patio cover can encroach up to half the setback distance or up to 12.5 feet into that front or street side yard. So the areas circled there in the red are what those standards are. When I was drafting this, I think I must have glanced on the rear yard because I saw those 25s, and that's why I put the 12 and a half in there. So it's half -- up to 12 and a half, but actually, the fronts and sides are 20s until you get to the 40s and 60s up top. So the 12 and a half is maybe not necessary, or maybe it could be 15 feet or some other numbers. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 67 But we're wanting to allow the encroachment, but on those larger lots, it didn't really make sense to allow patio covers that got too big out into those front yards, so we didn't want to go half of 40 feet or half of 60 feet. That would be a pretty big patio cover beyond those side yards. So anyway, have that currently recommended to ten, but no -- half -- up to 12 and a half feet. But again, depending on your discussion, that could change a little bit. We have a maximum height of 12 feet. That's the same height allowance we have in the residential districts for a small accessory structure, so I'd keep that the same. And then the other part is how much of a post can you have or wall, basically, can you be creating to hold up the cover. Again, we're talking about something that's out into the street sides of a house where we're wanting to maintain some visibility along the street, somebody pulling out of their driveway being able to see oncoming traffic or kids on the sidewalk or whatever, so you don't want to much structure there. So what we put in was you can't -- the structure holding up the roof can't be more than 20 percent of the width of that side of the -- of the patio. So that can take several forms here, as you can see by these various drawings, of how wide they might be spaced out that might be. We wanted to leave flexibility for design that would fit a particular house and the architecture of that house. We didn't want to get to prescriptive. And we think this will work with this 20 percent width. Still leave enough open space between the column so you can see. So those are the basic components of the code going back. There is one last piece at the end about what you can't do. You can't use these patio covers as a carport or a garage or to store a bunch of junk. Any questions about this? GRAY: Commissioners? Commissioner Dempster. DEMPSTER: Hi, John. Thank you. This makes sense, but I did want to ask about patio covers may be detached, so what would that look like? Because I'm concerned about building a structure in front of the house that's separate. So can you speak to that, please? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 67 WESLEY: Yes, Chair, Commissioner Dempster. So really, in some cases, the -- there may be a desire or a need, based on how far back the house is from the property line and where the patio is going to be located, that it might not actually connect to the house, and so that's why we worded it that way. So it doesn't necessarily have to connect to the house. If you think that's an issue, that could easily be changed so it does require it to be connected to the house. DEMPSTER: Well, would that, then, become a separate structure? So would it fall into a different ordinance, meaning different -- WESLEY: That's what -- it'd still be covered here. DEMPSTER: So but then -- but a separate structure would have to meet our setback -- our current setback numbers versus these amended numbers for a specific patio. So what makes it a patio, then? It's just saying a surfaced area. So if someone puts, like, pavers out to put a table, that would be not attached -- WESLEY: Right. DEMPSTER: -- and out front -- WESLEY: Right. And so that -- DEMPSTER: -- to accommodate that. I'm trying to think of any unintended -- WESLEY: Sure. Chair, Commissioner Dempster, so this is worded so that if you do have that situation where that patio is totally detached away from the house that you could still cover it, even with this encroachment. DEMPSTER: Okay. Thank you. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: John, Section 1(a) talks about an enclosed patio, and along the lines of what Commissioner Dempster was talking about, would that really now be a patio if it was enclosed, and does it -- it appears to conflict with Section 2.4 where patios in the front and side yards may not be enclosed, so it sounds contradictory to me. WESLEY: Chair, Vice Chair, if I've got your question, so if we look at this definition here, this is a more general definition for any patio anywhere around the house, so in the rear yard, side yard, front yard, wherever it may be, and so those can certainly be enclosed, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 67 but in order to encroach into the front of street side yard, it would have to remain open except for the column supporting the roof. That's what this one tells us. WATTS: It just sounded confusing when I was reading it and trying to figure it out. Okay. Thank you. GRAY: Mr. Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Can you give us a little more color on the history of what brought this about? WESLEY: Mr. Schlum (ph.) may want to come up and speak to that. I think he turned in a speaker card. So if you don't mind, Chair, we can go to that. GRAY: Yeah. And then I've got a couple I want to talk with you as well. SCHLUM: Chairmen, Commissioners, staff, thanks for serving and for hearing this item. So we wanted to cover our patio. We did an addition on our house, so we did not have any room for a patio cover. We have a patio, but it's in the sun. We have two feet left, which would look goofy. It wouldn't do anything. So we came before the Board of Adjustment and said, hey, can we get a variance? I kind of knew it wasn't going to pass because it was a self-imposed hardship because we put the new patio out in the front, and now it was within the setback for a patio cover or any type of structure, I guess. But we came up with a great plan, a nice rendering. Judy Bauer is representing our neighbors here. All of our neighbors were at the Board of Adjustment meeting. We kind of made it a party. I think most of the Board of Adjustment board liked the idea, but they could not find a reason -- I think John could attest to how they felt about it. They couldn't approve it based on what the rules are. So they thought maybe we could change the rules and look at that, not allow us a full addition to go out into the setback, but to allow a patio cover might be okay. So we started the process, and here we are. So that's -- that may be what's behind it. That's what I'm familiar with, anyway. KOVACEVIC: Okay. Thanks. So my next question would be is it a -- what's your required setback? SCHLUM: Ours is 20 feet. Our setback is 20 feet in our zoning district. And our patio is TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 of 67 probably 14 feet off the front of the house. So if we were to cover our entire patio, it would be more like the two feet that we have left plus 12 more feet for us, but, you know -- KOVACEVIC: So that would leave six feet of front yard between the edge of your patio and the lot line? SCHLUM: It would leave -- it's 20 now, plus there's quite a bit of kind of right-of-way before the street curb starts, so I'm not sure exactly how much, but it's at least ten feet. That's 20 feet -- KOVACEVIC: Um-hum. SCHLUM: -- and then the ten. But our house is already back, so that two feet -- right now -- I guess, to the setback, it's 22 feet from the front of our house right now, so if we were to go out 12 feet, there would be ten more feet left of setback. Kind of along the lines of how this is written. KOVACEVIC: Okay. Thanks. SCHLUM: Yeah. Thank you. GRAY: I got more bullets here than I ever thought I would talking about this topic, but just some clarifications. Why would we treat this any different than we do golf nets administratively? We bring those through a special use permit process. I kind of -- you know, in isolation, this is very benign, but I worry about the bigger picture of this extrapolating. Not that it will or it won't, but to me, this is a perfect candidate for if we're going to write it, let's write it up in a way and then put it through a special use permit process. WESLEY: Oh, Chair, we sure could do that. Whatever the Commission wants to recommend. You may recall on golf nets, we changed that a couple years ago so that we can approve them administratively under certain criteria, and it's only if they exceed that criteria that they do have to come through that special use permit process. GRAY: And then just for my own purposes, patio cover, a solid or open roof structure, so is that to say it has to be rigid, or are we -- when I first read this, I thought we're talking potentially about retractable awning systems and that sort of stuff. Is that in or TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 of 67 is that out in this definition? WESLEY: Chairman, I suppose a retractable could be part of it. Part of the challenge is what we're really concerned about are those posts that hold up the roof and having that permanent structure in the right-of-way. You can already do a projection into side yards for eaves and overhangs. So a patio -- a retractable one that doesn't have any posts would be okay up to five feet in the front? I can't remember the distance, but some distance already. So it's -- GRAY: It's a self-supporting -- WESLEY: Yes. GRAY: -- structure in this case? WESLEY: Yes. GRAY: How's this tie back to architectural guidelines? WESLEY: The -- Chapter 19 of the town code does not apply to single family. GRAY: Does that worry you? WESLEY: Not any more than any other house would. GRAY: In our language, we say a surfaced area. Does the definition of surfaced include, like, a decomposed granite or a stabilized DG? And the reason I ask is are we going to end up in a scenario where people start doing raised-bed gardening in their front yards? WESLEY: So Chairman, I'm not sure -- as long as the raised bed and the setback was under three and a half feet, I don't know why they couldn't be doing that today anyway. GRAY: I mean under a -- but under a building structure in order to do that. WESLEY: Oh. So it's, 4, outdoor lounging, dining, or other passive outdoor activities. I don't know if gardening -- GRAY: Recreational gardening? Okay. And then just 2 -- my original 2, we've got the height capped at 12 feet. I'd also like to see us consider some architectural constraint off of the primary structure. So I don't know if that's 18 inches or two feet or three feet below the peak of the front elevation. I just don't want to see a flat roof parapet at 12 feet be contiguous with a detached shade structure at 12 feet. I just think, architecturally, that's got some diminutive value potentially. Again, not maybe in this TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 of 67 case, but in another application of this. And then I get the intent of the language, and I think you were alluding to it, but I think there's maybe a little bit stronger wording as we talk about half of the setback. We ought to probably add in some wording that says, you know, 12 -- well, I was going to say 12 feet from the primary structure, or maybe it doesn't need to be 12 feet from the primary structure, but 15 feet from the primary structure, and then allow as kind of a secondary that you can encroach halfway into that setback. I just think the way it reads, you could make an argument that you could set this thing well out away from the front elevation of the house. And maybe that's the intent. Maybe I missed the underlying intent of this. But you could set this well away from the front of the house and post your four posts, you know, 12 feet -- 10 -- five feet from the property line, I guess, in some cases, right? WESLEY: Chair, the minimum should never be less than ten feet from the property line. GRAY: But 20 is our minimum in the table? WESLEY: Yes. GRAY: Okay. So ten. I guess what I'm asking is maybe there ought to be some ratio that keeps it tighter to the primary structure rather than allowing it to be far detached. But I think underlying it all, I just fear this is a slippery slope if we don't -- I don't want to do special use permits, but I think this is a case where if we're going to go down this path, we probably should put these through a special use permit. So Commissioner Watts? WATTS: I'm curious if we do that -- the same thing on pergolas because we've got pergolas that are detached that are on the -- right on the edge of the property line. Do we have the same type of an issue, or would this kind of cover that issue? WESLEY: Chair, Vice Chair, today, if they couldn't be in the required yards, they may be in front of the house if they've got enough room between the house and the setback or they're under -- well, that would still apply. You know, they wouldn't be in the front or street side yards today, those pergolas. And yes, this would basically cover a pergola- type structure also. WATTS: Yeah, I don't see much a difference between this and the way it's written at TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 of 67 what we allow today with the pergolas. GRAY: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Well, I appreciate that you included here that the covered patios could not be used as a carport, garage, or storage, so that clarifies that. Also, I think it's clear when we say the total width of the structure cannot exceed 20 percent of the width of the side of the patio. So I think kind of having those regulations there cover making sure that it's not going to block any views is what I'm trying to say. But I do think, as you mentioned in here, you know, there used to be more front porch living back in the day, and I do like to have that element here because I think that that creates more of a sense of community, and I think we should make it a little bit easier for people to be able to put this type of seating area or area out in the front of their home so they could enjoy more of their property. And we know it gets really hot around here, so between trees and these kind of structures, I think that we should, you know, let people have a little more flexibility in being able to put these up. So if this clarifies that to make it easier for people, I think that this is heading in the right direction. GRAY: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: My concern is that ten feet in -- with a 20-foot front yard, if the sidewalk is on that side of the street and runs up against the right-of-way, people will, by right, be able to build a patio up to ten feet of that sidewalk. That's three steps, which is just way too close. I appreciate Mr. Schlum's, you know, comment that he's got, you know, quite a bit of right-of-way between his -- the front of his lot line and the rest of civilization, but I would -- I'm inclined to support Chairman's comment that this should be done through special use permit and not blanket the entire town because I just think three steps from the sidewalk's too close. GRAY: Paula, do we have any speaker cards? WOODWARD: We had one that was from the applicant, Jay Schlum. GRAY: Mr. Schlum, you want another three minutes? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 of 67 SCHLUM: No, I'm good. Thank you, though. GRAY: Okay. SCHLUM: Unless you got a question. GRAY: Well, I'm inclined to let it through on the condition it goes through at least administrative review and probably special use permit. I don't think -- this is -- this scenario is unique, but it's -- well, it's unique. It's a custom scenario where the applicant has the support of the neighbors. I don't think that's going to prevail across the next one and the one after that. Then I think we need to build in some protections for adjacent stakeholders if we're going to go down this path. I do appreciate Commissioner Corey's position on it. I think that opening up the front yards and creating that place of engagement is probably quite valid, but I think the adjacent stakeholders need the opportunity to have skin in that. Commissioner Watts? WATTS: I have the same basic opinion that Commissioner Corey has as well, opening it up, but the concern that I've got is if we required some sort of a pony wall because I can't imagine a patio that was just right on the street or right next to the sidewalk, but if you had -- and we've got a couple of other properties, and they generally are multi- family, that have a small pony wall that kind of enclose that area so you don't have traffic cutting through your patio. So should we look at it from that standpoint that you've got to provide some protection, some landscaping, something to insulate that from the right-of-way. WESLEY: So Chairman, Vice Chair, to go back to the first part of that, typically curb to the right-of-way line is someplace between ten to 12 feet, and so a sidewalk in there that's usually behind the curb of about four feet would leave you, you know, eight feet or so to the property line, then another ten feet to the structure that's built, and so you're talking, you know, closer to, you know, someplace between 15 to 20 feet from the sidewalk to get to wherever this patio is. And then you have the different grade issues that take place here. Not very often is the ground that flat between the two already. Then there's the idea, coming back a little bit to what Chairman Gray was talking about TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 of 67 in terms of the architectural compatibility and design, the homeowner is trying to accomplish what they want. Do we want to prescribe a pony wall in all cases or leave that up to the property owner to design it the way they want it to work? Maybe they want -- maybe they also are putting in a sidewalk connection directly from the street side sidewalk through their patio to their front door. WATTS: I think I'm thinking more of a corner lot where you've built this patio out in front and somebody's cutting diagonally across your lot right under your patio and out you go. So I guess that would be on the applicant to protect their own property, but it does seem to me that -- some deterrent to keep people from doing exactly that. Just a thought. GRAY: Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: I have a quick question. Is it automatic with the application that would require an inspection to check the property, and who would do that site visit to check for obstruction for traffic and that kind of thing? WESLEY: So Chair, Commissioner Dempster, we would need a building permit for it. And as part of that building permit review, how detailed would we get into that type of issue? Certainly, there would be some consideration of it because as stated here, we'd want to be careful that it isn't creating a sight obstruction. Would that be done from the aerial images we have available or going on site? That would depend upon the individual situation. There should only be inspections when it's constructed. That's maybe starting to get to late to address what you're after. DEMPSTER: Thank you. GRAY: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Yeah. John, does this only apply to residential? That seems like what everybody's talking about. We are only focused on residential areas. Would this apply to, like, commercial, perhaps? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner Dapaah, that's a good question. The way it's worded, it's -- nowhere in here does it specifically say residential. That's certainly the intent. That's where patios usually occur, although some commercial, certainly multi-family- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 of 67 type developments can have outdoor areas, patios that this could happen in. DAPAAH: Yeah. I think I'm also leaning towards Chairman's process of a special use permit just to ensure that someone is not, you know, running full electrical, plumbing, drains, and things for this. Anyway -- GRAY: Commissioner? SCHLOSSBERG: So Chair, then your recommendation for the special use permit would involve -- what would the protocol be? So he would basically come back to us eventually on a case-by-case basis? WESLEY: So Chair, if I can help answer that question? So I would anticipate if that's the recommendation, that here in paragraph 4, you would probably add a lead-in phrase that says subject to approval of a special use permit, you can obtain this, and so then it would be a matter of somebody who wants to do one of these patio covers to apply for the special use permit as allowed in Section 2.04 of the zoning -- or 2.0 -- SCHLOSSBERG: Thank you. WESLEY: -- whichever one it is to -- GRAY: Yeah. So I don't know if somebody wants to make a motion as written, but if I was to do it, I would make it as written with a request just to look at a relationship between maximum height and the height of the primary structure. And I don't know what the appropriate recommendation there is, but no more than 90 percent or 80 percent of the height of the primary structure or do some sort of setback ratio just so that that stays in line architecturally. I just think that could get out of hand, especially in the older neighborhoods. And I'd want to see it treated the same way golf nets are. I really don't mind if this is treated -- well, I do mind if it's treated administratively because I want -- I want the neighbors to have the opportunity to weigh in, so I think full special use permit. I would have gone the route of the Board of Adjustment, too, if I was applying for it, but I've asked John how that works, and he told me no, too. So that would be the motion I would make. If somebody wants to make another motion that's different than that, I'm happy to layer those amendments over top, and we can TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 of 67 take those one by one or can bundle the whole thing up. So Commissioners, your call. Going once, twice. COREY: A clarification. So you're proposing that it is a SUP that would come to Planning and Zoning versus administrative approval? GRAY: Yes. Yeah. I want the public input of the adjacent neighbors. I don't think it has to be, John, the 300-foot ring. I think that's a little excessive, certainly. But I think the immediate adjacent -- I don't know if we carve that out or if that just makes it too complicated. Too complicated? WATTS: Yeah, I think you're going to make it too complicated because that 300-foot -- GRAY: Is going to catch them all? WATTS: Yeah. GRAY: I mean, I just don't want to catch too many. You see John's body language. It's 300-foot. WATTS: Yeah. I mean, we rarely agree, but that -- I mean, 300 feet, that's -- you're going to get caught in that. WESLEY: So again, just thinking out loud, Chairman, that again, we could add a provision here that says notices as -- of only abutting property owners is required, or again, add some language in here to clarify with a special use permit, that doesn't require notice of the same 300 feet. That may get confusing when somebody then -- oh, I've got to do the special use permit, and they go to the special use permit chapter and don't look back here. Adding an exception into the special use chapter is where I start to see the confusion really coming in, so -- GRAY: Yeah. I mean, I think it's unfortunate in this scenario that we would ask residents to do that mapping and those certified letters, but for sake of continuity, I think it is what it is. So Commissioner Corey? COREY: So just my last piece for clarification. So we're going to require the homeowner to come in to the P & Z meeting if they want to put up a pergola? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Corey, by what has been discussed, if we make the amendment here that says a special use permit is required to do this, then yes, they TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 of 67 would make that application for the special use permit. It would require them to do the citizen participation process and post the property -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- and come here for a hearing and then Town Council for approval. COREY: So I hear -- I hear the concerns from my colleagues here. I just -- I have a concern that we're making that a little bit too restrictive for people. Maybe not everybody wants to come and approach the dais here just to put up a pergola. WATTS: Of course, they don't, but they want to do it in the front yard. KOVACEVIC: Yeah, that's the -- not all pergolas. Just if they violate the setback. COREY: If they're violating the setback. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. COREY: Okay. KOVACEVIC: If they're violating the setback, they should come in. DEMPSTER: Yeah, they're -- COREY: So not -- okay. And maybe that's what I'm missing here. So not every front yard pergola would be violating the setback. It's just if they're going to be within that -- within that range, then they would need the -- I see. DEMPSTER: Yeah. COREY: Okay. GRAY: Yeah. Because without it, you've got, arguably, reasonable separations from all of your adjacencies. COREY: Yes. GRAY: Neighbor might not like it, but -- COREY: Okay. GRAY: Those are the underlying rules that exist today, so if we're going to carve something out -- COREY: Yeah. GRAY: -- then you bought next to me, I want to put up a sunsail shade of whatever, lavender sails, you should have a skin -- you should have skin and say, no, I'm not okay TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 16 of 67 with that. Not to say that the Commission doesn't say, you know, pass it forward, but at least you should have -- we should afford you the opportunity, I think. COREY: And does that cost us anything to do those -- have those meetings with the residents, and is there -- is that any hardship on the Town to facilitate that? Okay. Thank you. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: I think the more we talk about this, the more I'm inclined to support the special use permit when you think about some of the views, some of the issues we had. So the terms that we proposed are fine with the addition of the applicant applying for that special use permit so we can review the particulars of a certain situation and that we don't have any of these underlying issues because I don't know that we're catching every one of them at this point. Maybe. GRAY: Thoughts on a waiver on the fee? Or that just needs to stay, straight line across, special use permits? WESLEY: Chair, that certainly is another option. Paula, I don't know if you remember what the fee is on a special use permit? WOODWARD: I do. So administrative use permits are $50. Special use permits are $2,000 plus public notice fees and mailing fees. GRAY: Okay. I'm changing my position. WESLEY: The level of review that would go into this type of application compared to other types of special use permits would probably not be as extensive, and so there could be some justification for creating a separate fee. That's not typically done in -- well, I guess we have maybe done it one other place where we've said that the application fee was a percentage of -- I think we did that with minor site plans, that the application fee was a percentage of the regular site plan application fee. So we could look at ten percent of the standard fee is what's required or something along that line, if you'd like. GRAY: Well, I think it should be treated the same way a golf net's treated, so whatever the fee structure is there is the fee structure here. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 17 of 67 WATTS: Yeah, I don't remember what that one is. It's certainly less than $2,000. It's in the hundreds. GRAY: You know what that is, Paul? WOODWARD: I'm looking. Were we taking golf notes as a AUP? GRAY: Yes. WOODWARD: A golf ball fence administrative review is $280. GRAY: That sounds reasonable to me. Yeah, that's close to the ten percent of the SUP fee. All right. Yeah. Okay. Anybody wants to make the motion straight as written? No? Okay. So I'll make the motion open to any amendments from the Commission. The motion is to forward a recommendation to approve on 24-10, patio covers in front and street side yards, with just a request to staff to look at a ratio of height in relation to the primary structure, to incorporate the special use permit practices and the fees to be commensurate with those of our golf ball net program or roughly ten percent of the special use permit fee in this case. WATTS: I have a question. Do you want to include the percentage relationship between the highest point in the adjoining residence to the maximum height? You talked about 80 percent of the height, so for 24 feet, you going to max it out at 20 feet? GRAY: No. No. WATTS: So you're not going to have a proviso in there to -- GRAY: No. My concern was that you've got a number of late '60s flat roof parapets at 11-6 and -- WATTS: Right. GRAY: -- we've got a provision to allow a 12-foot structure in front of it. That's my concern. WATTS: Okay. GRAY: So I think -- I think it's apex of the primary structure less something. Less ten percent is fine by me. WATTS: Well, with flat roofs, wouldn't you have equal to? Less than or equal to? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 18 of 67 GRAY: I'm not sure. Or the -- I'm just saying from the top -- whatever the highest point is. WATTS: Right. GRAY: Either the apex or the parapet. I'll leave that to your discretion in my motion. WESLEY: Okay. Chair, it seemed to me that you'd mostly be looking at that wall closest to where the patio cover is being built. They may have the high point of their roof 20 or 30 feet back, and that wouldn't necessarily make much sense, so -- GRAY: Yeah. I think the adjacent elevation. WESLEY: -- look at the -- at the wall elevation. GRAY: Yeah. WESLEY: Okay. GRAY: Okay. Okay. So we got special use permit at a ten percent fee. Height restriction to be ten percent lower than the nearest adjacent elevation. And was there one more thing? That's it? That's the motion. Verbatim will tell the story. KOVACEVIC: I'll second it. GRAY: All right. I won't repeat the motion. The motion is on the table. It's been seconded by Commissioner Kovacevic. Paula, let's do roll call. WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Watts? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 19 of 67 WATTS: Aye. WOODWARD: Chair Gray? GRAY: Aye. WOODWARD: Seven-zero. GRAY: Thank you, Paula. All right. Agenda Item 6, annual report on the implementation of the Fountain Hills General Plan. Mr. Tavassoli. TAVASSOLI: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission and the public. As we have been doing in the past three years or since the General Plan has been amended, we've been coming before you with an annual report in regards to the implementation, progress, and/or status of the General Plan. Either John or myself has been doing that, primarily myself. And so we're coming to you right now looking back at the progress that was made in 2023 regarding the General Plan, and unlike the previous years, I'll be ending the presentation with some policy issues that have come up in our latest review of the -- of our implementation project with regards to some implementation actions that have not quite yet been initiated. So the purpose, as I mentioned, of this presentation is to comply with statutory legal requirement to come before the governing body, that being the Town Council, although having gone through the Planning & Zoning Commission first to present an annual report on implementation of the General Plan. And some more prefatory remarks here. This, of course, is in regards to the adoption of the 2022 General Plan, which was approved by Council in May of 2020 and then ratified by voters in November of the same year. It addresses eight General Plan elements within three overarching principles. More on that in a little bit. But the General Plan elements cover things such as housing, land use, circulation, water resources, and so on. And finally, the body -- the whole -- the crux of the report is primarily, as I mentioned, how we're doing as far as implementation is concerned. I already went over much of this, but the -- going down to the third bullet and sub- bullets, I guess you could say, the plan is organized according to -- and these are the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 20 of 67 three overarching principles. And I should add the word thriving in front of each of these, those principles being thriving neighborhoods, thriving environment, thriving economy. It identifies various character areas throughout the town, things such as -- or places such as the Towne Center, the primary and secondary gateways down south at various intersections along Shea Boulevard, number of commercial areas along the Shea corridor. Those are just a few examples of character areas that are covered in the General Plan. And it also establishes amendment procedures and requirements for the -- for the annual report. So at the end of the General Plan, which I don't imagine any of the commissioners having a copy in front of them right now, but there is an implementation strategy, and it covers just each element of the General Plan, and it provides steps to achieving the goals that are covered in each of the elements within the overarching principles. They're addressed mainly as action items, steps that are taken to achieve those goals. It includes priorities for each item, and it designates the lead departments for each implementation step. This is just a page taken out of the implementation strategy. And by the way, feel free to jump in. There's quite a bit of information to cover here, as you'll see coming up. But this is just a page taken out of the implementation strategy, but it references the goal in the far left column, although it doesn't state verbatim what that goal is. You'd have to refer back to the pertinent chapter of the General Plan. It references the policies, and it references the implementation actions, the lead departments that would be basically directing these actions. In this case, for example, there's a implementation action related to the -- related to connectivity access and mobility plan, otherwise known as the -- I can't think -- ATP. The transportation plan. The -- I heard John before, but I didn't quite catch what the -- WESLEY: Active. TAVASSOLI: Active. Thank you. Active Transportation Plan. And the anticipated time frame to initiate -- not complete but initiate those goals is short range in this case, and, you know, other potential funding sources and other entities that might be involved. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 21 of 67 And for each -- for each implementation action, there are anticipated time frames in which these actions are to be initiated. One is categorized as ongoing. These are -- these are actions that we strive to basically act upon on a daily basis. They're ongoing. In many -- you could describe them as aspirational, but these are day-to-day tasks and tasks that, collectively, we hope to accomplish. There are immediate actions that are to be initiated with -- no later than six months after the General Plan ratification. There are short-range actions to be initiated within the first four years of ratification; midrange, five to eight years; and long range, within ten years. And hopefully, at the end of ten years, we will have accomplished all these actions. So the annual report requirements, as you might have kind of gathered from reviewing the report in front of you, models itself after the -- basically, the statutory requirements spelled out in the state statute. That is to present you with a review of plan amendments process during the previous year; in this case, 2023. I can tell you there have been no amendments -- and again, we're talking about the General Plan, not the zoning ordinance. No amendments have been processed for the General Plan. I think, as I mention in the report, it's worthwhile to mention that Fountain Hills, as you all know, is very close to build-out. The most vastly undeveloped part of town is the state land piece in the far northeast corner. It's about 1,300 acres. If there's any likelihood that there -- a major General Plan amendment will come before you, it will likely pertain to that area. It is a rather large area. But I do want to stress nobody has come in in the past three, four years expressing any interest in developing that area, so we'll just have to stay tuned and see what happens now that -- although the zoning's in place, the original developer who was interested in reviewing -- in, excuse me, developing that area backed out quite a number of years ago. It also discusses the progress and status of each implementation action. It reviews some policy issues that have come up, and I will present you with these policy issues in the form of some goals that have not quite yet been initiated. And also, I will conclude with some recommendations for amendment. In fact, I'll just say that right now. We're not TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 22 of 67 going to recommend any amendments to the General Plan as written, but we do want to initiate a discussion about some of these action items as some of them have fallen outside their time frame for initiation. I do want to speak rather positively about some of the progress that we have made in terms of some of the action items listed. There's the Pumphouse Pilot Art Project which was approved earlier in the year, which is a changing exhibition out by the fountain. A number of sidewalk infill projects or, I should say, a number of sidewalks have been -- gaps have been completed last year. And the most recent number I heard is a little over 1,000 sidewalk -- 1,000 feet, rather, of sidewalk gaps have been filled in since last year, so going a little bit into 2024. Three new trails have been approved. Over -- we've received over $1,000 in grants that were awarded to us by the Arizona Office of Tourism as well as the neighboring tribal communities to assist us in our Economic Development endeavors. A downtown parking study was initiated in 2023. That is still in progress. I'm currently into some feedback discussions with various members of the department as well as the consultant. There was the grand opening of Desert Vista -- of the Desert Vista Skate Park. It was quite an event about a year ago in June. There are currently efforts underway to add the fountain to the National Register of Historic Places. The community Economic Development strategy was approved earlier last year and as well as the Environmental Plan which was actually, in some ways, initiated by the Strategic Planning Commission, and that was approved in February of last year. Again, it's -- the Environmental Plan, just like the General Plan, it's a policy document, not a legal document such as the zoning ordinance or the subdivision ordinance. Again, real quick, again, keep in mind the time frames that I talked about going forward. I want to talk a little bit -- just a couple point -- bullet points here with regards to -- regarding some of the immediate actions that we were to take. And again, immediate actions within six months of ratification. And so these two actions were not completed. We were to consider employing a part-time grant writer, and parenthetically, I put in Economic Development. That's the element in which this was under, the General Plan TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 23 of 67 element. Traditionally, or as has been the de facto practice, basically grant writing is something that has been spearheaded by the pertinent department. For example, if it's with regards to grants for designing a section of sidewalk, our Public Works department would spearhead that. If there's any grants, as I mentioned earlier, with regards to obtaining funding for Economic Development purposes, quite obviously, our Economic Development department would be leading that effort. You know, the question is is it feasible to hire a part-time grant writer when there's no guarantee that we would actually receive those grants because as many of us have witnessed, at least at the staff level, a lot of the grants that we had applied for were not awarded to us. So should we consider -- continue to consider hiring a part-time grant writer or leave that up to the individual departments? And also, we were also to establish a General Plan monitoring system and coordinate that with the CIP. We attribute that much to disruption from the pandemic and some turnover at the management level particularly. What we plan to do as staff, including all the various departments, is to form an ad hoc committee and make sure that the General Plan action items and the CIP are mutually supportive of one another, you know, making sure that basically, for lack of a better phrase, we kill two birds with one stone by addressing the goals of each policy or budgetary goal, in this case, with the CIP. Short-term actions that we have not accomplished yet, these were to occur within -- if I look back at my notes real quick, within -- or I should say, these were to be initiated within the first four years. Now, we are entering into our fourth year. So yes, there is time to initiate these, but I think pointing these out, we are getting awfully close and wanted to bring these up for possible discussion, maybe any direction that the Commission or Council might have. So one is to develop and implement an investment plan that responds to the Economic Development plan's priorities, and that prioritizes infrastructure improvements in the CIP. That is an Economic Development goal within the respective element in the -- in the General Plan. Although we do not have or have not initiated a formal investment TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 24 of 67 plan or any effort to produce a document under that title, we have been -- various departments have been working with one another, in this case, Economic Development as well as Public Works, to make sure that, you know, they are -- you know, both efforts are mutually supportive of one another, making sure that, you know, we are making investments in terms of Economic Development, but also providing the infrastructure that would support that. The next bullet, commission a cost benefit study to identify the gap between actual subdivision regulations, particularly the infrastructure specifications within them, and determine the cost of meeting such specifications. That is another action item that, you know, obviously has not been addressed, but we hope to address that in the form of an ad hoc effort, probably over the summer. The third bullet, prepare and adopt and implement an integrated parks, recreation, trails, and open space master plan. Now, I've presented or mentioned some actions that we have taken with regards to the -- some of the trails, some of the -- basically, the expansion of the network, improvements to existing trails, but as these -- as the network continues to improve, I think later on down the line, you know, it would be ripe enough to start an all-out effort to create a more integrated master plan for our entire trial system here in town. Amend the zoning ordinance to include -- this is the next bullet. Amend the zoning ordinance to include, at a minimum, safe-by-design concepts. Let me go ahead and mention the last one because they -- in some ways, they relate to one another in terms of, you know, how we intend -- or how we may be able to go about this in implementing it. Amend the zoning ordinance to include low-impact development. Okay. Safe-by-design. These are basically policy, I guess, recommendations such as well-lit walkways or well-defined walkways, making sure that in the case of multi-family development, that the front door is visible from the driveway leading into it. These are -- these are policies that, on our day-to-day tasks, John and I particularly, we make sure that there's a -- there's a good balance between privacy and security. Low-impact development is actually a word that originated from the EPA. It basically TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 25 of 67 makes sure that, you know, water is being -- water infiltration is occurring the way it should, there's proper drainage. So particularly, some infrastructure goals related to water quality and stormwater runoff. These last two items, you know, these are things that we look at on a day-to-day basis when reviewing plans. Do they need to be codified into any one of our ordinances, either the zoning ordinance, the subdivision ordinance? You know, I think that is something that is -- that is worthy of discussion as we enter our fourth year in the efficacy of the General Plan. Okay. Now, these are mid long-range actions to be initiated within the fifth year, so we have quite a bit of time, but again, just maybe worthy of discussion today. I brought up a couple bullet points here. Update all applicable regulations and ordinances to meet the directives of the Environmental Plan. Once adopted -- again, the Environmental Plan was adopted February of last year. It echoes, primarily, what is already in the General Plan, only that there's reference to the desire for biophilic design, kind of integrating the built environment with nature. Again, the question is, you know, is that something that we want to pursue in terms of implementation in the form of working it into one of our ordinances, perhaps the zoning ordinance. And also, work with ASL -- the Arizona State Land Department to prepare a feasibility study for state trust land and base the results of a cost recovery study and consider future revenues that could be generated from development of trust land. Well, I'm not sure if we could initiate this on our own quite yet when there's no interest in developing it, but it -- you know, certainly, it might be something that could potentially come up within the -- within the next six years or so. Now, this is not intended to be an item to be taken action on in order to implement any kind of policy or anything like that. This is simply -- what we're looking for is your acknowledgment that we have presented you with the annual report just so we have something for the record and something that we could show for the fact that we met statutory requirement and then, hopefully, seek your approval to forward this over to the Town Council. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 26 of 67 And with that, I'll end my presentation. GRAY: Vice Chair? WATTS: Thank you, Farhad. I'm going to start from the back of the document that we've received, specifically -- and I'm really glad to see Councilmember Kalivianakis here because the biophilic design component, I thought, was stricken from the environmental study, and yet we're referencing it here again. Maybe Councilmember Kalivianakis can speak to that when we have -- open it up to public, but I'm pretty sure that was stricken. And then there's -- aside -- one of the things that I found most daunting here was using TOPS and being able to export information so that I can put it into some CSV or Excel file to be able to manipulate that data, so I'd like to see that accomplished going forward as well. Scottsdale and Shea. I didn't know we had apartments in Scottsdale and Shea. TAVASSOLI: Oh, is there a reference to Scottsdale and Shea? WATTS: There is. TAVASSOLI: Oh, okay. WATTS: Yeah, Scottsdale and Shea, and it's on the -- I guess the second -- third page. DEMPSTER: Under Housing Element. I think it's a typo. TAVASSOLI: Oh, is it referring -- WATTS: I think it's a typo, too, yeah. But what got me was the 57 permits, and I was trying to validate the 57 permits and all of the different things, and then I thought, Scottsdale and Shea and is that really there. I would like to know more about the safe design and how that works, who administers it. Is it a software program? Is it just instinct? Is there something that drives that process? So I'd like to see that. TAVASSOLI: Okay. WATTS: The Pumphouse Project. We talked about local artists, but I thought we had allowed somebody other than a local artist in to display this year. So are we -- maybe we should revisit that. TAVASSOLI: Right. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 27 of 67 WATTS: We ought to recognize the Indian community, too, because in so many of the areas that we've talked about here, they've been very beneficial to us in one way, shape, or form. The visitor software was interesting because I'd like to see the results of that and see how that is impacted. COREY: Or why we're doing it. WATTS: Or why -- yes, both components. I'll stop there for a minute. I just want to -- there's a lot of questions. There's a few typos in here that I'd like to get corrected just to make sure that we're all on the same page. GRAY: Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: Thank you. I enjoyed reading it because I think we've accomplished a lot despite the pandemic and such, so it was nice to read the highlights, and especially about the community garden and art. That was great. I do believe there is a second typo under Immediate Goals that -- under Goal: Consider part-time grant writer, I think that toward the bottom of that paragraph -- TAVASSOLI: I think you're talking about, Mr. Chairman, the Commissioner, the second- to-last sentence there? DEMPSTER: Yes. Yes. TAVASSOLI: Okay. That should say persistently continue to obtain. DEMPSTER: Continuing -- yes. TAVASSOLI: Yeah, not -- DEMPSTER: Yeah. And I thought I saw one other typo, but I can't -- WATTS: It's in the next paragraph. DEMPSTER: Okay. Yeah, not that. There's one other typo, and I don't want to take the time. I can just email you with that. TAVASSOLI: Sure. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, yeah, if you notice any typos or any other errors that you'd like to see addressed -- DEMPSTER: And -- GRAY: Commissioner -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 28 of 67 DEMPSTER: Sorry. I just want to close the loop here. The parking standard and design guidelines, I -- that was one of my questions, the results, but it sounds like it's still in progress, so I'll be very interested to see the results. But thank you for this work. GRAY: Commissioner Corey. COREY: Yes. I didn't find any typos, but just looks like Susan may have had them all covered. I did like the zoning ordinance revisions to include modern developments. I'd be interested to hear more about that. I think that's great that we're including that. I like hearing about the environmental and economic integration. Also, I would agree that a parks, rec, travel master plan would be something nice to see, kind of bring that all together and see how we have a strategy behind that because that's very important in this community. And I think another win that we had was that we did work on that public participation process, and we go that -- we got more people involved in providing input. And I think we even have something on Wednesday of this week. Is it the downtown strategy meeting with the community? So yeah, so that's great. I think that's a win. The Pumphouse Project, I believe, is -- it changes every year. So I think the first year, it was local artists, and I think this current year, they had a different profile, so it was more national recognition, then they may come back to a local thing eventually. But I think it changes every year. Maybe we need a motorcycle noise ordinance next. And the last one here was -- I think we were looking at new funding models, alternate revenue. Could you clarify a little bit about that? What were you planning on doing there with funding? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman -- GRAY: It's in relation to the investment plan under Economic Development. TAVASSOLI: Yeah. GRAY: If you know. TAVASSOLI: I think -- I think that's just being on the lookout for -- the intention there is to state that we're constantly on the lookout for granting and funding opportunities -- COREY: Okay. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 29 of 67 TAVASSOLI: -- from various state agencies, various federal agencies. Even at the regional level, MAG from time to time administers some funds that, I think, are received from ADOT, if I'm not mistaken, for just, like -- COREY: Okay. TAVASSOLI: -- exploring -- COREY: Got it. Okay. TAVASSOLI: -- design options for -- COREY: While I have the floor really quick, because you reminded me of the grant, I remember you had that in the PowerPoint presentation. So we don't have the grant writer, but the departments on their own have somebody who's skilled at writing or looking for grants for that particular area, so -- TAVASSOLI: Yeah. COREY: -- hopefully, that is still -- that's not an issue that we don't have somebody dedicated to it, but they're still actively trying to write these -- look for money without missing any opportunities? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, there are members in virtually all the departments that attend regular meetings virtually most of the time, either by meetings headed by MAG -- COREY: Yeah. TAVASSOLI: -- or some state agencies, and, you know, that's usually when those opportunities are -- come up and light bulbs go over our heads, and so we know -- COREY: Yes. Okay. TAVASSOLI: -- we need to hone in on this and, you know, see if that's something we can pursue. GRAY: Anything else? COREY: I'm okay. GRAY: Okay. Just parlaying on Commissioner Corey -- well, first, if you thought you weren't going to get comments, you got the wrong group, right? TAVASSOLI: I beg your pardon? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 30 of 67 GRAY: I said if you thought you weren't going to get comments from us, you got the wrong group, right? TAVASSOLI: Oh, no. That's the purpose of my presentation. GRAY: We're going to fire comments all night long. I think that we -- so many -- I mean, this is great that we're having the interaction because so many times, we do this, and we just push it forward. We just, you know, let it ride, push it forward, and then the next thing you know, we got a hearing and it's thrown back at us, right? So no more Larry Meyers using our words against us. Picking up on Commissioner Corey's discussion on the grants, in my day job, we work with grants a lot. Not me, but as an organization. And it's very specialized. It's not something that everybody should just go out and pick up and do a Google search and find a grant and go do it. So if there was a place to really look at FTE allocation, I would strongly recommend that the Council prioritize that. And one of the main reasons for that is I think we said here in the highlights that there's, what did we say, 100,000, 150,000 or something of grant revenue coming in. More often than not, what happens with grants, though, especially public grants, is you can go get them all day long, but the administrative burden of guaranteeing them, certifying them, getting your third parties lined up, that 100,000 might be minus ten by the time it's all said and done. So I think setting up an algorithm or a criteria that says, hey, you know, when we look at grants, there's going to be kind of the net bottom line look at grants is paramount, and you really have to have somebody who's specialized who can really kind of triage out what's -- you know, what's chaseable and what's not. If everybody does it, it probably isn't ending well. I wanted to ask you, in the area -- and you had a slide to it of, you know, a newer term that's not yet been picked up. Do each -- do each of those elements have, you know, let's call it a champion within staff? So the Investment Plan to be responsive to Economic Development -- the Economic Development Plan, is the Economic Development director tasked with being the champion of running that process to TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 31 of 67 ground, or is it just kind of anybody's ball to grab? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, the Economic Development director in this case -- hold on just a second -- may decide to take that on or may decide to delegate that to somebody within their department, but like I showed you here, you know, there are agencies that are expected to lead each effort. Now, whether that's going to be the director of that department or a subordinate, it may depend. GRAY: So I mean, a lot of those are all in the same vein, right? They're all probably weighted as pretty important to the Town's trajectory. Is it the Council or is it the town manager who's -- we've gone three years. Probably about time the pandemic gets to be removed from Webster's Dictionary sort of thing. But who's in charge of making sure that task leader champions that objective, right? Because we're about to have five or six suns set here in another year of -- we'll have missed the short-term window. I just want to, I guess -- I don't even need an answer. I just want to make sure that we're thinking about what that process is to get there. And then just kind of one other generality. The section on Great Places -- and I get it. We're -- you know, in some respects, this is a report to tick a box under state statute, but, you know, right at the front of the Great Places in definition is, "The Great Places Element defines the Town of Fountain Hills major character areas and the land use mix supporting those areas. As a tool, the Great Places Element guides new development, redevelopment and infill development to sustain the long-range viability of the Town," which is great, but then what's used in substantiation of that is the community garden was six years ago. We're doing farmers' markets. I would say 60 percent of what's in substantiation from that probably doesn't belong there. I don't know who wrote it or how this report comes together, but I would call a lot of that out before this gets ratified by the Council. I have the same question as Vice Chair Watts on the software analytics to assess trade area and town mapping of business activity and consumer behavior. We have, like, three streets of retail, so I don't quite understand that whole thing. I would like to get a better understanding of it. And then -- well, I said the pandemic piece. So I think that TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 32 of 67 was it. Commissioner Watts? WATTS: I think along the same lines, the comment about the Town has initiated a formal Investment Plan, I think the CFO -- the Town CFO, Paul -- and I can't remember his last name, so my apologies -- really already has that put together, and it really is pretty much like I've got capital improvement projects and I've got dollars that tie to it. It's a project management tool that should be transparent to the public to see what we've approved, where we're at in that process, what's remaining. Project management tools, grant charts, things along those lines, I think, could be very helpful not only to the Council, but also to the town residents for a better understanding. GRAY: Since you bought me time, I've got two more thoughts. Farhad, the state trust land comes up in conversation, not so much as -- lately as it used to, but does Economic Development stay in contact with the State Land Department to even know if that parcel or that allocation is something they would consider auctioning still, or are we holding onto something from ten years ago that's maybe -- you know, the State's kind of migrated their sales over to the north and the west, kind of, you know, central corridor-ish going straight north. Are they still actually considering this as a viable auction property, or is it off the radar for them? I guess the question is are we actually tracking that, or are we talking about something that's not viable any longer? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, to answer your first question, to my knowledge, Economic Development -- GRAY: Would not -- TAVASSOLI: -- has not received any communications, nor have they communicated with the State Land Department. I'm not aware of any direct line between the two. Your second question about the state land piece, could you repeat that for me again? I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I'm on point. GRAY: Well, that was just it. I mean, I just want to make sure -- we keep referencing something. A lot of times, that stuff comes and goes. You know, as the State moves their priority list around, it may not be out there for the taking any longer. TAVASSOLI: Right. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 33 of 67 GRAY: You know, not to say that someone can't approach the State and say, hey, I would like to pursue this, and the State turns around and runs their auction process if they concur, but, you know, they move that -- you know, they move their corridors and their targets around, and they may not be willing to sell it today. So I just think that's something maybe Economic Development should check in on if we're going to reference it in our strategy documents. TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, I do check the -- although I do have some colleagues who work there, I do check the website from the State Land Department periodically, and I hear no rumblings whatsoever about any interest in the state land piece or -- GRAY: Yeah. TAVASSOLI: -- any, you know -- GRAY: And I'm not suggesting that there is interest. I'm just suggesting -- TAVASSOLI: Right. GRAY: -- we talk about it as a municipality, and maybe we shouldn't. And then maybe we'll get to this, but I keep hearing about the biophilic design, and I'm trying to understand what the anxiety is here. So I don't -- I don't know if you can lay any context to that or not. TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, I think that was an issue that came up, at least for myself, today. It may be something that I'd have to look back on, look at the minutes and see exactly what was discussed. I'd want to make sure we get that right. But otherwise, I'm not sure what else I could say about that reference to biophilic design at this point. GRAY: I just wonder -- maybe it's just a case that the definition of biophilic design needs to be tied down against the American Institute of Architects or something along those lines. Commissioner? WATTS: I think the biophilic design was discussed in the Environmental Plan, and I do think that -- and I'm hoping Councilmember Kalivianakis is going to speak to it, but that there was some discussion about deleting that component. And if I'm wrong, my apologies, but I think that it was deleted, so I don't want to have something referenced that isn't appropriate. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 34 of 67 GRAY: That's not an environmental consideration. WATTS: I think that's what was discussed. GRAY: It's the interaction between livable space and the environment. It's a -- it's an intermeshing -- WATTS: It's a -- GRAY: -- of the two. It's not about environmental policy per se. WATTS: But I think that's where it was spoken about, and I think it's the balance of -- the harmonies between the environment, whether it's color, whether it's features. And John just sighed with exasperation, so I'll let him speak. WESLEY: Chair, Vice Chair, so when we did the Environmental Plan a little over a year ago, we worked with the Strategic Planning Advisory Committee because it was one of their tasks to do. We took all the different things in the General Plan having to do with environmental policy, they were scattered a little bit through that plan, and pulled them together, and then at the request of the Commission, also added a policy with regard to biophilic, and that's the way that that then combined the overall Environmental Plan with the Council. There was discussion at the council meeting where they reviewed that and accepted that plan about a number of items. I reviewed those minutes this afternoon because this question came up, and the only substantive discussion I saw about biophilic was on page 77 of the minutes, and the discussion was about whether the first word should be encourage or incorporate. It wasn't clear from the discussion after that which of those two words they really agreed on, but I was the one, then, that took all the comments from the Council and made those adjustments according to what they approved, and I do not see where they took biophilic out as one of the policies. WATTS: Like I said, I could have been wrong, but I know that there was a fairly -- there was an interesting debate -- WESLEY: Yes, there was. WATTS: -- about the inclusion of biophilic, and it could be, you know, promoted or some adjective before it that was trying to describe it to make it more of a component TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 35 of 67 rather than a suggestion. GRAY: Well, an Environmental Plan is the wrong place for it anyway, but -- WATTS: Be that as it may, that's where it came up. GRAY: Fair enough. Speaker cards? Do you have a speaker card, Councilman? KALIVIANAKIS: (Indiscernible). GRAY: Can I do that, John? Sounds good to us. KALIVIANAKIS: Good evening. Just for the people at home, I'm Vice Mayor Kalivianakis. Thank you, Rick, for looking into this plan and all of the work that you did. Thank you, Peter, for inviting me to speak tonight. Around ten months ago, it came before the Council, the Environmental Plan. At that time, there were certain things that we didn't like about that plan, and so I wrote an amendment which went -- which was going to overlay over the plan that was submitted. The amendment was approved. The amendment was -- had struck out the discussion of the biophilic design, and also, that we were going to become a biophilic community and go for that certification. Those were both removed in the amendment. The amendment was passed. And so when you go back and look at the minutes, please go back and review the amendment, which identified clearly what we wanted in the Environmental Plan and what we excluded. And so if you do that, then I think that'll address this issue. I'm glad it was just a mistake because when I saw this today and this weekend, I was thinking, you know, are we not taking -- you know, this deliberative body, it goes through here, it goes through the Council, and I think it's just very important for the town staff to take its direction from you and from us and -- so we don't have to take a look at everything and it's not a rinse, repeat, go back to the beginning, and come back up on projects or things that they would like to push. You know, when we finally do arbitrate it and it finally goes before Council, it should be finished. I think it's a waste of the time of our staff to take things that have been dealt with and then go back and waste staff time like I think was done here. And so I would encourage you, John, to go back, look at the amendment that I filed, and I think we can TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 36 of 67 clear this up. So thank you very much. GRAY: Paula, speaker cards? WOODWARD: Chair, we have two speaker cards. The first speaker is Lori Troller, and on deck will be Larry Meyers. TROLLER: Chair, Vice Chair, Council, Paula. Lori Troller. Good evening. Here's my corrections. I'll save you all of them, but -- and most of them we've already talked about, but I am a -- I'm a stickler on documentation being correct. This is, like you said, for the record, and this needs to be correct. This becomes our history, and people are going to come back to this. Sometimes policymakers come back to this, and if -- like, the biophilic stuff is in here when it definitely should not be. This is wrong. This is very important this gets straight. This isn't just little stuff. So I will say that there's multiple times in the document places are referred to, between this point and this point, and it's often said between Saguaro and such and such. Well, that means everything to us, but anybody in the state reading that, they're going to think, you have this monster, Saguaro. It should be spelled out, Saguaro Boulevard. It's -- many, many times in this document, it doesn't say Saguaro Boulevard, it just says Saguaro. That's got to be, I think, clarified. Yeah, and I was surprised to see we're Scottsdale and Shea now. I'm like, ooh, taxes. So the thing about the biophilic that -- I don't want to belabor the point, but I will say this. It's not a typo in here. It says, literally, adding some clarifying content and adding a section regarding efforts to become biophilic community. That was an account of what we said happened in the Council meeting, which is what Ms. Kalivianakis was trying to correct. It did come up. That's not what we agreed on. This is an incorrect account of what happened in that meeting. That needs to be corrected. The other thing that needs to be corrected -- so that's in the part of the report that says what we accomplished, and then later on in the document where it says what we need to do in the future -- there's not page numbers on this, I'm sorry, before I do that. Oh, no, I can't find it. For -- in the future, it definitely says that we need to weave in biophilic language into our ordinances. Again, that's not a typo, and it can't be TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 37 of 67 misconstrued. That has to be totally rewritten so -- I wish I could find it. Sorry. But I really want to point that out. The account of what happened is incorrect, and what we need to do is incorrect because Ms. Kalivianakis got that straightened out. So just really want to point that out. Biophilic is a -- it's a trigger word in the environment we're in right now. It's not a good word for some people, so it's really important we get that straightened out. That's it. Thank you. MEYERS: Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. So couple things very quickly. The Pumphouse is not to change yearly. Pumphouse Art is to be local, and it's now not local. So having been associated with the arts for some 30 odd years, maybe longer, I pay attention to this stuff. And just to correct, if you're going to write something, as Ms. Troller said, write it correctly. The Pumphouse art is to be local and always to be local. It's not shifting to state, national, whatever. Second thing that I sort of picked up on in this grand plan that we always relate back to whenever we're trying to justify some of our actions for zoning, rezoning, whatever, the environmental portion of this plan. I'm all for it, but I'm also for not overlooking it when we make a major reason, like at the Target plaza, where there was absolutely no sanitation study, and what could be more environmental than sanitation. We had none, and yet we just sort of waved it on. And then we write something like this, and then we come here to comply with the state statute, and it angers me because if you're going to write some master plan, then follow the master plan because back in 1968 when the McCulloch Oil Company actually wrote the master plan for the master-planned community, your next agenda item says that the utilities go underground. That's what it says. And it's been that way for all of these years, and now we have -- seem to have some sort of discussion where we're not following -- going to follow the master plan. And then my last comment was already covered by Councilperson Kalivianakis because that discussion was pretty intense, and biophilic was amended out of the writings, so weaving it into our ordinances, I'm calling BS on that. And I think the word is kind of -- as Ms. Troller said, is a trigger word now. I think that the definition as it's written is TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 38 of 67 probably not bad, and we already have it because it talks about the interrelationship between people and the environment, and Fountain Hills certainly has that, but not as it's now being proposed. Thank you. GRAY: Paula, just the two cards, right? WOODWARD: Yes, Chairman. GRAY: Okay. Commission, what are we looking to do here? Revise and resubmit? Press forward? Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: I would say revise and resubmit. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: Revise and resubmit. And I think -- with all the typos, I think we should submit back to John the issues that we saw here, kind of recap them so we -- put them in a summary and make the edits as necessary. GRAY: Okay. So Commissioners, I'll consolidate comments, issue those back to town staff off of the written notes, and we'll continue to next month's venue. A motion? Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: So moved. GRAY: Second? WATTS: Second. GRAY: Okay. Moved by Commissioner Kovacevic, seconded by Commissioner Watts. All in favor? ALL: Aye. WOODWARD: What was the motion? I didn't -- GRAY: Continue to next month. WOODWARD: Continue to the next month? GRAY: Yeah. WOODWARD: To June? Okay. GRAY: All right. We are back to Agenda Item 7, Ordinance 24-08 related to Chapter 17, Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Antennas or Antennae. Which did you want? WATTS: Yes. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 39 of 67 GRAY: See, I got him, John. WESLEY: Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate that. Any other questions? Okay. So here we are again, ready to talk some more about potential changes to Chapter 17 of the Town zoning ordinance dealing with wireless telecommunications, towers and antennae. We have been discussing this at a couple previous meetings. Based on some citizen input, Council directed staff to update the existing tower and antennae regulations. And again, small cell wireless services in the right-of-way are not covered in the zoning ordinance, and so not part of this particular discussion this evening. Goals from the update have been to balance the needs for quality service with public safety, limit towers in or near residential, establish a clear, manageable review process, provide for ongoing maintenance compliance, and to address aesthetic issues. Again, just a comparison, quickly, of the existing ordinance layout on the left with what's being proposed on the right-hand column. So we've been through the ordinance previously. At your March meeting, we went through each section of what was in there. We had some discussion last month just in general responding to some of the comments and questions that have come up. So for this evening, I thought I would approach this a little bit differently and just go through -- basically using the ordinance as it's being proposed and through that method, talk about some of the provisions that are -- that are in it now that might be different. And so starting with the idea of an application being submitted and how it enters that process and gets reviewed, we'd first be looking to see if it's something that falls under administrative review or public review. So Section 17.04 describes the different types of applications. Part A deals with administrative review applications and goes through and lists, then, the criteria for things that could be considered administratively starting with modifications to existing towers and antennas that were themselves approved administratively, and as long as they stay within the balance of an administrative approval, those could be reviewed administratively. If it's something that was approved previously as a public review but meets the criteria listed as being minor changes, then TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 40 of 67 those modifications could be approved -- reviewed and approved administratively. Co-locations on existing antennae that were approved administratively could also, then, be approved administratively, would fall within ordinance requirements. Co-locations on towers that were approved through public review initially could be considered and approved administratively, again, if they meet the parameters that were listed here in 2. And new utility service antennas that comply with height and setback requirements, administrative. Applications for temporary wireless facilities that are more than seven days, administrative. Again, the ordinance allows for temporary wireless facilities for less than seven days just to happen without any real review. And then new towers, basically if they are more than 300 feet from residential, nonresidential, those can be reviewed and considered administratively as well as alternative structures that meet height limits and 300 feet from residential. So what are public reviews? Basically, anything that doesn't fall within those categories. So any tower in residential or within 300 feet of residential as it currently stands. I know there may be some discussion about lengthening that out to some larger distance, but right now, that's what the code is is 300 feet. So once the application is received, what are the submittal requirements that somebody has to provide? So those are provided in a couple of different places in the draft ordinance. So Section 17.05 is a section on application submittals, review, and processing. A is general requirements. So again, we start with the idea that electronic submissions, same as in other sections of the zoning ordinance, that they must include the items in 17.03.A, which again lists general requirements, is applicable for the particular type of application, several things about the lot size, how they're addressing the aesthetics, their lighting plan, their co-location plan, security fencing, landscaping, noise, and the engineering certifications for the proposed structure. It also needs to include an inventory of existing sites, and that inventory needs to include those items as listed. And then for utility service antennas, there are some specific requirements there, and then specific requirements for existing towers, use scaled drawing, number talk of TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 41 of 67 proposed antenna, engineering calculations, dimensioned scale drawings for ground equipment. If it's for a new tower, then this kicks us into a more full review with a site plan that meets all the requirements of Section 2.04, site plans within the zoning ordinance, the separation distances from the towers and antennas, more detail in the method and design of fencing and compliance with the other sections of the code that are listed there. Part of the -- those that are listed are the separation requirements, and so I listed those here. Table 1, how far you had to be from different land uses, offsets from existing residential structures themselves when they're built or if it's just zoned, and then on planted lands and going on down to nonresidential. And then the separation requirements between antennas. So depending upon how tall the antennas are, they're 265-foot-tall or taller antennas, they're 2,000 feet apart. If they're 40 feet or less, 750 feet apart. Going on with those requirements for what is submitted, for new towers, in (indiscernible) of co-locations, identifying backhoe providers, suitability of using existing towers or alternate locations, and compliance with RF exposure limits, and the application fee, of course. Then once we do have that submittal meeting those requirements, we can begin the review process. So we start talking about the shot clocks, tolling, and processing. So the shot clocks are -- basically, review times are established to help maintain compliance with the federal regulations that say we have to review and approve in a timely manner or they can just be approved. So the shot clock runs while the application is in the Town's hands. It's stopped, or tolled, when it's not in our hands. But within that section, we describe some other criteria. So when reviewing an application, initial completeness review time frames for administrative and public review, and the actual application review times are specified. Again, that's the times that -- when it's in our hands. And then some parameters where the shot clock can stop. Even if it's in our hands, if it's a complete application, we mutually agree to extend the time, or if there's some reasonable delay of things such as pandemic, strikes, and TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 42 of 67 thereby, everything stops or whatever, things like that that Council can consider and use for other extensions. Then once we get into the actual review and processing, it lists a number of items to be considered for all types of applications. And then for administrative applications, there's a couple other more specific items here that would be used. And if it's a public review application, then in addition to the requirements in this section, we're going over to Section 2.02 of the zoning ordinance for special use permits and the requirements there that would have to be met in terms of the citizen participation plan, the good neighbor statement, public hearing with notice. There are standards within the SUP ordinance for review of SUPs that would apply to the review criteria. Would also need to demonstrate to Council that no existing tower technology will work, and the Council can impose whatever conditions they feel are necessary to minimize any adverse impacts. So once we get through that, towers get built. We then have the provisions there for maintenance and operations. So 17.06 of the zoning ordinance talks about the removal of abandoned towers, so if they're not used for 90 consecutive -- or for 90 days, they can be considered abandoned. We then have 90 days to -- with notice of the Town to remove, and failure to remove, the Town can remove at the owner's expense. Subsection B refers, then, to the state and federal requirements. They must meet or exceed whatever the current FCC standards are, and if those standards change, they have six months to comply and submit reports, as required by this section, to document that they've done so. When a new tower is built, they have within 45 days of initial operation to verify that they comply. There's also provisions in there for random RF testing going forward. And the zoning approval can be revoked if three or more violations in a five-year time period are found where they don't comply with the RF testing. With regard to the building codes and noise, local issues, so maintaining compliance with building codes, if found in violation, have 30 days to correct; not corrected, be grounds for removal. Maintaining compliance with the noise ordinance, and probably TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 43 of 67 the biggest thing with that is any generator testing happens between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. So that is a quick overview of how the ordinance works and would be applied. I've got a lot more slides that go through the ordinance in detail if the Commission needs to go there, but I thought I'd stop at this point and see where you'd like to go with my comments or public input. GRAY: Commissioners? Let's do public comment cards. WOODWARD: There are two public comment cards. The first speaker is Lori Troller. The second speaker who'll be on deck is Larry Meyers. TROLLER: Notes again. Here we go. Good morning -- good evening, Commissioners. Lori Troller, resident. I didn't get too far through the ordinance he had written. Sorry, John. There was just too much. And I kind of -- I'm going to go a little bit of a different direction here. And I did ask for six minutes. I don't know if I got approved for that. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You got it. TROLLER: Okay. So as you can or cannot see, I have a lot of notes on this. There was a lot to prepare for this. There is so much on this topic that not even an experienced Mr. Wesley, Community Services Director, is the qualified person for this. Unless Mr. Wesley has extensive background in radio frequency experience or can define, down to the decibel and volt, what limits are allowed versus the exposure of the amounts that the town is already in, or has completed extensive reading of medical cases in the effects of living within 300 feet of radio frequency, or has studied the effects of industrial equipment becoming a permanent part of residential property or at least right next to it, or has the technical knowledge of telecom network infrastructure and components, or, most importantly, is a qualified lawyer that you would choose to represent you in a lawsuit against a multi-million-dollar team of lawyers, because this ordinance is all your lawyer will have to argue your case in a lawsuit if one of these things shows up in your yard, you'd better ask for the absolute best qualified person to write this, someone qualified to outwit the telecom industry. Mr. Wesley has his expertise, but this isn't it, nor is our town attorney capable of the enormity of this issue. At every opportunity, you've asked for this type of expertise so TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 44 of 67 you could bring about the best ordinance we could. You've been flat out denied when Mr. Wesley, in Mr. Wesley's own summary, states, and I'll quote, "draw upon the work of the consultants as appropriate". Your requests made that appropriate, and that consultant is one of the top three lawyers in the country on the topic, and our attorney, and now our community services director, has silenced a leading lawyer. Mr. Wesley has also -- at every opportunity has told us at each meeting he got his direction in the secrecy of executive session. He tells us he was not instructed to this -- to do this or that, but he has not provided proof of what he was instructed to do. He's got executive session to rely on. However, the spirit of our government is to operate in open transparency. Of course, we would make Robert's rules to protect the obvious discussions, like employee salary, legal issues, dealing with lawsuits, contract negotiations, real estate purchases, security plans, but never the development of an ordinance. This situation is wrought with actionable items. I have been on this Town like a badger to update this ordinance for two years. How long did it take Mr. Wesley to write this? Four months. You know when we could have had this completed in this town had we started when I first asked? That would have been November 22nd. And that's giving you -- I'm spotting him four months. So please, get to the bottom of this. And in the meantime, we need to do what it takes to write the strongest possible ordinance. I added a little bit, if I have the time. So I recommend the Commission address the Council to incorporate Article 16-2, which is small wireless facility antennas, into Chapter 17. So this moves it from the municipal code to the zoning code, and then it's in your -- the purview of Planning and Zoning. And then be sure that Chapter 17 is broken out into separate sections, one for each type of the antennas with their own specific rules and laws. And this would mirror the exact format of Davis, California. Thank you. John, nothing personal. I -- we just got to get the best people we can. Thanks. MEYERS: Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. Larry Meyers again. So I'm going to address just part of -- two things which Ms. Troller also mentioned. So in your packet today, it TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 45 of 67 says, quote -- I'm quoting. Just throwing your words back on you -- "Review of draft ordinance from March 11, 2024 staff report," referring to Ordinance 24-08. Review of draft ordinance. Okay. So first of all, I didn't know we were talking about cell towers because the last meetings were all dealing in broadband and small cell wireless. So here we have another meeting where we're addressing something that's not really what we were talking about and that seem to be -- come from an executive session direction from the Council to Mr. Wesley. And I'm not purview -- I don't have any privy to executive session material, but I will tell you that ordinances are not to be discussed in executive sessions unless they're ordinances that are involved in lawsuits. And so any direction by the Council in an executive session towards Mr. -- to tell Mr. Wesley to do any work on an ordinance is not compliant. Okay. So that's the first thing. Second thing is you, as a commission, requested the work from the competent consultant, Campanelli, paid for by tax dollars of the residents of Fountain Hills, and you were denied, and the reason was, quote, "The Town policy is not to have draft ordinances available to the public." May I go back to what I first said in the first sentence. Quote, "Review of the draft ordinance from the March 11, 2024 staff report." So this is a draft ordinance open to the public and in our purview, and yet Mr. Campanelli's draft ordinance is not. So I'm not sure what kind of game is being played by our town attorney, but I will be requesting Mr. Campanelli's draft ordinance, and if I don't get it -- I will get it eventually somehow. And so I would like this body to, once again, make its demand for that draft ordinance, and then we can go from there with a real expert. No offense, either, to John, and I don't think he woke up yesterday to deny you guys getting it. I think he was directed as such. And so I think it would be really helpful in a multitude of ways for this entire discussion to become more transparent because, after all, the residents and citizens of Fountain Hills are really the ones who will be most affected by this. Thank you. GRAY: Paula, just two cards, correct? Thank you. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 46 of 67 WOODWARD: Yes, Chairman. GRAY: Commissioners? I have nothing profound to say, so -- WATTS: I don't know that anything that I have to say is profound, but couple of questions. I think Chapter 17 -- the first thing that kind of smacks me in the face is the example that I want to see of the applicant's application. What does it include? What's in it? You've narratively told us what it includes, what it doesn't include, but I'd like to see that so I would have a better understanding of what's going on. WESLEY: While I'm pulling -- GRAY: Are you looking for a response? WATTS: Neither. It's a statement at this point, so I'm not looking for -- I think -- I think that application has to be -- should be included so that anybody can see what is required. And a couple more of my comments are going to be some of the things that need to be included because I don't think they are included today, but that's speculation. So I'd like to see what it is, so there's some editorializing that I can do on that end as well. I did go back and look at January, March, and April's minutes, and that's how I stumbled on my -- sorry, Paula -- faux pas, but -- and we've been talking about broadband for a long time, and unbeknownst, I thought that we were talking about broadband tonight so that we would have this conversation about how we can wrap Article 16.2 into Chapter 17. Apparently, that isn't going to happen, at least yet. So eventually, I'm going to get around to making a motion to continue for some lack of information that we've got here, that we don't have here and the initiative to move Article 16.2 into -- as part of wireless telecommunication towers and antennas because, as I said before, an antenna for broadband versus an antenna for cell phone versus an antenna for AM radios, an antenna is an antenna is an antenna, and they all ought to be included in one chapter that we can reference to to make sure that we've got everything covered, and then we can talk about additional things. COREY: Why don't you ask why it's parsed out. WATTS: Huh? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 47 of 67 COREY: Ask why it's parsed out. WATTS: That's a good question. I don't know why it is parsed out in 16.2 as opposed to being included. Do you have any insight into how that happened? WESLEY: Yes. Chairman, Vice Chairman, I wasn't here when it was done to have details on it, but it's pretty clear in that the zoning ordinance deals with what happens on private property. Chapter 16 of the town code is streets and rights-of-ways. Small cell in the right-of-way is in the right-of-way, not on private property that zoning deals with, so that's why it was determined to separate it out. WATTS: It just seems like we've talked about other issues that are applicable to right-of- ways and setbacks and so on that are in the zoning component, but they -- sometimes we get issues that are ancillary to that. So it just seems more applicable here to me, anyway. I'd like Town Council to look at that and say -- give you the approval to roll that up into one. I also question the consultant again because I've asked numerous times about why we can't see the consultant, and yet we've got references in this document about the consultant and the recommendation the consultant made, and we're still being denied access to the consultant, but we're referencing it here. So I'm not sure how we can approve something to move forward without knowing what the back story is on the consultant. The distances -- you mentioned 300 feet, and I think -- for what we're doing today, I think that I'd look at 500 feet at a minimum. So that's one thing. And I think I'd look at 500 feet from separation for each instance, and that would be separation requirements for off-site uses. And then when it comes to separation distances between towers, I would recommend half a mile -- 2,640 feet for the monopoles 65 feet in height and greater, 15 feet -- 2,040 feet for monopoles less than 65 feet, and 1,500 feet for monopoles less than 40 feet. And if I go right across that whole chapter, then the monopole less than 65 feet in height but greater than 40 feet in height, I'd say 2,000 feet for the ones that are 65 feet and higher, monopoles less than 65 feet in height be 2,000 feet, and 1,500 feet for TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 48 of 67 monopoles less than 40 feet. The monopoles less than 40 feet in height be 1,500, 1,500, and 1,000 respectively in those categories. And my question with monopoles is what about the superstructure that holds the monopole? Is that included in the 65 feet or in the height, or is monopole different than the structure that we see in a conventional tower that we've got a tower and then we've got a pole on top of the tower? WESLEY: That's -- it's overall height -- Chair, Vice Chair, it's overall height to whatever is the tallest, the top of the tower, the top of the tallest antenna. Whatever is the top is that distance. WATTS: So the term monopole is inclusive of the superstructure that a pole sits on as well? Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure I was -- I was clear on that. The issue about noise. I think that there is a different kind of noise that's related to RF that could be detrimental to residential areas, and I think I've mentioned this before. It could be, like, transient noise across fluorescent lights. When you've got electrical issues and you've got data cables going across, that there's a induced transient noise. Causes static. Causes lots of other things. And I think we ought to be cognizant, at least, to be able to measure that. So with that said, I think we also ought to have a table included with the specifics about the radio frequency exposure standards. We should have a reference that at least talks about where it exists in the telecom document itself. And just from a point of clarification, there's a new document out that's 512 pages from the -- from the FCC, that they have proposed some of these changes, but those proposed changes have not taken effect. It's a recommendation from the FCC that has to go before Congress to get approval because they've got the last say on those types of things. So it's in the works, and we may have to come back and revisit some of these, but right now, broadband still stands by itself, but I would like to find a way to get 16.2 wrapped up into 17 -- Chapter 17. So with that, I'll give the floor back. GRAY: So you're tabbing that for a motion that you wish to make when we're done deliberating? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 49 of 67 WATTS: Once we're done deliberating, yes. GRAY: Okay. John, I just had one thought specific to Chapter 17. I mean, I do think I agree. If we can find a way to fold 16.2 in or bring that to within our authority to weigh in, I'd like to do it, too. Mechanically, whether or not that's viable or not, I'll leave that to you, but I think there's probably good logic there. But in and amongst 17.05 and 17.06, probably more specifically in 17.06, we talk about random validations or certifications. I assume we're talking about the municipality conducting those? WESLEY: Chair, I'll go there. I believe it says that the Town would do it at the owner's expense at least one time a year. More than that, I think the Town would have to pay for it itself. Let's see. GRAY: So I'd prefer the Town take possession of that, and I like the randomization process. What I also like, kind of in conjunction with that, is -- you know, we get the annual report from the sanitary district, for example. I like the idea of, you know, those adjacent stakeholders or maybe a town-wide report that's published at some interval that's -- you know, that's pushed out or, you know, that you don't have to go digging to find necessarily. So maybe it doesn't have to be a mailer per se. But I don't know. I think in the years to come, people may become more and more interested in seeing those distributions being conforming or nonconforming. So just a thought. And then I don't know if it's viable or not within 17, but, you know, we keep hearing references and making references back to the original incorporation docs from McCulloch and utilities being underground, and I wonder if we shouldn't just consider a catch-all within 17 -- and then maybe it makes it easier now that 16.2 is parsed out, but within 17, it basically says any service or utility that can be provisioned for underground in accordance with those McCulloch-era development standards shall be -- and then if we need a means of accommodation, you know, maybe we -- maybe we set up a pathway to that for a -- you know, for a variance off of it. I think maybe adding a sentence or two to that effect in here would tie a bow on some of that for some people. WESLEY: Okay. I guess I'm lost, Chairman, about what that would mean because we TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 50 of 67 already have code requirements that no wires are to be above ground. It's already in the town codes those don't happen, and so what's -- GRAY: Well, it's the extrapolation of saying what you're doing with your tower apparatus. If it can be done underground via direct cable connection, then that shall prevail over a wireless version of that service or utility. And I -- the way I view it is with 16.02 being parsed out with the small cell right-of-way, then what's left, we ought to have full jurisdiction over to make that clarifying point. WESLEY: So if there's any way to have strictly a cable system with no antennas in town, that that's what an applicant needs to do first to show why they can't just bury a cable instead of putting in a new tower? GRAY: Essentially, yes. And I think you could have a carve-out for, you know, let's just say the lock system or something from the canals. You know, maybe we have a few line-of-sight radio towers that, you know, that's all -- it was, at one point, all controlled by line-of-sight radio towers. Maybe you have a carve-out for that where it's -- you know, it's signal relay, so to speak. But essentially, in this scenario, obviously, the broadband component, if it can be provided via a tethered cabled connection underground in accordance with the original development guidelines, then that provision should prevail. You shouldn't -- we shouldn't allow a towered antenna platform to deliver the same service. I just -- I think the -- I think that that is a unique component of this town. Maybe it's not the most progressive of defining characteristics, but I think it's unique in the same way no streetlights is unique. And I think -- I think I said it last time. I think, you know, we -- somebody -- not me. Somebody was bold once upon a time and said, hey, we're not going to have streetlights around here. It's kind of weird in an energy-hungry era. I think maybe this is kind of the same deal, and maybe we need to stick to those original tenets, and this might be a way to do that outside of the public right-of-way. If, eventually, we fold 16.02 in here somehow, then it's got to come back to the table, but -- see the look he's giving me? WATTS: Um-hum. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 51 of 67 GRAY: And then just one other tangential thought. I think we need to come up with a fact and fiction sheet. And maybe it's five items, maybe it's ten items, but I think we need to define very, very clearly and succinctly what exactly these things are. You know, what are they? What do they do? You know, what's the difference -- you know, people waving cell phones and saying 5G this, I need my 5G, people saying I want to be able to take my Internet connection with me everywhere. It's still wildly unclear to most what all of this is or isn't, and I think we probably need to look at some sort of -- some sort of city-generated, town-generated fact sheet, cheat sheet -- there you go -- cheat sheet that people can reference. I still got the same look, Rick. WATTS: I know. That's because Susan is anxious to ask her question. GRAY: Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: Thank you. This is a lot. And I have to say, each meeting, we seem to add and change what we're talking about, so it's -- you know, we put in a lot of time to try and learn these -- the different dynamics and such. I think it would be helpful to see the application, and that may answer some of my questions, such as the requirements for insurance and proving -- the burden of proof that there's even a gap in service or no service, that there is even a need. And I know you started to pull it up. So for me, I'd like to see the application, and I think it may help us with a lot of the questions that I have. You talked about inspections. I think that's really important. And the distances. I agree with Commissioner Watts. When you think about an acre could be -- you know, if it's a perfect square, that's 660 feet. You know, I'd like to -- if you have a property that's less than an acre, and we do have many properties that's, you know, a quarter of an acre, you could have multiple antennas or -- I don't know. I mean, it's all very confusing is my point, but I think the application is a missing link here to see what the requirements are and the questions asked there, I guess, would be my primary need. And we had different information in a previous packet of the map of the current towers, and I still have the same question. Like, why isn't fiberoptics an option? Why -- WESLEY: It is. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 52 of 67 DEMPSTER: Okay. WESLEY: If a company wants to come put in fiberoptics, they're welcome to. They are doing it to some degree currently. Doesn't prohibit it. Doesn't discourage it. It's just a different topic. DEMPSTER: Okay. WESLEY: I guess I want to go back to that a little bit. DEMPSTER: Yeah. WESLEY: In January, we'd been talking about one thing -- or I'd been talking about one thing, and that's what amendments to make to Chapter 17, which is wireless telecommunications, towers, and antennas. Others have brought up broadbanding and things in the right-of-way and underground. That's fine. We have a concern about those things. It's good to know that. But the direction is what amendments, if any, do we want to make to Chapter 17, which is the wireless. DEMPSTER: Well, that's putting it in a silo, and all of these other things are very related, and I think that's kind of putting the blinders on this. There are many components to it, and there's a lot of confusion about it. So I don't think we're there yet. WATTS: I couldn't agree more with Commissioner Dempster. And I think had we go back to December-January and said at that point -- this discussion isn't applicable to Chapter 17, and we'd have had that guidance back then, but I think we were all under the impression that broadband was going to be a component of this. But having said that, I think there's a number of additional items that I don't know that we need to get into at this point assuming that Chairman Gray is going to allow me to make a motion that says we're going to continue with the impetus to really rule in -- Article 16.2 into 17 so that it becomes all-inclusive about any type of communication -- wireless communication and any type of antenna. But once we get to that point, then we're going to have more issues to talk about, like how do we protect property values, how do we protect residents? So we've kind of scratched the surface of it, but the motivation right now is that we don't have the consultant's information. We have lots of questions about the existing document the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 53 of 67 way it sits, and for those reasons, that's why I'm going to move to continue until we get more clarification, direction, and the consultant's report. So you let me know when I can do that. And the format. GRAY: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Yeah. And I will follow up on Commissioner Watts' and Commissioner Dempster's comments, and especially Commissioner Dempster where it's confusing. It's incredibly confusing because this isn't my forte. I'm still trying to understand why we're being tasked with this and some of the comments. And I mean, Commissioner Watts was arbitrarily throwing out heights of towers and spacing between towers. Where's the -- where's the professional advice and the help for us? I don't know. I'm at a loss. So I technically -- I will agree with whatever you say as far as a continuance or -- GRAY: Dan, did you have something? KOVACEVIC: I mean, I'm just going to say what everybody else already said, but -- yeah. GRAY: Any comments, Commissioner Corey, Commissioner Dapaah? The floor is yours for a moment. Well, Commissioner Kovacevic couldn't hold back. KOVACEVIC: Yeah, I am going to ask. Please reconsider turning over the consultant's report for us so that we can see it. I mean, it's really not fair to us to withhold expert advice and expect us to make a decision when this is -- it's not my field. And so I'm just going to go on record saying please reconsider and let us see the expert advice. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: You're going to help me craft this, aren't you? GRAY: I'll try. WATTS: So I think the motion is to continue until we receive the information regarding the questions that we posed as well as the consultant's information, and at that point, if we can get Article 16.2 wrapped into Chapter 17, I think that's what is going to work best for all of us. It'll help provide some clarity. It'll take away the confusion about the two chapters -- the article and the chapter. And what I don't want to have happen -- and I'll be very honest about this. I'm not sure if tabling this is the best avenue to go, if continuing, postponing. So the terminology is TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 54 of 67 where -- I just don't want it to get out of Planning and Zoning until we have the opportunity to review it, consolidate it, and digest it and get it to Town Council because that would just simply mean that Town Council would have to do exactly the same kind of work in order to be prudent in the decision moving forward. So what is the best motion: continue, postpone, table? GRAY: I think -- WATTS: Continue? GRAY: -- continue, but I think we said last month and I think we said two months ago we weren't going to take up a motion to recommend up or down until the town attorney, at minimum, puts us in a room under admonishment and explains to us why we can't see the report. WATTS: So okay. We could do that, and then we can eliminate all the other ancillary verbiage that says we're not going to -- we're going to -- GRAY: Well, at least if you get to that point, at least if we get there, then we have a fundamental understanding of why we're not in the circle of trust, right? WATTS: That's step one. And then step two is then we have to look at can we get it ruled up. So I almost think that it's easier to have both happen simultaneously. Have 16.2 rolled into 17 so that we have one focus, and then have the same conversation about the consultant and why we aren't privy to the information. GRAY: Or to stick with the format of the ordinances and to be deliberated in the future, but maybe you have mirrored language between 16.2 and 17 ultimately. WATTS: Does it make it more complex? GRAY: As John said, 16 is set up to deal with right-of-way and the municipal side of things. 17 is set up to deal with private property. So you combo them, it accomplishes the goal in isolation here, but it creates a bigger fundamental structure problem of the ordinances. There's going to be a way to skin it. We just don't -- we don't have to make that determination today. But we need -- what you're asking for, I think, is that the small cell component of 16.2 is on the table for consideration and to make a recommendation for enhancement or TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 55 of 67 modification to the Council. You're asking for access to 16.2, jurisdiction to 16.2 to modify. WATTS: It might take two motions, then. Access to that ability -- GRAY: I mean, you only have one agenda item, so you may want to motion -- WATTS: Then I would make the motion to include both, 16.2 into 17 as well as the consultant's information, because you can't make the decision to move forward if you do roll them together unless you have the consultant's recommendations first and foremost. Why do we keep getting it referenced without having that back story, and yet we do. GRAY: I already told you, you're not in the circle of trust. WATTS: I got that. GRAY: Okay. So your motion has got two components to it. WATTS: Yes. GRAY: First component is are you requiring the Commission -- are you requiring the consultant's report? Are you requiring an admonished explanation from the Town's attorney as to why you cannot see the report? Me personally, I would accept that before I would say, I need to see the full report. I think you can still ask for the full report after that, but I think to -- for me, that's what I need to understand to feel comfortable carrying this forward. Maybe there's a good reason. WATTS: So I'd be happy, first and foremost, to have the two combined. So 16.2 and 17 combined, first and foremost. GRAY: So you're making a request of town staff to seek approval from Town Council to fold 16.2 into the discussion with Chapter 17? WATTS: Yes, and that is the essence of the continuation. And once we got the continuation, I was trying to make it easier where if we got the consultant's report at the same time, we wouldn't have to go back because you know we're going to go right back to where's the consultant's report if we are able to get them combined. GRAY: It's okay to have both elements in your motion. WATTS: Okay. Well, then I want both in the motion. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 56 of 67 GRAY: Okay. WATTS: I want both a consolidation of 16.2 and 17 to be combined in addition to -- well, in addition, I want the consultant's reports to be made available to the Planning and Zoning Commission. GRAY: Okay. You're asking town staff to seek approval from the Town Council to allow Planning and Zoning the ability to review Chapter 16 -- WATTS: Article 16. GRAY: -- specifically 16.2 in concert with our review of Chapter 17? WATTS: Right. And just for clarification, it's Article 16.2. GRAY: Okay. And you're also asking for town staff to seek approval from the town attorney and the town manager for -- to allow public access to the Campanelli report, or are you allowing for an explanation in executive session which, then, may result in your request for the report to be released? That's what I need clarification on. My fear is if you ask for the report to be released publicly -- not a fear. What I -- my hypothesis is if you ask for the report to be released publicly, we may not get it. We may just be stalemated here. WATTS: That's what I'm -- that's what I'm pondering. GRAY: But at least if you get to the room, you can ask why can I not see the report without actually adjudicating the report of the ordinance in executive session, which may or may not be illegal. I don't know. WATTS: I would like to have the consultant's report provided to the Planning and Zoning commissioners in executive session so that we can look at it and have a discussion with the town attorney. GRAY: Can't do it, I don't -- John, can we do that or not? WESLEY: Chair, my understanding would be that probably not, but I would have to check for sure with the attorney, but I don't think so. It's -- GRAY: Okay. WESLEY: -- attorneys giving legal advice to the Council, so -- GRAY: So make that request, but then I'm asking you, please, have a subset of it. If that TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 57 of 67 doesn't fly, at least get us an explanation. WATTS: Fair enough. GRAY: And the explanation can become an e-session under Rules and Regs. WATTS: I'd be satisfied with that. GRAY: Okay. WATTS: Because we keep referencing it, but we don't have anything, so I want to know why. GRAY: Okay. Clear as -- wow, there's verbatim. WESLEY: Right. The last piece, Chair, is kind of where we started this discussion. Are you continuing, postponing, or tabling? GRAY: We're continuing. WESLEY: Until? GRAY: 60 days. WESLEY: June? July? WATTS: Well, that's middle of summer, and Council is on vacation -- GRAY: Correct. WATTS: -- in the summer, so anything over 30 days, we've got a problem. GRAY: Okay. So do 30 days. WATTS: Can we get an answer in 30 days? I know you're not speaking for, but is that reasonable? GRAY: I think you ought to allow 60. WATTS: Well, then we'll go 60. I'll take your advice and go 60. GRAY: I mean -- WOODWARD: That would be July -- WATTS: It can't hurt to give as much latitude because nothing's going to happen between now and then. And then if we get it, then we can have it on the first Planning and Zoning meeting after -- GRAY: It would be July -- WATTS: When's the first -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 58 of 67 WOODWARD: July 8th -- WATTS: When's the first Planning and Zoning meeting after summer break, Paula? WOODWARD: So you have June 10th, July 8th, and August 12th, and then September 9th. WATTS: So when's Town Council back? WESLEY: 19th of August. WOODWARD: 19th of August. And our meeting for P & Z is August 12th. WATTS: So why don't we make it September, then? That gives you 120 days to get it done. WESLEY: So Mr. Chair and Vice Chair, I'm not sure how this plays into where this is going, but do want to point out one other provision of the ordinance. Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.01.G.1.C. Basically, Planning Commission may continue up to 90 days, and then has to render a decision once you've had a public hearing. WATTS: So if we continue 90 days but Council hasn't been able to convene to be able to render a decision, does Council continue this on our behalf? GRAY: You only have to -- we only have to hear it. You can turn around and continue it for another 90 days. WATTS: I'm looking for John's -- for a head -- to give me a head nod on that. WESLEY: Shall, within 90 days after the date of the original hearing, render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the Council. GRAY: Isn't that only in response to an applicant, though? WESLEY: It's not specific to -- GRAY: It's not? Okay. WESLEY: And if we're talking about wrapping in 16.2, that becomes a new ordinance, a new notice, and so that might start the clock over again. So there's little caveats in here, but I did want to throw that out so you are aware of it, not surprise you with it later if we learn, well, you really should have acted on it. GRAY: I think, under that interpretation, we've already run the clock out. WESLEY: No, because this started -- this is your first public hearing tonight. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 59 of 67 GRAY: Oh, okay. WESLEY: So it starts your 90 days. WOODWARD: 90 days would be August 9th. WESLEY: August? WOODWARD: 8th, 9th, 10th. WESLEY: Yeah. WOODWARD: Whatever day you're looking at. WESLEY: Looking at maybe, like, the 7th and your meeting's on the 8th or something like that, but -- GRAY: So if we go to August and we get no feedback from the Council, clock's up, and we default a recommendation to do nothing at that point. WESLEY: I would -- the couple basic questions that you asked, I would hope we could have that answer for you in June. WATTS: Well, let's give ample time anyway. Let's move it until August. That gives plenty of time in case we don't have an answer, and there's time for some discussion. GRAY: If I understand John correctly, though, we go to August. Somebody -- well, if four of us don't like what we have on the table in August and we can't do it via amendment here that night, we're done. So -- WATTS: So back it back down, then, into July. GRAY: Into July so we have one more -- WATTS: Right. One more opportunity to discuss. Okay. July works. WOODWARD: July 8th. KOVACEVIC: All right. Now I'm confused. Didn't I hear you say that wrapping 16.2 into 17 is a new ordinance? WESLEY: If we are given direction to do that, and so we're starting back over and have to hold another new public hearing because it's a different ordinance, I think that would start the clock over. KOVACEVIC: So we could ask you to do that and start the clock again? WESLEY: Town Council or at least the City Manager would need to give me direction to TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 60 of 67 do that. KOVACEVIC: Can you get the answer to that question? WESLEY: Yes, I can. When? I would think that wouldn't take very long. KOVACEVIC: Okay. WESLEY: I can't guarantee that. KOVACEVIC: So I guess what I'm thinking is we can get -- we can start the clock again, so we don't need to go all the way to August and get -- GRAY: Well, I think tonight, though, you have to leave yourself -- in my opinion, you got to leave -- we have to leave ourselves the opportunity to adjust one more time, which is what going to July would afford. If the Town Manager or the Council says no, leave it at 17, they're all done. At least then we get July. That's our last crack at modifications, and then we have to take an up-down vote on it in August. If we go all the way to August, we'd be here until 2 a.m. because we're going to have to hash everything out right here and take an up-down vote on it. If it plays out that Town Manager or Council says, sure, fold it in, yeah, then all that's up. But I think tonight, we have to say -- well, we're either okay with going to August and pulling the all-nighter potentially, or we hedge a little bit and we say let's target July and buy ourselves, you know, one more -- one more do-over. KOVACEVIC: I'd rather hedge. GRAY: I would, too. WATTS: Yeah. And since it's my motion -- GRAY: Well, I mean -- yeah. So sorry. WATTS: I'm going with July. So July seems to work. And that gives us an opportunity, then, to convince Town Council, directly or indirectly, but it also -- to me, it makes the whole process easier because, like I said, an antenna is an antenna is an antenna. So that's what I want to do. That's my motion. GRAY: Okay. WATTS: Okay? GRAY: Anybody want to second your motion? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 61 of 67 DAPAAH: I have a question for John on this. John, it's clear that we are all perplexed. We've been confused about this for some time now. Would it be right to say that the Council members are clear on this after meeting with the expert, that they have a better understanding on this matter than we do? GRAY: That's a good question. WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner, I don't know that I'm in a position to answer that question. I think this commission has certainly, over the last few months, spent more time with it than the Council has, but the Council looked at that particular proposal and found that it wasn't meeting the needs of what they were expecting or thought was needed by the Town. DAPAAH: Okay. Because it seems we're just being pushed to make a recommendation that we may not be clear on, and so -- okay. Well, I'll leave it there. GRAY: Yeah. I mean, I think that if we get to July or we get to August and -- you know, folding 16.2 into 17, I don't know. 50-50 whether they allow that. But if they say no access to that report with no explanation to it, then we're going to have to make a judgment call on whether or not we step back and say, sorry, no recommendation without the -- without all the cards in the deck or whether we want to roll the dice a little bit. Commissioner? DEMPSTER: Let me ask you a quick question. Can we go back to a previous Town Council meeting where they discussed the report, or was that done in executive session? WESLEY: Executive session. DEMPSTER: Okay. On what premise -- I thought executive session would be for, like, HR. What category would that fall under for executive session? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner Dempster, I'm not the attorney to remember all those nuances, but it was reviewing the work product of a legal document that was submitted. DEMPSTER: Okay. Thank you. GRAY: So are you going to amend? WATTS: No. I'm going to follow up with Commissioner Dempster. And I thought TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 62 of 67 executive session precluded working in ordinance. I thought that had to be done in the transparency of the public. So can they talk about -- and that's what becomes so confusing. If Town Council members were actually working to generate an ordinance or develop it, then that wasn't what they were doing? Just simply discussing the product that the consultant -- whether or not it fit? And it may not fit in 17. It may fit in 16 and vice versa. So whatever transpired, again, becomes more confusing. So I have no amendment, and I'd like to make that -- GRAY: Still looking for a friend here. WATTS: Oh, that's right. DEMPSTER: I second the motion. GRAY: All right. Motion on the table from Commissioner Watts for verbatim transcript, seconded by Commissioner Dempster. Roll call vote, please, Paula. WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Nay. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Nay. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster? WOODWARD: Aye. GRAY: Were you both nay? I couldn't hear. DAPAAH: Yeah. GRAY: Okay. DEMPSTER: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Watts? WATTS: Aye. GRAY: Hold on. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 63 of 67 WATTS: Aye. GRAY: He forgot again, Paula. WOODWARD: Okay. Chair Gray? GRAY: Aye. WOODWARD: Five-two. GRAY: Could I ask what you guys were looking for? DAPAAH: I'm not sure if we want to continue sitting on this. I'd rather we -- I'd actually rather that we forfeit this and pass it -- pass it on to the Council members. It seems they may know more than what we -- GRAY: Turn your mic on. DAPAAH: Yeah. I'm sorry. And we should perhaps stick to just, you know, land use and have them focus on everything else, yeah, because this is just dragging on way too long, and we -- for all these months, we still haven't come to a clear understanding on this, and we're not getting the information we need. So how much longer? What, 90 days, 60 days? We're just going to keep prolonging this discussion and -- yeah. GRAY: Okay. WATTS: Can I comment? GRAY: Sure. WATTS: So I can certainly appreciate your concern, but the work of a commission is to do the heavy lifting and make the recommendation to the Council. I guarantee you that even though we may all not understand all of the nuances of 5G, cellular, broadband, all of those things, no disrespect to Council, but nor do they. And it's our job to delve into the details to understand exactly what's going on, to make the recommendation, and then for the Town Council to tweak it. So I -- DAPAAH: Well, if they -- if they didn't, they would -- they would reach out and help us with the expertise that we requested, and for whatever reason, we're not getting it. GRAY: He's got a point. DAPAAH: Okay? So we -- how long are we just going to -- GRAY: We aren't getting -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 64 of 67 WATTS: I know. DAPAAH: -- continue to debate on this matter. I'd rather we just move it on to them. It seems they have a better understanding on it. GRAY: I think you're right. I mean, I appreciate your explanation because I concur with you, but I do think -- I think we should -- well, my opinion, we should hold out on this and exhaust all possible options. It's like -- it's like going to the NBA draft, right? It's like play another year or go. You exhaust all your playing options at one level before it goes up, and I think that's here. This is a huge topic. Maybe not to some. But there's a lot of downstream impacts or implications from this, and I wouldn't -- I don't want to leave 60 days on the clock kind of thing. So I absolutely appreciate where you're coming from, though. DAPAAH: Yeah. But right as we sit here, do we actually -- are we confident that we will get more information on this? GRAY: No. DAPAAH: So why wait? WATTS: It's worth a shot. It's worth -- okay. We have, effectively, a fiduciary obligation to our -- to the Town constituents, right, all of them, to protect their best interest, and that best interest is property values, the unintended consequence of making a decision that we really don't know and why we don't know. And I'll use the example of asbestos one more time. 50 years ago, we didn't know how bad asbestos was. Now we do. And there are billion-dollar suits because of the impact. They were devastating impacts. So what if -- somebody that has the technical understanding and the legal understanding of how to best protect our constituents today, don't we have that obligation to continue to explore it to make sure we do the best we can possibly do? That's where I'm coming from. So I'm willing to waive another 60 days, work harder, keep studying, and keep promoting Town Council to say you got to do your job, too. Give us -- give us the tools to be able to do our job. GRAY: All right. Shall we move on? Good idea. WATTS: Yeah. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 65 of 67 GRAY: All right Number 8, Commission Discussion, Request of Research to Staff. I think we pretty well covered that in Agenda Item 7. Anything else we want to throw on the whiteboard? Agenda 9, Summary of Commission Request from the Development Services Director and Report. WESLEY: Oh, Commissioners, just a heads-up. For your June meeting, we do have a rezoning request. That will be on that agenda. Anything else, Farhad, that you know of? I guess the -- I guess -- yeah, the General Plan report revisions to come back to you, so -- GRAY: What's the rezone? WESLEY: Rezone is on Indigo. GRAY: What is it? WESLEY: On Indigo. You haven't got it yet, so -- GRAY: Oh, okay. WATTS: It's just -- those are the key lots? WESLEY: They will be. WATTS: Yeah. WESLEY: Okay. So that's going to be -- GRAY: Okay. DEMPSTER: Thanks, John. GRAY: Thank you. We're adjourned. What? Oh, sorry. Commissioner? COREY: I'm sorry. John, I don't know if everybody agrees with me here, but the PowerPoint presentations are very effective. I'm wondering if there's any way that we could possibly get those with the agendas. Is there any way that we can kind of get a sneak peek of that? Because it summarizes the content really well, and I think that I would better understand the agenda if I could look at that PowerPoint in advance. WESLEY: Chairperson, Commissioner, I would sure love to share those with you in advance if I had them ready in advance. Usually, like this one, I finished it up, like, 3 o'clock this afternoon. COREY: Okay. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 66 of 67 WESLEY: So unfortunately, it usually is, you know, after we get the report finished and, okay, what did we actually end up with and settle with in the report so now I can prepare a PowerPoint that can go with it. If we get it done earlier, we could send it out to you so that you would have it. We can try to keep that in mind. But usually, it's the same day as the meeting that we're finishing them up. COREY: Then I think, yeah, if they're -- if you had it ready early, we -- I think we would all appreciate it. WESLEY: Certainly, if it's helpful, we could send it out to you after the fact, if that's still helpful, but -- WOODWARD: Chair, Director Wesley, actually, the post-action agenda, those PowerPoints have been added to the agenda item as an attachment. GRAY: Okay. (Indiscernible). WOODWARD: So you now can go back and look at those. But because we don't get them always in time with -- for the packet, I can't post until after the fact once they've been given. WATTS: Just -- GRAY: Yeah, I -- sorry. Go ahead. WATTS: Just as an FYI, I was ecstatic to get the agenda -- I think it was on Thursday, might have been Wednesday -- WOODWARD: Um-hum. WATTS: -- rather than get it on Friday at 5 o'clock and my entire weekend is gone. So it was really nice to get it, so I do appreciate that. GRAY: Yeah, but then you burned her with it. WATTS: I'm going to pay the price. I get it. I get it. GRAY: I agree with Commissioner Corey. I like them, too, and I think even if we did get them a couple hours ahead, being able to tie your notes back to that at least, you know, to link that is valuable because my notes don't necessarily follow the cadence or the structure there. So if possible. No pressure. All right. Let's adjourn. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MAY 13, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 67 of 67 WATTS: Perfect. Thank you. ITEM 5. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 06/10/2024 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Planner Staff Contact Information: Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: annual report on the implementation of the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020. Staff Summary (Background) At the regular meeting on May 6, 2024, the Planning and Zoning Commission was presented with the Annual Report to the General Plan for the 2023 calendar year. Following staff's presentation, the Commission directed staff to correct several typographical errors and a factual error pertaining to the Environmental Plan prior revising and resubmitting for reconsideration by the Commission. Attached is the revised annual report per the Commission's direction. Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-461.07 A. 2. states that after the municipal legislative body has adopted a general plan, the community’s planning agency shall render an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the plan and progress in its application.  The Town adopted its current general plan on November 3, 2020. The previous annual report was presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 12, 2023, and was forwarded to Town Council on June 20, 2023. The Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 includes the following requirement: Each year, the Fountain Hills Development Services Department must prepare, and the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission must review and submit to the Town Council an annual report on the status of the General Plan progress. The report must include, but not be limited to, the following:  A summary of General Plan amendments processed during the preceding year and those pending review, including General Plan amendments initiated by Town Council. A report on the progress and status of implementation actions enumerated in the General Plan Implementation Strategy. A review of policy issues which may have arisen regarding provisions of the General Plan. A recommendation for General Plan amendments to be initiated to maintain an effective, up-to-date General Plan including policy changes, clarifications, and new policy development; changes in character area; and other applicable changes. The recommendation may also include suggestions to change implementation actions priorities, as Town’s priorities shift, as well as General Plan amendments, if any, to be included in the work program for the following fiscal year. Attached is a draft report for the Commission's review and consideration. Report content includes status updates received from the lead departments for various goals and policies contained in the general plan. Based on comments from the Commission, staff will either bring the report back for further review or forward it to Council.  The attached draft report includes a brief overview of actions taken during the 2023 calendar year to implement provisions of the 2020 General Plan.  The report also discusses and reevaluates some implementation steps that are yet to be initiated.   Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends forwarding the annual report to the Town Council. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to forward the General Plan Annual Report to the Town Council. Attachments 2023 General Plan Annual Report  Page 1 of 11 Fountain Hills General Plan 2023 Annual Report BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-461.07 A. 2. states that after the municipal legislative body has adopted a general plan, the community’s planning agency shall render an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the plan and progress in its application. The Town of Fountain Hills has adopted and implemented general plans in accordance with state statutes since 2002. The Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 was adopted by the Council on January 7, 2010 and was the guiding document for the Town until the voters ratified the 2020 General Plan on November 3, 2020. This annual report summarizes the Town’s implementation efforts for the 2023 calendar year. Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 The Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 was adopted by Council on May 19, 2020 and ratified by the voters on November 3, 2020 as a long-term vision for local development. The Plan did not become official for use by staff and the Town until it was ratified by the voters. Therefore, little actual implementation was reported in previous years, due in large part to challenges like the pandemic and staff turnover, especially at the management level. This report discusses some implementation advances in the 2023 calendar year and continued efforts going into the next several years. The report also identifies some implementation challenges and identifies a few immediate and short term General Plan goals that have fallen outside their expected completion window. Page 124 of the 2020 Plan includes direction regarding the annual report. It states: Each year, the Fountain Hills Development Services Department must prepare, and the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission must review and submit to the Town Council an annual report on the status of the General Plan progress. The report must include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. A summary of General Plan amendments processed during the preceding year and those pending review, including General Plan amendments initiated by Town Council. 2. A report on the progress and status of implementation actions enumerated in the General Plan Implementation Strategy. 3. A review of policy issues which may have arisen regarding provisions of the General Plan. Page 2 of 11 4. A recommendation for General Plan amendments to be initiated to maintain an effective, up-to-date General Plan including: policy changes, clarifications, and new policy development; changes in character area; and other applicable changes. The recommendation may also include suggestions to change implementation actions priorities, as Town’s priorities shift, as well as General Plan amendments, if any, to be included in the work program for the following fiscal year. The remainder of this report is organized according to the four (4) required information items detailed above. The section pertaining to the Town’s progress and implementation actions primarily discusses activities that occurred within 2023 calendar year. Other implementation activities from previous years are provided for historical context. The conclusion of the report discusses some immediate and short-range goals that are yet to be initiated and may be reevaluated as part of a broader discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. 1. SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS There were no General Plan Amendments in the calendar year 2023, nor were there any proposals for a General Plan Amendment. It is important to note that the Town of Fountain Hills is landlocked and approaching build-out. The 1,276-acre state trust land at the far northeast corner of the Town is the most vastly undeveloped part of town and is zoned for residential use and open space. Although there has been no new interest from the development community in this area, the state trust land has the highest potential to be the subject for a major general plan amendment request in the future. 2. PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS The General Plan organizes the Town’s goals and policies according to three overarching principles that guide its development, including Thriving Environment, Thriving Neighborhoods, and Thriving Economy. These overarching principles contain eight (8) general plan elements required by Arizona statutes. This section briefly highlights progress and implementation actions as they relate to each of the eight (8) general plan elements and their respective goals and policies. Each goal in the General Plan prescribes a time frame for initiation: • Ongoing • Immediate – (initiate no later than 6 months after General Plan ratification by the voters) Page 3 of 11 • Short-range (First 4 years): Prioritizes development and redevelopment efforts that will support the fiscal viability of the Town. • Mid-range (5 to 8 Years): Prioritizes strategies that require funding and may not be pursue until funding is available. • Long-range (Within 10 years): Includes identification of funds for the preparation of conceptual plans for State Trust Land in coordination with ASLD. There is considerable progress to report on several fronts. This section briefly describes each of the three overarching principles of the General Plan and their essential elements, and also provides a brief description of the implementation actions taken during the 2023 calendar year. Thriving Neighborhoods Thriving Neighborhoods is the first of three overarching principles of the General Plan, addressing policies pertaining to housing, neighborhood preservation/revitalization, neighborhood-scale amenities and neighborhood safety to support healthy, complete, and vibrant neighborhoods. Most of the implementation actions are identified by the General Plan as “Ongoing” efforts and are realized daily. Housing Element Fountain Hills continues to accommodate a variety of housing types and quality development and continues to maintain its existing housing stock and residential areas as essential to sustain Fountain Hills’ thriving neighborhoods. Residential permit and land entitlement activity in 2023, as in previous years, saw a higher percentage for single family residential use. Calendar year 2023 saw 57 permits issued for new single-family residential homes. Permits were also issued for two multifamily buildings containing 5 units and 3 units, respectively. Special use permits were approved for 10 townhome-style units at the northwest corner of Ivory Dr. and El Pueblo Blvd., as well as for 7 units at the northeast corner of Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. Site plans were also approved for 17 townhome-style units near Saguaro and Shea Boulevards. All three projects required and were granted Special Use Permits prior to submittal for site plan review, as they were all proposed residential uses in a commercial area. Over the summer, a rezone application was submitted to introduce 316 apartment units to Four Peaks Plaza. The proposal envisions a four-story wrap style apartment within a largely vacant commercial center. Neighborhood Amenities In 2021, the Town approved the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to ensure multimodal connectivity between neighborhoods, neighborhood parks, and significant natural open space. Pedestrian, bicycle and trail connectivity are further addressed in the Social Environment Element and in the Connectivity, Access and Mobility Element. Page 4 of 11 Safety The Town applies Safe-by-Design concepts during the site plan review process. Safe-by-Design is about including safety at the earliest possible stage of development review. During the design review stage, staff implements concepts such as visibility of entryways, lighting, accessibility to outdoor accessibility areas, and clearly defined pedestrian, bicycle, trails and open space connectivity. Thriving Environment Thriving Environment integrates all aspects of the built, social, and natural environments by carefully knitting growth areas, infill, redevelopment and revitalization, place-based land use utilizing a character areas approach, connectivity, access and mobility supporting circulation for all travel modes, parks, recreation, trails, and open space, resource protection, energy conservation, air and water quality, infrastructure and public services in a cohesive manner as integral parts of Fountain Hills. Great Places The Great Places Element defines the Town of Fountain Hills major character areas and the land use mix supporting those areas. As a strategic tool, the Great Places Element guides new development, redevelopment and infill to sustain the long-range viability of the Town and continue to support the quality of life valued by the community. The following implementation activities for 2023 demonstrate considerable progress in creating and fostering Great Places: • The Pumphouse Pilot Art Project, a changing outdoor exhibition along the stucco wall adjacent to the Pumphouse at Fountain Park, continues to provide a changing 2-D display featuring panels from artists using a variety of mediums. The Fountain Hills Public Art Committee received Town Council approval for a new installation entitled "Expressions", with the artist's interpretation of a facial expression that portrays an emotion. The new exhibition includes a reusable framing and bracketing system that can be used continually and will not damage the art pieces when they removed for future exhibitions. • The Farmer’s Market was held every Wednesday between November and April featuring over 50 food vendors offering fresh local produce, healthy eating options, and food trucks, as well as a variety of over 40 art vendors. The Market also hosed a special event on November 22, 2023, featuring the Childrens Entrepreneur Market with 50 booths for kids to make and sell all types of foods and crafts. • The community garden entered its sixth year after relocating farther south of its original location to make way for the International Dark Sky Discovery Center. Reconstruction began in early 2023 and saw an increase in the number of planting beds to 130. Three Page 5 of 11 were set aside to grow produce for the Extended Hands Food Bank in Fountain Hills. Additionally, six raised beds were constructed with ADA accessibility for disabled gardeners. The Community Garden donates to local food pantry and hosts healthy cooking classes. A grand opening was held on November 4, 2023. The gardening community and other local organizations continue their partnership with Fountain Hills Middle School, which began planting in 2021. • The Town continues to coordinate service availability and enhancements with utility providers to ensure service capacity to new development, redevelopment or infill. Town staff coordinated with utility companies to relocate their infrastructure to accommodate the Saguaro Blvd. Sidewalk Infill Project. • In the 2023 calendar year, following a review of all current parking standards and design guidelines, Town staff initiated a Downtown Parking Study and entered into a contract with a consultant. The study will assess the required capacity and use of existing parking facilities and will recommend parking standards based on current best parking practices. • Town Council approved updated parking standards to modify existing standards and new provisions where necessary to better complement other development standards of the zoning ordinance. • Economic Development staff regularly utilizes visitor analysis software to identify various trade areas. The analyses assist the Town in mapping out business activity and consumer behavior at various points of interest. Analyzing a trade area entails studying things like traffic patterns, shopping habits, and existing businesses, for the purpose of exploring the market potential of a planning projects or impacts from a special event. • The Town Council approved a Town-wide brand featuring a new Town logo, which is used for marketing purposes to target new residents and businesses, such as the Town's, website, collateral material, and printed and digital ads, while continuing to use the Town seal for official documents. The new logo was the result of a community-wide survey that was distributed via social media, the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce Newsletter and direct emails from the Town's business license list. In addition to the survey, three focus groups were held to include Council, Council-elects, staff, Chamber representatives, and residents and business to identify the top brand attributes. • Grants totaling approximately $42,500 were received from the neighboring Ft. McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. Another grant of approximately $60,000 was received from the Arizona Office of Tourism. These grants Page 6 of 11 help fund programs and projects that focus on education, public safety, health, environment, and economic and community development. Social Environment This Social Environment Element defines the Town of Fountain Hills’ built public spaces as areas for community interaction and networking. Such public spaces include community and regional parks as well as public gathering spaces like plazas and courtyards in association with compact or urban development. This element views streets, sidewalks and trails as social connectors and also addresses passive and active recreation. When addressed in an integrated manner, the social environment supports safety and a healthy and active lifestyle. The Town carried out a number of activities in 2023 to support a social environment that supports safety and a healthy and active lifestyle: • The grand reopening of the Desert Vista Skate Park occurred on June 24. Originally opened in 2007, it saw extensive use and hot summers. The new park layout includes a pump track, a skate "bowl" and improved ramps. New LED lights were installed for evening riding. Furthermore, the sidewalk infill project has provided residents with connectivity from Saguaro to Desert Vista for better access to Desert Vista Park. • Fountain Hills Parks and Recreation began offering new adult leagues for cornhole, and pickleball and "Adult Return to Recess", offering beach volleyball, table tennis croque/bocce ball and kickball. Programs are sponsored by local companies. • The Town of Fountain Hills is known for its exciting annual special events. This year the Community Services Department received two awards from the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association, including the award for the most Outstanding Facility for populations under 25,000 in recognition for the Fountain Park Playground. Also, within the same population category, the Town received the most Outstanding Event award for the Halloween-themed Spooky Blast Spooky Blast in October. • The Town Continues to design and maintain streetscapes that incorporate alternative travel modes. The Public Works department recently installed new pavement markings on El Pueblo Blvd, Grande Blvd and Glenbrook Blvd, reducing the width of the travel lanes and adding new bike lanes. Access, Connectivity, and Mobility Additional sidewalk infill from Saguaro Blvd. to Desert Vista has been added to provide improved connectivity between Saguaro Blvd. and Desert Vista Park, including the new skate park. The sidewalks also provides pedestrians improved accessibility to many retail businesses. Page 7 of 11 Public Facilities and Services The Town in conjunction with its servicing utility companies continues to ensure potable water and sanitation services to its residents while complying with all applicable environmental regulations at all levels of government. Natural Resources and Open Space Element In its consistent support for preservation and conservation efforts, the Town values the natural environment as an essential component of a thriving community. • Following a vetting process from the McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission and with technical support from the Sonoran Conservancy of Fountain Hills, Town Council approved the building of three additional trails. The Upper Sonoran and Remote Trail will have zero impact on homeowners and have increased elevation and expansive views, in addition to more trails for more experienced hikers to enjoy. The new section of the Overlook Trail will add a connector to the Easy Access Trail making it a loop trail, which is significantly more preferred by hikers, instead of an out and back trail where one sees the same views twice. It is not believed that these trails will increase parking requirement needs at Adero Trailhead but will greatly increase the hiking challenge and variety that the preserve trails offer to those who use them. • Shortly after their formation, the Town's History and Culture Advisory Commission, with assistance from the State Historic Preservation Office, began the research process in an effort to add the Fountain to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Listing in the National Register of Historic Places provides formal recognition of a property’s historical, architectural, or archeological significance based on national standards used by every state. • There have been three recycling events in 2023 sponsored in part by the Town, including the Household Hazardous Waste collection event, the Shred-a-Thon, and the Residential Electronic Recycling event. All three events were well attended by Fountain Hills residents. • The Town implements strict re-vegetation requirements for protected hillsides that require the restoration of disturbed areas with native plant species that are consistent in type and density with the surrounding native desert and encourage builders to design with a contextual emphasis. Thriving Economy Thriving Economy supports a strategic economic development approach to achieve the long- range viability of the Town and provides specific mechanisms to finance new development. Page 8 of 11 Economic Development The following activities were performed in 2023 and pertain to the Economic Development Element of the General Plan and were largely guided by the 2022 Strategic Plan: • The Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) approved by Council in September 2023. Using the Town’s mission, vision, adopted General Plan and Strategic Plan as a driver, the Town of Fountain Hills’ 2023-2026 Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is designed to focus on measurable strategic goals and objectives to increase the Town’s competitiveness and create a vibrant economy that contributes to the health and well- being of the community. The CEDS serves as a roadmap to build upon the Town’s strengths and opportunities, as well as leverage strategic partnerships to address local challenges and enhance economic opportunities. • The Town continues to own and maintain dual port charging stations - one at the Civic Center and the other at Fountain Park. The charging stations use the ChargePoint network which operates a nationwide charging system. Ninety percent of the revenue generated from people wishing to charge their vehicles go to the Town, while 10% go to ChargePoint. • Rezone proposals are guided by the General Plan and its identified Character Areas. Staff cites the general plan in their recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Cost of Development The Town continues to honor its current development agreements with the landowners and developers, as well as its cost sharing through intergovernmental agreements with other jurisdictions. In May 2023, Town Council approved a modification to a development agreement for Parcel 2 of Eagles Nest, where the developer agreed to provide improved accessibility to Parcel 2 from what was originally planned, in exchange for a nominal increase in density. The Development Services department utilizes the Town Online Planning and Permitting System (TOPPS) to provide a streamlined design review process for development and redevelopment of the Town Center, Commerce Center, Saguaro Blvd and Shea Character Areas. 3. POLICY ISSUES As the 2020 General Plan enters into the fourth year of implementation, some issues have arisen with regards to the timing and completion of some of the goals. Staff notes a number of immediate and short-range implementation actions that have yet to be initiated. Immediate goals are intended to be initiated within 6 months of ratification by voters. Short-range goals are to be initiated within the first four years. Some goals have fallen outside of the expected time frame for initiation. A number of factors have impacted its implementation progress, including the pandemic, staff turnover and vacancies in various departments as well as logistical Page 9 of 11 challenges. The calendar year 2024 is an opportunity for staff to study the changing needs of the Town and identify opportunities and constraints that will better guide the Town in its policy direction. Immediate Goals There are two immediate goals for which progress was to be initiated within six months of ratification but have not yet begun. These two goals are listed below, followed by a brief statement regarding their status: • Goal: Consider Part time grant writer. (Economic Development, Goal 2, Policy 1) Department staff regularly search for grant opportunities that could help fund new infrastructure, recreational amenities, and economic development. For example, Public Works staff applied for and were successful in receiving design assistance grants from Maricopa Association of Governments, as well as federal grants through ADOT to help fund new bike lanes and sidewalks. However, other grant writing efforts have not been successful despite attempts by staff from various departments. Although the Town will persistently continue to obtain grant funding where available, it may want to reconsider the feasibility of adding a part-time staff member whose exclusive task is to write grant proposals. • Goal: Establish a General Plan Monitoring System coordinated with the CIP in conformance with the policy direction supporting this goal [to share costs with other entities]. (Cost of Development, Goal 10, Policy 1-2) Due to a number of factors including disruption from the pandemic and staff turnover at the management level, efforts to coordinate the Capital Improvements Program with goals of the General Plan have not been initiated. Staff plans to form an ad hoc group to begin this effort and ensure that implementation of the CIP and General Plan align in mutually supportive fashion. Short-Term Goals Steps toward completing the short-term goals of the General Plan are to be initiated within four years after voter ratification. The following are short-term goals, followed by a brief statement regarding their status: • Goal: Develop and implement an investment plan that responds to the Economic Development Plan’s priorities, and that prioritizes infrastructure improvements in the CIP. (Economic Development) Page 10 of 11 Although the Town has not initiated a formal investment plan that ties together the CIP and Strategic Economic Development Plan and the CIP, staff makes sure that both are complementary in their vision. • Goal: Commission a cost/benefit study to identify the gap between actual subdivision regulations infrastructure specifications and determine the cost of meeting such specifications. (Economic Development) The Subdivision Regulations are a foundational part of shaping the Town’s housing stock and commercial uses, as well as the infrastructure that supports them. The Town has long believed that these regulations ensure quality infrastructure. With the changing socioeconomic and environmental factors, it is worthwhile to review its specifications to determine if they meet the Towns current needs. Staff will be reevaluating current specifications in the coming year. Goal: Prepare, adopt and implement an integrated Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space System Master Plan (Social Environment) As mentioned earlier in this report, the Town approved three new trails in its growing network. As efforts continue in maintaining or improving this network, the Town will be able to utilize these efforts in tying together a network of trails with its large inventory of open space into an integrated and organic master plan. • Goal: Amend Zoning Ordinance to include, at a minimum, Safe-by-Design concepts. (Thriving Neighborhoods) Though not yet codified in the Zoning Ordinance, the Development Services department strongly advocates Safe-by-Design concepts in its site plan and design review processes. These concepts are similar to the Architectural Review Guidelines in Chapter 19 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the extent to which Safe-by-Design concepts can be applied may vary depending on site conditions and related factors. Therefore, the concepts may better be suited to remain a policy in the General Plan rather than a development regulation in the zoning ordinance. However, staff welcomes feedback from the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council on this matter. • Goal: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include Low Impact Development (LID). (Natural Resources and Open Space) The term low impact development (LID) refers to systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration or use of Page 11 of 11 stormwater in order to protect water quality and associated aquatic habitat. Like the Safe-by-Design Concepts, the LID concepts have not been codified in the Zoning Ordinance. Many of the Town’s standards, such as requiring stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) and erosion control plans with new development plans largely align with many LID concepts. However, staff welcomes feedback from the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council on this matter. The General Plan also identifies a number of mid-range and long-range goals that will be initiated in the coming years: • Goal: Work with ASLD to prepare a feasibility study for State Trust land and based on the results [of a cost recovery study], consider future revenues that could be generated from development of Trust Land. (Cost of Development) This goal hinges on another goal which requires the Town to perform a cost recovery study mentioned earlier. When and if such a cost recovery study is completed, staff would invite a broader discussion with the Commission and Town Council before proposing amendments to the ordinances. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS Although a number of policy issues have been identified, staff does not recommend any amendments to the General Plan at this time. Substantive changes to any goal in the general plan would require a Major Amendment per the Arizona Revised Statutes, which entails an extensive review and public notification process and could take several months from initiation to completion. However, changes to the implementation steps used to arrive at each goal may only require a minor amendment, which does not require extensive lead time and may be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council at any time. In any case, staff appreciates further direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. ITEM 6. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 06/10/2024 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, REVIEW, AND CONSIDER: Rezoning 11044 and 11052 N. Indigo Dr, located on the west side of Indigo Drive north of Kingstree, from R1-18 to R1-10A to allow the construction of single family homes. Staff Summary (Background) Background and Historical Context The requested rezoning involves two adjacent lots on the west side of Indigo Dr. north of Kingstree Blvd.  These lots are zoned R1-18 and have been from the beginning of the Town. This area was originally platted in 1972 as Block 8 of Plat 203.  Plat 203 covered most of the area north of Kingstree Blvd., east of Fountain Hills Blvd, south of Colony Wash and west of Inca Ave.  The lots along the north side of Kingstree Blvd. were zoned R1-35, the remainder of the area was zoned R1-18.  Block 8 consisted of two large lots: Lot 1, the subject property, totaling about 57,000 sq. ft. and Lot 2, totaling about 54,000 sq. ft.  Block 8, Lot 1, the subject of this rezoning request, was subdivided into these two existing lots in 2019. The surrounding zoning, land uses, and development history are: North:  Zoned R-3, single-family In June, 2015, the Town Council approved zoning case Z14-05 rezoning Lot 2 to R-3 for the construction of a 4-unit condominium building; this area was designated in the 2010 General Plan for multi-family/medium.  According to a 2016 staff report, the condominium project was abandoned due to "economic issues" and the property owner applied for a replat to subdivide Lot 2 to the two lots as they exist today.  Single-family homes were built on each lot, but they could be redeveloped with up to one unit per 3,000 sq. ft. per lot.  These two lots have an average density of 1.6 units per acre. East:  R1-18, single family The house directly east was constructed prior to 1986.  The home to the northeast at Emerald Dr. and Indigo Dr. was constructed prior to 1993. These two lots have an average density of 0.6 units per acre. per acre. R-2, single-family The large lot to the southeast across Indigo Dr. was replatted in 1996 into 4 lots with single-family homes constructed on the lots between 1998 and 2000. These four lots have an average density of 4 units per acre. South: R-2 PUD, multi-family condominiums  The property to the south was rezoned to R-3 PUD in 1996 and appears to be fully developed by 2000.  A condominium plat was approved in 1999.  This development has a density of 11 units per acre. West: R-3, multi-family condominiums  The lot to the west was subdivided in 1997 for the current condominium development which appears to have been completed by 2000. This development has a density of 14 units per acre. General Plan Review The Character Areas Element of the General Plan includes the following:  GOAL 1: Encourage future development, redevelopment and infill in a manner that will maintain and protect existing neighborhoods, the Town’s economic health, community well-being, and natural environment. GOAL 2: Development, redevelopment and infill support Fountain Hill’s small-Town identity and the distinct character of each area while fostering long-term viability. Policy 1. Require that residential infill is compatible with adjacent residential densities and development form to protect the character of residential neighborhoods. Policy 5. Strongly encourage a wide range of housing types, densities and prices to support the current and projected populations (particularly families and working professionals) and to ensure the future stock of affordable housing for all income ranges. Policy 6. Require that development, redevelopment, and infill conform with Exhibit 2, Character Areas Plan map, and Table 1. The General Plan Character Areas Map designation for this area is Neighborhood.  Table 1 describes the existing character as Mixed Neighborhood Residential.  This character type typically includes residential lots between 6,000 and 15,000 sq. ft. and has primarily single residence homes but will contain a mix of attached units and small condominium developments. Rezoning Request The request is to rezone these two lots from R1-18 to R1-10A.  This change will decrease the minimum lot size from 18,000 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft.  The R1-10A also specifically allows for flag lot development.  The applicant has also submitted companion replat applications for each lot to divide each lot into two lots, for a total of 4 resulting lots.  The proposed lots will range in size from 11,773 to 16,644 sq. ft.  One-story, 2,200 to 2,800 sq. ft., single-family homes are proposed for each of the resulting lots. Review and Analysis This area has been platted and prepared for development for nearly 50 years.  Except for the two lots to the north, all the surrounding properties have been built on and occupied since 2000.  Given the variety of housing and lot sizes in the area, the character of the area is described in the General Plan as a mixed-character neighborhood.  The lots to the southeast across Indigo are similar in size to the proposed lots.  The previous General Plan designated this area as medium density, multi-family area with densities from 4–10 units per acre.  Does the requested rezoning encourage infill development in a manner that will maintain and protect the existing neighborhood? The area has been prepared for development for approximately 50 years and the current lots have been subdivided for development since 2019.  During this time there has been no significant attempt to construct homes on these lots.  The proposed lot sizes are similar to those to the southeast across Indigo and provide a transition from the small condominium lots to the south and west.  These single-family lots will maintain the single-family neighborhood that exists on this section of Indigo Dr. Will the infill development be compatible with adjacent densities and development form? The density of the surrounding properties ranges from 0.6 units per acre to 14 units per acre with an overall average density, not including the subject parcel, of 6.7 units per acre.  The proposal for four units on this 1.3 acre parcel results in a density of 3 units per acre, which is on the low end of the developed densities in the area.    If the existing lots were developed as they are, there would be two homes facing Indigo Dr.  With the subdivision as proposed, there will still be just two homes facing Indigo, but there will be four driveways.  The adjacent multi-family zoned lots allow up to 50% lot coverage.  The requested R1-10A district allows up to 40% lot coverage compared to the 25% allowed in the existing R1-18. Both the existing and proposed zoning designations would allow structures up to 30' tall.  The multi-family developments to the south and west are built with two-story units.  The applicant has stated his intention to build single-story homes on these lots, but this cannot be guaranteed.   Will the proposed development provide a wide range of housing types, densities and prices to support the current and projected populations (particularly families and working professionals) and to ensure the future stock of affordable housing for all income ranges? The proposed homes for these lots will be very similar to the ones located across Indigo Dr. to the southeast in terms of lot size and building size.  They will, however, be 25 years newer.  As such, they will likely not have a negative impact on home values in the area.  To meet the policy of the General Plan, a more appropriate consideration would be to have smaller lots to achieve a density of 6 - 8 units per acre for more variety of housing options. Citizen Participation The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 21.  Twenty-four residents of the surrounding area attended the meeting.  The applicant explained their proposal and answered questions.  The concerns expressed and the responses from the applicant are attached in the Citizen Participation Report.  In summary, the neighbors were not supportive of the proposed change. Several of the neighbors have submitted emails expressing their opposition. These are attached to this report.  Some concerns brought up in these emails include impact on traffic, having the additional residences and associated yards, and the change in setback from a 10' side yard to a 7' side yard.  From a staff perspective, the additional traffic from two residences will be minimal and if the reduction in the setback is considered significant, the development could be stipulated to providing the 10' setback. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 Zoning Ordinance Chapter 10 Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) The proposed slight reduction in lot size that results from the change in zoning is consistent with other lots in the area and provides a transition from the medium-density, multi-residences to the south and west to the low-density single-residences to the north and east. The impact of two additional dwelling units on the surrounding properties will be minimal and the development of the lots will increase the value of the area. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to recommend approval (denial) of the requested rezoning. Attachments Vicinity Map  Narrative and Citizen Participation Plan  Proposed Replat  Citizen Participation Report  Neighbor emails  Vicinity CASE: RZ24-000001 SITE / ADDRESS: Lot 1: 11044 N INDIGO DR Lot 2: 11052 N INDIGO DR Lot 1: APN 176-07-933 Lot 2: APN 176-07-934 REQUEST: Rezone from R1-18 to R1-10A. All that is Ariz on a FO U N TAIN HIL L S TOWN OF INC. 1989 MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN REGIONAL PARK SALT RIVER PIMA - MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY FO R T M C D O W E L L Y A V A P A I N A T I O N SC O T T S D A L E Site Location Vicinity MapMap ::CaseCase DetailsDetailsRZ24-000001RZ24-000001 FOUNTAIN HILLS DESERT BOTANICAL GARDEN FOU N T A I N H I L L S B L V D E M E R A L D D R IND I G O D R KI N G S T R E E B L V D AP P I A N WAY Harr Family Homes, LLC info@harrfamilyhomes.com 16824 Ave of the Fountains Suite 23 ph: 602.826.8655 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 11044 & 11052 N Indigo Drive Citizen Participation Plan 11044 N Indigo Drive 11052 N Indigo Drive Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 May 1st, 2024 Purpose: The purpose of this Citizen Participation Plan is to inform citizens, property owners, And nearby neighborhood associations of the rezone application for two lots. This plan will ensure that those affected by this application will have an adequate opportunity to learn about and comment on the proposal. Applicant: Harr Family Homes, LLC Kirk Harr - Member 16824 Ave of the Fountains Suite 23 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 ph: 602-826-8655 email: info@harrfamilybuilders.com Location: The property being considered for this rezone application is located on the Northwest side of Indigo Drive, Northwest of the intersection of Kingstree Blvd and Indigo Drive. Action Plan: In order to provide effective citizen participation in conjunction with this application, the following actions will be taken to provide opportunities to understand and address any real or perceived impacts of the development that members of the community may have. 1. A contact list will be developed of citizens and HOA’s within 300’ of the project location. 2. All persons listed on the contact list will receive a letter describing the project, project schedule, site plan and invitation to a series of two neighborhood meetings to be held at a location to be determined. The letter will also include access information for anyone wanting to attend the meetings virtually. • The first meeting will be an introduction to the project, and opportunity to ask questions and state concerns. A sign-in list will be used and comment forms provided. Copies of the sign-in list will be used and any comment will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. • The second meeting will be held two weeks later and will include responses to questions and concerns of the first meeting. A sign-in list and comment cards will be provided to the Town with the Citizen Participation Report. 3. Presentation will be made to groups of citizens or neighborhood associations upon request. Copies of the sign-in list and any comments will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. 4. An email will be sent to the case planner following each of the scheduled meetings, and at any other time there is significant input, to inform the staff of the progress of implementing the Plan. Schedule: Mail letters by May 1, 2024 First neighborhood meeting May 21, 2024 Second neighborhood meeting June 4, 2024 11044 & 11052 N Indigo Drive Ci4zens Par4cipa4on Mee4ng Notes 5/21/24 5 – 7 pm At the 11044 & 11052 N Indigo Drive Re-Zone request Ci4zens Par4cipa4on Mee4ng on May 21st, 2024 there was 24 members of the surrounding community that were present at the mee4ng from 5pm to 6pm. Introduc4ons were made and Harr Family Homes started the mee4ng speaking first of back ground regarding their history in home building followed by their general inten4on regarding the two parcels on Indigo Drive and their reasoning for reques4ng the Zone change from Medium Density Residen4al R1-18 to Medium Density Residen4al of R1-10a. It was discussed that Harr Family Homes, if approved, would be building single-story, single- family homes in the 2400 to 2800 sq U range with a currently es4mated purchase price when completed in the $1.2 to $1.6m range. The Front two lots are expected to be the larger homes to complement the homes surrounding it on Indigo Drive, while the back two lots would be between the 2400 to 2800 sq U range. When opening the floor to ques4ons from the surrounding neighbors, Rick Murdock of 11200 N Indigo Dr came forward as the spokesperson of the group, as the residents surrounding these two lots had previously already had mee4ngs amongst themselves prior to the Ci4zens Par4cipa4on Mee4ng. The groups general issues with the request for a Zone Change in their neighborhood included the following numbered points that were shared with us, as well as our comments in regard to those concerns that were brought up: 1. The first issue that was brought up was that they felt that since they understood the two lots were zoned R1-18 when their own residences were purchased, that they felt with that knowledge, that they should be able to expect no change to those two lots and that it should follow the current zoning. a. Our response to that issue was that the requested change in zoning was to help the issue that these two lots are in a fishbowl, surrounded on three sides by R-3 Mul=family zoning. On these two lots, we don’t feel that a typical 3000+ sq D home on a R1-18 zoned lot like the homes located east would sell compared with other home & lot op=ons currently for sale in town that offer more privacy, views and aesthe=cs. The lots offer no typical Fountain Hills direct views and on the south side would have a two-story condominium complex towering over the proposed home, with another condominium project on the west side. Our belief in reques=ng a change to R1-10a and keeping in line with the same Medium Density Residen=al would allow a good transi=on to working with the R-3 zoning surrounding the two lots. 2. The group felt that changing the zoning to R1-10a and having 4 smaller lots instead of 2 lots at the R1-18 zoning would nega4vely impact their own home values by lowering their current values. a. We shared a handout with the group that showed a spreadsheet of Fountain Hills Home sales between $1M & $2M by decade. The research showed a constant increase in sq D price star=ng prior to 1990 of $324 to a current average price of $521 per sq D in homes sold 2020 – 2024. We discussed that having new construc=on homes in their neighborhood would help increase their own price per sq D as they sold reflec=ng the increased value of the neighborhood. A smaller home or lot does not have a direct reflec=on on a larger lot or larger homes comp numbers due to the fact that it is based upon a sq D number. b. Also shown, was that using the same 2020 – 2024 report for homes sold in Adero Canyon, with an average lot size of only 9,722 sq D – the average per sq D price was $574, more than $53 more. c. The group of homeowners also acknowledged and understood that even if the R1-18 zoning was kept, that anyone building on the lot could put a smaller home on it similar to what we are asking for in the R1-10a zoning. 3. General typical concerns were addressed as well including issues related to neighbors that were concerned with the following: o Large Street in the middle of the front two homes running to the back proposed lots a. The confusion of a road into the back two proposed lots was discussed and explained that each of the back lots would s=ll have a 30’ driveway easement to the back that would be installed in pavers like all our exis=ng driveways, and it would NOT be a new street or a cul-de-sac. The “easement” would be 30’ and treated like a flag lot, where the driveway would actually be a 14’ paver driveway with full landscape and crushed granite on the sides for it’s finished & landscaped look as it goes toward the back lot. o Turning houses to their sides for any of the homes a. As with the previous issue in thinking that a new street would be used to get to the back two proposed lots with the homes facing the new street, we explained that our homes would not be turned on their sides and would all face forward towards Indigo Drive, with their driveways off of Indigo Drive and their main back yards towards the West. o Privacy and view issues from Kingstree Condos a. We had mul=ple pictures of the surrounding East / West / North / South views from the property. The property line that the Indigo Drive lot has on its south side that fronts the North Kingstree Condo property line is roughly 25’ away from the back pa=os of Kingstree Condos (their actual lot line). There is also roughly a 5’ to 6’ slope from the bogom of the Kingstree Condos to the Indigo Drive property level. We u=lized our exterior renderings to show that at most our tallest point on the home would be around 18’ and again only single story. We do not plan on u=lizing any more height up to the 30’ that is allowed so that we can respechully fit into the area without blocking more than we need to with height. It was discussed that our proposed home plans as shown to the group would focus on less glass on the south side by the Kingstree Condos to afford both sides more privacy. As far as we can determine, from the bogom pa=o’s of Kingstree Condos, our homes would go 13’ up from there for height understanding (taking out the 5’ – 6’ of hillside drop to the lot’s eleva=on). o Privacy and view issues from Emerald View Condos a. As above with the Kingstree Condo conversa=on, we showed an image that from the lower Emerald Mesa condo’s and showed there shouldn’t be any issues of privacy or view issues, as we also like 11200 N Indigo would con=nue the block wall down the back west side of the property. o Having two extra homes on these lots would lead to too much extra noise in the neighborhood. a. We disagreed with this as the lots are surrounded by a minimum of 12 condos on the south side that overlook these two lots, all with lower level and secondary level pa=os for their outdoor space. We feel that adding two addi=onal single family homes would add no more noise than what is currently the standard with 56 different residences surrounding these two lots. o Square footage of proposed homes a. The issue raised was that these two lots should have the same size and make as the two homes to the north and the two R1-18 lots to the west. We explained that for our requested Rezone, that we would be in the 2400 to 2800 sq D range, and re-iterated that even if a builder kept the same zoning, there is no regula=on that they must build a large home on the lot. o Diminished Lot frontage when changing from R1-18 to R1-10a a. In the R1-18 zoning, your minimum frontage amount is 120’. Our proposed rezone would take our front lots down to 107.63’ and 103.35’ with also two 30’ driveway easements that are not included in the front footage listed above. So our total frontage is roughly 271’ across the front of both exis=ng lots. b. We u=lized a handout showing the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning requiremnts comparing R1-18 to R1-10a. The two main differences are that your lot area is minimum of 18,000 sq D compared to minimum 10,000 sq D. The other big difference is that your front width in R1-18 is minimum of 120’ and in R1-10a it is minimum of 80’. So if we were true R1-10a – we would have 10,000 sq D lots and only 80’ frontage. We shared our proposed numbers with the group: o Lot 1A as Proposed – 12,305 sq U lot with 107.63’ frontage o Lot 2A as proposed – 11,773 sq U lot with 104.73’ frontage o Lot 1B as Proposed – 16,644 sq U lot with 103.35’ frontage o Lot 2B as Proposed – 15,800 sq U lot with 110.44’ frontage These proposed project numbers should show our desire to afempt to keep the same type of size and look as we have to the north with the two homes. c. It came to our agen=on aDer the mee=ng that 11200 N Indigo Drive and 11208 N Indigo drive (The two homes to the North of the proposed lots) are Zoned Mul=family R-3. The 11200 N Indigo frontage is only 89.53’ across, and the 11208 N Indigo frontage is 97.58’. Even with changing zoning, our frontage will be closer to R1-18 zoning than the two neighbors are who are actually closer themselves to R1-10a Zoning. AUer these conversa4ons and the final ques4ons answered the mee4ng concluded. There is a planned email follow up for some clarifica4on on a couple of the points that were brought up regarding the zoning, namely that the two homes to the North are not R1-18 but R-3 from a replat done on 5/17/16 that we were not aware of, and not sure if the owners or neighbors are aware of either at this current 4me. Chad Harr Harr Family Homes LLC Emails received regarding the rezoning at 11044 and 11052 N. Indigo Mr. John Wesley Development Services Director Dear Mr Wesley, We are homeowners in Kingstree Village adjacent to the above noted propertfes. We want to relay our concern with the proposed rezoning to divide the two lots into four lots. When we purchased our property we bought with the understanding that the undeveloped lots on Indigo Drive were for the constructfon of one home on each lot. Allowing four homes on those two lots will clearly impact and disrupt the character of the general area. We oppose the proposed zoning change. Thank you, Don and Barb Brookbank 11022 N Indigo Drive #121 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Ph 780-218-7197 Both Gail and I wish to go on the record as opposing the potential re-zoning of 11044 & 11052 N Indigo Drive by Harr Family Homes. We support responsible development that aligns with the current zoning and character of the neighborhood. We do not support any variances or a revised zoning classification for the properties. Please do not allow this attempt for re-zoning to be approved. Thank You, Bill and Gail Pape Bill and Gail Pape 16128 East Emerald Drive Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Bill Cell 480-390-1395 billpapeaz@gmail.com Gail Cell 480-390-7748 gailpape87@gmail.com Please be advised I support responsible development that aligns with the current zoning and character of the neighborhood. I do not support any variances or a revised zoning classificatfon of the two vacant lots on Indigo Drive. Rosemary DiPietra 11208 N. Indigo Drive Fountain Hills, AZ. 85268 Good Morning, We reside at 11022 N. Indigo Drive and have been notified that there is a pending rezoning application on our street for two empty lots at 11044 and 11052 N. Indigo Dr, We have examined the developers informational packet dated May 1, 2024 and would now like to express our opposition to the rezoning of the two lots in question. The current zoning for one single family home on each lot should remain. If you have any questions please let us know. Jim and Sally Burke 11022 N. Indigo Drive Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Good day, Tonight the residents of Indigo and surrounding properties are meeting with Harr Family Homes regarding their proposal to change the zoning on two vacant lots on Indigo. They want to build 4 homes instead of two (one per lot) that is current zoning. We will express our complete opposition to the builder tonight and expect a large turnout of concerned citizens. Last week, we met as a neighborhood and the consensus is to oppose this proposal at every step. We will NOT support any changes to the current zoning. When each of us purchased our properties we evaluated the vacant lots and the zoning. We were comfortable with the fact that they would build on lots of similar size to other SFRs and with homes of similar value. Changing that now is unacceptable. It's bad enough that we are surrounded by "businesses" as the town allows so many short term rentals. We urge you to hear the desires and concerns of your current residents and constituents and not allow any changes to current zoning. Thank you for your time and consideration and representation of your current residents. Best, Vicki and Steve Lynes 11041 N Indigo Drive City Clerk, please kindly forward to all City Council members. Dear Members of the City Council and P&Z Commission, I am writfng to express my strong oppositfon to the proposed rezoning of 11044 and 11052 Indigo from R1-18 to R1-10A. As a concerned resident of Indigo Drive, and an immediate neighboring property, I believe this change will have several negatfve impacts on my property and our nearby community. I urge you to thoughtiully consider the proposed rezoning of the Indigo lots, as I believe the potentfal changes will have adverse effects on traffic, neighborhood character, environment, and community. The proposed changes allow for setback variances that will encroach unreasonably onto neighbors. My property line to the south will now be shared with two separate residents, two separate backyards, and with a dismal 7 foot setback. The neighborhood has been built by all residents respectfng and following the guidelines set forth by these very city committees and was done without the request or financial convenience of variances. To change these requirements now, only to support a financial proforma for a developer, would break the trust of those who have created the real community value within the neighborhood. I entfrely support that these propertfes should and need to be developed however, it must be completed in similar characteristfcs that currently exist in the neighborhood. Therefore, I believe that maintaining the current zoning is in the best interest of our community. Thank you for your attentfon to this matter. Sincerely, Ashleigh Gerhardt 11200 N. Indigo Drive Fountain Hills, AZ 86268 leighsha19@hotmail.com 623-238-8077 To Whom it may Concern: We are homeowners in Kingstree Village adjacent to the above noted properties. We want to relay our concern with the proposed rezoning to divide the two lots into four lots. We believe the current zoning allowing for two residences to be built appropriate for the character of the general area. The proposed zoning splits two lots into four and would allow for 4 homes to be built. We strongly oppose the proposed rezoning. This concern is voiced by all of our neighbors as well. James and Kim Miller 11022 N. Indigo Dr. #127 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 To Whom it may Concern: We are homeowners in Kingstree Village adjacent to the above noted properties. We want to relay our concern with the proposed rezoning to divide the two lots into four lots. We believe the current zoning is appropriate for the character of the general area. We oppose the proposed rezoning. Thank you, Don and Barb Brookbank 11022 N Indigo Drive #121 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Ph 780-218-7197 I agree with the current contract for the land use & zoning for the building of two homes. This use will maintain the general character of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Brenda Samaniego Bruce and Joleen Miller are 20 year owners of unit 128 at Kingstree Villas. We agree with the current contract for the land use and zoning for the Two vacant lots. We disagree with the proposed rezoning of the two vacant lots. Bruce and Joleen Miller Greetings Fountain Hills Officials, I, Tracy Mora and Jeremy Murchison, write to you to jointly, yet as separate owners of two different units within the Kingstree Village Community, express that we do not support any variances or a revised zoning classification. We plan to attend the upcoming meetings and join our fellow neighbors in their shared opposition of this proposal. Please make note of this written communication and forward to any and all council members that were unintentionally left off the recipient list. Respectfully, Please be advised I am firmly against the rezoning request on Indigo Dr. I will be at both upcoming meetfngs to voice my opinion. Jim Miller 11208 N Indigo dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268