Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__08-12-24_0600_642       NOTICE OF MEETING REGULAR MEETING FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION      Chairperson Peter Gray  Vice Chairperson Rick Watts Commissioner Clayton Corey Commissioner Patrick Dapaah Commissioner Dan Kovacevic Commissioner Phil Sveum Commissioner Scott Schlossberg      TIME:6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING WHEN:MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 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 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 July 8, 2024.     5.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: A request for approval of a Special Use Permit for property located at 12005 N.Panorama to allow residential use of commercially zoned property.      6.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance #24-13 amending Zoning Ordinance Section 5.14, Home Occupations, regarding allowances for on-street parking.      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 August 12, 2024 2 of 2 ITEM 4. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 08/12/2024 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant Staff Contact Information: Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission July 8, 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 July 8, 2024.   SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission July 8, 2024. Attachments Minute Summary and Verbatim Transcript  Planning and Zoning Commission July 8, 2024 1 of 2 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 8, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Vice Chairperson Watts called the Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on July 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 (telephonically); Vice Chairperson Rick Watts; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Patrick Dapaah; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic, Commissioner Scott Schlossberg and Commissioner Phil Sveum (telephonically) Staff Present: Development Services Director John Wesley 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 June 10, 2024. MOVED BY Commissioner Corey to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning June 10, 2024 SECONDED BY Commissioner Dapaah. Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Sveum abstained. 5. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance #24-08 amending Chapter 17, Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Antenna. The following residents addressed the Commission: Lori Troller 6. MOVED BY Chair Gray to forward a recommendation of no recommendation to the Town Council regarding Ordinance #24-08 amending Chapter 17, Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Antenna. SECONDED BY Commissioner Dapaah. Vote:7-0 Unanimously Commissioner Corey Aye Commissioner Dapaah Aye Commissioner Kovacevic Aye Commissioner Schlossberg Aye Commissioner Sveum Aye Vice Chair Watts Aye Chair Gray Aye Planning and Zoning Commission July 8, 2024 2 of 2 7. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. Vice Chair Watts mentioned bicycles and pedestrians. 8. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director. 9. REPORT from Development Services Director. Mr. Wesley stated that the August meeting will include two Special Use Permits and one text amendment. 10. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Watts adjourned the Regular meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on July 8, 2024 at 8:11 p.m. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Chairperson Peter Gray ATTESTED AND PREPARED BY: Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant 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 July 8, 2024. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this day of July 8, 2024 Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 54 Post-Production File Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 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 JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 54 VICE CHAIR WATTS: Why don't we call this July 8th, 2024, Planning and Zoning meeting to order? And please stand and we'll do 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. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. Paula, can I get a rollcall, please? WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Sveum? SVEUM: Here. WESLEY: Vice Chair Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Here. WOODWARD: Chairman Gray? CHAIR GRAY: Here. WOODWARD: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WATTS: And with that, I had this splendid introduction for Phil, but seeing as he's not here. Sorry, Phil, we'll wait till next time. But nice to meet you. SVEUM: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Paula, do we have any cards for call to the public? WOODWARD: No, Chair (sic). VICE CHAIR WATTS: No speakers. Thank you. Then, let's move on to item number 4, consideration of the minutes. Can I have a motion for approving the minutes? Don't everybody speak up at once. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 54 COREY: I'll motion to approve minutes. DAPAAH: I'll second that. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Sounds good. Thank you. And do we have to do a rollcall on the minutes or just -- WOODWARD: No, you could do "all in favor". VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- consensus? Right. We're all in favor. Consensus. KOVACEVIC: Aye. COREY: Aye. DAPAAH: Aye. SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: I didn't hear Phil or Chair Gray regarding the meeting minutes. CHAIR GRAY: Aye, Paula. WOODWARD: Okay. SVEUM: I'll abstain. WOODWARD: Okay. Six-zero. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. So let's go to item number 5: consideration and possible action regarding ordinance 24-08, amending chapter 17 wireless telecommunication towers and antenna. All yours, John. WESLEY: Thank you, Chair. Commissioners, thank you for being here on a hot evening. Just waiting for this PowerPoint to start here. Let's host it here. Here we go. Yes, it is. Feels good. Okay. So as stated, we're here this evening to continue our discussion of proposed changes to Chapter 17 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with wireless telecommunication facilities. Just a little background here just to keep the record going. We began discussion of this topic back in early 2022 when we received some comments and concerns regarding cell towers. Some of the specific concerns expressed were regarding concerns about them catching fire, providing hierarchy of the site, the spacing, and requiring drive-tests to TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 54 document a need, a need for pollution emission insurance, having a clear administrative process and shot clocks, and concern that we didn't really proper staff to be able to handle this topic. And both small cell and regular cell towers were part of the discussion. As we continued moving forward from there, council getting involved and folks showing up there and expressing some concerns, focus was more on 5G and the number of 5G towers that could come into town and possible health impacts from 5G. And then also, by May of 2023 we're hearing about concerns of undergrounding of utilities. From the concerns being expressed the town council hired Andrew Campanelli to draft an ordinance. We received that ordinance last year and it was reviewed by staff and the council had some discussions with Mr. Campanelli on the ordinance. Just a few things from that ordinance. It allowed colocation of small cell wireless facilities in the right-of-way by right, just get a building permit for those. It was silent, did say anything about how we would regular small cell in the right-of-way that required a new pole. Did not address broadband or separate out data services in any way. It did not address or require underground services. And --- although NEPA requirements were with regard to initial application, review, and approval. Following the review with council, council directed staff to continue working on an ordinance based on the things that we had learned. And so that's where we've been since then, began in January meeting this year, seeking commission and public input on what changes were needed to the codes so we know what to focus on. And most of the comments that we'd received related back to broadband service. We continued review in March and April, and you held a public hearing at your May meeting of a draft ordinance. Over the course of these various meetings, we have heard and understand that there is concerns about our small cell in the right-of-way regulations and a desire to see an increase in updates to that. That's not part of this project right now, it is something that council could direct us to do at some point in the future. And we have heard concerns about the need to make a better distinction between voice and broadband services; TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 54 that's not in our current ordinance. As we have looked at other ordinances, looked at what the consultant provided, we have not really found any direction on how we can do that. In order to do that, if that is a desire of council, we really would need to hire a consultant to bring in and focus on that type of regulation. We've also heard the concern about undergrounding broadband service, certainly that is a better way to provide the service, if it could be done. But that's really a separate topic in terms of how one would go about, how the town would initiate that and manage that type of system. So that's, again, that's really not a part of what's discussed this evening. But again, it's understood that it's a topic of interest. The goals we have had are to balance needs for quality of service with public safety, limiting towers in or near residential, establishing that clear and manageable review process, providing for the maintenance and ongoing compliance, aesthetics, and addressing the concerns that we've heard. So with that bit of a background, we can get into, then, the ordinance that's evolved from the discussions that we've had. And most of this is going to be things we've talked about the last few months. There are a few things that I have heard over the last couple of meetings that I've put into the report, and we'll discuss this evening about some policy modifications but a lot of it, again, is the same thing that we've been reviewing. So this is the outline. The current ordinance on the left, the proposed outline on the right. So Section 17.01 sets forth the purpose, intent, and applicability with subsection A being the purpose. Now there was some mention at one of the previous meetings that some of the statements in there could maybe be a little stronger. And so I took a stab at doing four of those. Instead of saying "encourage", promote; instead of "minimize", limit; instead of "encourage", require in a couple of statements. Any thoughts, feelings on those? Any others that -- amendments that could be made there? Comments? Questions? VICE CHAIR WATTS: John, I'm personally glad to see changing "encourage" to "require". I think that strengthens it a lot. So I appreciate that. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 54 WESLEY: Okay. Moving on to B, about the intent. It includes a four-part balancing test in there. There was some comments and questions about that test and how it is used. It's really a test of the ordinance itself. Letting anybody in the industry that's looking at this know what went in to drafting the ordinance and what we're trying to do and accomplish with the ordinance. And so the four-part test really applies to looking at the ordinance itself and is it doing the things it says: enabling the services, minimizing the towers, minimizing impacts, and complying with the TCA. And we feel it does those things. And the next part of 17.01 is applicability. The first part to that, just moving from another portion of the code with current requirements. There are a couple of additional sections that's been in there since we began. One was to -- because of the separation of the different elements of our wireless communication ordinance having the small cellular right-of-way in a different location, we added that statement in here, so anybody looking in this ordinance would know where to look for the small cell right-of- way. And then we've also had some questions over time about what are often called COWs, cells on wheels. When we have special events or we have outages in some places, or they're changing out a tower, then you bring in the temporary on-wheels tower and you have your regulations for those. So we've added some of that in here. The first one being that if it's for seven days or less, you basically can do. Things that are longer than that would require any further review. From there we move into Section 17.02, definition section. We propose to add three additional definitions to what is in the current ordinance. One is for utility service antennas. These are those little antennas you'll see on utility boxes around some places. There's one out here off of La Montana by the bus stop. Those types of things have been cropping up lately as the utilities put in communication devices between different boxes, just put switches, and turn it on and off valves and those types of things. And so we didn't really have those covered in any way in the ordinance. So we've added that language in here and it starts with this definition. And then just basic definition of what we mean by wireless communication and wireless TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 of 54 facility. Those weren't in the current ordinance. Going on from there, we move into Section 17.03, which is the general requirements section. And so this provides this kind of overall list of the types of things that we typically need to see and review with regard to different types of cell tower applications. They're not all required in every case but gives an overall view of what we're looking for. And so again, here's a list, not comprehensive but some of the main things that are covered in this particular section. In the current ordinance we did add some more details with regard to aesthetics than what's in the current ordinance, to try to minimize those adverse impacts on the views that might happen with cell towers. And again a section on utility service antennas because that's a new piece. KOVACEVIC: Do you want comments now or you want them later -- WESLEY: Now, is fine with me if it's okay with the chairman. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Any time you're ready. KOVACEVIC: So in the -- we were given model ordinances, for lack of a better term. A number of the other ordinances required monopole towers and prohibited lattice towers, and also required stealth technology. And I don't see where we've made that restriction. Is that intentional or is that -- and what's -- if not, why not? WESLEY: Vice Chair, Commissioner Kovacevic, so we haven't taken the step of monopoles. I think we could. I think that's what we're most likely going to see anyway. But if we could look at a place to add the monopoles, most of the aesthetic design criteria in here are getting towards making it stealth by hiding it, disguising it. Again, maybe, that could be a little bit stronger, but that's the intent of a lot of the aesthetic standards, they just don't use the word "stealth" anywhere. VICE CHAIR WATTS: You have question, Patrick? DAPAAH: John, I noticed this letter that you sent to us today addressed a lot in regards to Section 17.03. What are your thoughts on some of these federal requirements that is mentioned here? WESLEY: Vice Chair, Commissioner Dapaah, I'll make a brief comment now. I put a slide TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 of 54 at the end to kind of cover it a little bit more comprehensively. But with regard to this particular piece, all the standards we pulled in here were from the consultant's draft that they sent us. And again, that's a professional in the field who's worked these kind of ordinances elsewhere, so we feel pretty confident that they ought to be appropriate and ought to be within the law. It's something, given this comment, we will go back and review with our attorney just to make sure. But I think we're pretty comfortable. VICE CHAIR WATTS: And John, a couple of questions -- and a couple may go back a little bit. But can you define "stealth"? What does that mean? I mean camouflage is one thing. Impersonating a cactus is another. What is "stealth"? WESLEY: If you're asking me? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yes. WESLEY: Vice Chair, stealth and camouflage are the same things. You're trying to hide it so it's not as obvious that it's there. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Because I think that the -- I'm not sure if it's the Vulcans or the Romulans had the stealth technology. I didn't know if we were incorporating that or not. Another one is, how many providers can be on every tower? And along those lines, is the output accretive? Do we look at it from that perspective or do we look at it in a singularity? WESLEY: So Chairman, with regard to the first question, I think it would come down to the design of the pole and what it was designed to hold in terms of the number of providers that can go on there. Technology's also evolved a little bit and so it may change. Mostly, we're seeing antennas get smaller and more compact but not always. Sometimes they are bigger. And so again, those things may affect the ultimate number of providers that can go on a pole. And with regard to your second question, which I couldn't repeat because I can't exactly remember how you said it, but again, it gets into a level of technology that I probably can't really answer. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, I think it's something to consider because if everything has -- if it's linear and something has an output of 50, whatever that might be -- 50 decibels, 85 decibels, but if you have four and the accumulation is based on the 85 -- 340 is that TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 of 54 something that we should manage to make sure that the accretive output isn't past what the FCC regulations are? WESLEY: And again, I really can't answer that question. The tests that are done of the RF radiation from the antennas, I don't know if that gets into cumulative or if it is something that just measures the individual outputs. VICE CHAIR WATTS: The testing devices that I've looked at in kind of preparation for this, look at the output in total. But I don't know that everyone has a different frequency. So I'm not positive but I think it's something we ought to look into to make sure. And my last question is, there's an electrical meter on this site. Do you know what the ampacity of that electrical meter is? Is it -- because that would have some limiting effect on the number of providers as well, because the amount of equipment. WESLEY: Chairman, no, I don't. I think that would be -- again, as I think through the things I've seen in ordinances and what's in our ordinance, the emphasis has always been on the tower itself and what it can hold and the engineering structure there. The equipment base at the bottom has been less of a concern and gets updated and changed around as needed to handle the towers that are on the pole. And so I think they make that kind of change as needed based on the providers on the tower. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I still think that we have some responsibility to look at the size of the disconnect. If it's going to be a 100 amp disconnect, 200 amp, 400 amp -- some size. Because the primary conductors are going to have to be installed, initially, by the utility and the conduit sizes would have to be sized appropriately for the conductors. So we wouldn't want to be tearing up streets again particularly if we're going to go eventually look at streets. So I know that's something. I know we've talked about it in the building codes, about how large they are, what their requirements are, phasing and that sort of thing. So I think we should at least address that and give some consideration. WESLEY: So just to make sure I understand, Vice Chair, that if we look at some of the places in the code where we talk about the colocation, in addition to the engineering of the tower, if we put in a requirement that they provide service upfront capable for the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 of 54 multiple carriers so that doesn't require that rework? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yes. WESLEY: Is that what you're suggesting? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yes. If that mean, originally we put in a 100 amp disconnect and that is sufficient to support four colocated providers, we wouldn't want to put eight on there and then have to go back and reinvent the wheel for that to particular feature. WESLEY: Or on the other hand, if we didn't pay attention to that upfront, and so we let them put in 50 amp to start with and it can't support any additional providers, and they say, oops, sorry; we can't colocate because we didn't put in enough service to start with. We don't want to limit ourselves in that way either. So make sure they put in sufficient -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's correct. WESLEY: -- in the beginning, to cover two or three or whatever. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Correct. Thank you. WESLEY: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. WESLEY: You ready to go on? KOVACEVIC: Yeah. Just what I saw in the ordinance is what they're going to do with electrical supply except to say it had to be underground. But what it did say, a new pole would have to be able to handle at least three colocated facilities. WESLEY: Okay. So moving on then with some of the general requirements, again, had some discussions about this along the way. We've added some language, more than what's in the current code with regard to at the time of submission, information about the noise, and providing the acoustical information. And with an initial application we can require noise baffling. And then also, the engineering certifications. And then move to this section of the code. Setbacks. Section 17.03B has information about setbacks of towers to different land uses and also separations between towers. At the last -- so in the current code the most restrictive is 200 feet from habitated residential use, single family to a tower, or I think, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 of 54 it's 300 percent of the height of the tower. And then from there they kind of shrink down to not being a specific separation requirement from industrial. There was a comment at the last meeting in May that we ought to increase those numbers, and what I got from reviewing it was 500 feet should be the standard for all residential. And then also to increase the separation between towers. I haven't changed anything in the ordinance yet at this point. I felt it needed some further discussion because it was just one comment. But did take a look at what those numbers might mean. And kind of hard to read all that map but basically the areas in blue are areas that are at least 500 feet away from any residential use of any kind. With one there, and that was -- I don't think that's going to work. Let me try the mouse. This piece right there shouldn't be on here because that's within 500 feet of a residential use. And then from there, if we look at where there are existing towers and apply the separation requirements, it gives us just a few locations where a new tower could go without required council review. VICE CHAIR WATTS: The -- KOVACEVIC: The old -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Go ahead. KOVACEVIC: The old ordinance was 300 feet? WESLEY: 200 feet or 300 percent of the height of the tower. And that was just for single-family residential. If it's multifamily or if it's zoned residential but not built yet, just platted, those numbers start to reduce a little bit. That type of thing. KOVACEVIC: What's the -- why would we -- if it's vacant, unplatted but zoned residential, why would we reduce the setback if somebody's going to live there some day? WESLEY: Again, I didn't draft the ordinance, but I assume the idea was if the tower's going there first and then you're platting it, you'll plat it with that in mind and adjust your plat or people then that are buying the lots will know that the tower's there and will make that decision, rather than the other way around if the home has been there TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 of 54 first. KOVACEVIC: That's all. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. Commissioner Corey? COREY: John, so this map is with the 500 feet? WESLEY: Right. COREY: Did you see a map that was with the 300? Did it change that much? WESLEY: Vice Chair, Commissioner, I knew someone would ask me that question. But no, we didn't. Because the current setup is -- it has different numbers based on whether it's zoned and platted or it's vacant and there's just too many iterations of that to try and put that one together to show all the variations. So we just did this to show the impact of what 500 feet would be. VICE CHAIR WATTS: And John, I'd suggest including the word, "minimum of 500". I wouldn't want it to be any less and I don't think there should be much in the way of discretion to make it less. So "minimum" should be preceding 500. And the other question is -- that goes back to the noise. I'm not really sure how much noise these make but wouldn't it be prudent to say that they should all have acoustical enclosures? WESLEY: Well, all have the screen walls around them. That's the block walls around them as a minimum. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I'm thinking more of the -- if you walk by a genset or any type of electronic devices, there's a buzzing that goes on. And I'd like to see that contained as well. So an acoustical enclosure, I would recommend adding that in as a requirement. WESLEY: Okay. KOVACEVIC: I'd also like to add -- the old ordinance had a 50 decibel limit at the property line and I just -- I'm in favor of that. I think that the noise section here is just -- it's too squishy. It can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. WESLEY: It looks like I got two of the same here by mistake. And again, Commissioners we can make that kind of change if you'd like. The last time that the town reviewed and updated our noise ordinance with input from our town prosecutor, he strongly advised against using decibels because they're just so difficult to enforce ultimately. And so TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 of 54 we've taken them out everywhere else in the code but if you'd like to put it back we can certainly add that in here. So I want to go to this table then, for just a moment if we could, and see what consensus -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, before we move off of decibels I would like to affirm there's a consistency with this type of decibel output noise. There's an inconsistency with everything else that we've tried to measure as decibels, and I still have -- I believe the argument is still valid, that people can be loud, there can be parties going on and so on, so I kind of understand where it's difficult to measure based on decibels. But in this particular case, because of the consistency of the equipment's operation, the decibel output is going to be consistent and not inconsistent. So I think we should have it in there. WESLEY: Okay. Is that consensus? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. COREY: I think so. But if I could just ask a question, just for my clarification? Where are we hearing this noise? What kind of tower or box would I have walked past sometime in walking around Fountain Hills? Like, where am I hearing this? Where does the noise come from? VICE CHAIR WATTS: It comes from the electronic devices that -- I mean, there's transformers, there's rectification circuits, there's all sorts of things that can generate noise and if you don't at least limit the amount of noise, to Commissioner Kovacevic's point, which is 50 decibels, then you could crank up that power and make it more annoying. Because there are certain times when a transformer, for instance, buzzes and it's extremely annoying, even in a mechanical room -- as Commissioner Dapaah can tell you. You walk by and you may not hear it at certain times, but you can at other times when there's a load on that particular transformer, for instance. COREY: So are we like more proactive about this? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yes, absolutely. COREY: Versus there was -- it wasn't complaint-driven or something that somebody TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 of 54 said, we've heard a loud one around town. VICE CHAIR WATTS: It's experience-driven. I've -- COREY: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- I can attest to it. I've got Patrick's head going like this, says yes. Everybody knows there is noise generated by electrical devices, including transformers. So that 50 decibels at the property line makes a lot of sense. And hence the acoustical enclosure as well. WESLEY: Chair, thinking about what you just said in terms of at the property line, and I guess we would want to be clear is that at the property line or is that outside the enclosure screen wall? How far away do we really want to be? Because sometimes -- and I guess it really -- maybe it should be at the property line because you can't hear if it's loud on the property, then I mean it's not an issue. VICE CHAIR WATTS: The more restrictive one would be outside the enclosure. So if we have an acoustical enclosure that's going to dampen it somewhat. But even acoustical enclosures are designed for a certain decibel containment. So I would say if we were outside the immediate enclosure, that's where I would like to see it. That would be as quiet as you can get it. WESLEY: Okay. Is that -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay? WESLEY: Going down into the table on the setbacks. So again, Vice Chair, what I heard, at least for these top few, maybe it's for all the residential ones, you'd like to see all those be at least 500 feet? VICE CHAIR WATTS: How does this table compare to the one that I just saw that had 1,500 feet? WESLEY: No, this is separation between towers. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. So go back -- thank you. Residences, right. Yes, this is the one I'd like to see a minimum of 500 feet. WESLEY: This works a little bit backwards on itself. But, basically, it says up here in 2, that -- I think it's up here in 1. That in the table of the setbacks you have to follow, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 of 54 council may reduce those. Which basically says that that kicks you into the other review in order to have something that's less than 500 feet away. COREY: So it's back -- I'm sorry. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Go ahead, Commissioner Corey. COREY: I'm sorry. Thank you. So what you're saying here is, because it's less, it's 100 feet, that gives more flexibility to have that meeting with the residents? WESLEY: So I'm saying it's -- the way it's worded currently, because it can kick it to council, by putting the 500 feet in here, you're not saying you'll never get one within 500 feet of a residence. It just means that in order to do it within 500 feet of any residentially zoned property or used property, it would have to go to council for review. COREY: Whereas right now it's within 100 feet? WESLEY: Right now it's 300 feet. Anything closer than 300 feet has to go to council. COREY: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's exactly what I'm looking for. To maximize the distance and I don't think there's any way to prohibit anybody who doesn't like the 500 feet to go and petition council for a variance. I think a variance is a natural thing to do. But I think that the councilmembers need to understand the implication of making it any closer than 500 feet or allowing it any closer. So variances should be nonexistent as far as I'm concerned. WESLEY: Using that term "variance" to me that means it's going to the board of adjustment. So I'm not sure you mean variance. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, you said town council and I interpret that as variance, so my bad. I'd go to council and hope that they don't approve it. WESLEY: So public review process for anything under 500 feet. And so basically -- well, let me ask this other question then. In terms of the nonresidentially zoned piece is it 500 feet there also or is that none, like it has been? If we're trying to encourage them to go in nonresidentially zoned property, it can't be 500 feet from residential and 500 feet away from everything else, then everything is going to require a special use permit then why doesn't it just say that upfront? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 16 of 54 VICE CHAIR WATTS: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: That was my -- WESLEY: And that's fine if that's what the council -- KOVACEVIC: -- that was my -- WESLEY: -- if that's what you want to do. KOVACEVIC: -- takeaway from this. In all eight of the model ordinances there was a public process. They weren't all necessarily through planning commission and town council from the various municipalities. But there were only even one or two that just said okay, you've got to notify everybody within 750 feet of the tower or everybody within 1,000 feet of the tower -- all the residents. But in six of the eight, it was conditional use permits, special use permits, it was -- I would say in probably four of the eight, it was planning commission/town council to get approval. And so I would -- I am coming down on the side of everything's a special use permit. CHAIR GRAY: Chair, I concur with Commissioner Kovacevic. VICE CHAIR WATTS: What's that do to us, John, as far as everything we've got outlined already? I mean, if these are the guidelines, but it still requires a special use permit? WESLEY: So the way it's drafted today -- and I'll stay here. That is shown really starting here in terms of the types of applications. So today we have administratives, which are mostly modifications to existing towers, but it does allow for new towers if they meet the separation requirements. But if we're getting rid of any separation requirements for new towers, so that piece would go away. Or it's at least going to change to 500 feet it seems like. And then -- so the public review would be for all new towers and any modifications to existing towers that exceed the limits that are described in the section on the administrative review. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So we've eliminated all of the administrative review process, if we eliminate the table for 500 feet? WESLEY: For new towers. VICE CHAIR WATTS: For new towers, correct. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 17 of 54 WESLEY: Right. KOVACEVIC: But are we? I mean, the -- we still have to give the tower builder a set of design criteria. And that is part of the design criteria. You have to be 500 feet from the property line if that's where we're coming down on this. I don't think that the table goes away. I think the table has to be in there and just -- that's part of what the builder has to hit, or the permit he has to hit. WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner, just to make sure I'm clear on that. So that sounds like you're saying that if you are less than 500 feet away from any residential use of any kind, you just can't go in. And then if you're beyond that, then you can apply for a special use permit. Is that what you are suggesting? KOVACEVIC: No. I'm not saying you can't go in, but if you come in at less than 500 feet, your application is less likely to be approved. You're won't -- you're swimming upstream in a big way. I mean, I guess, who knows if we're -- I mean, if we need the tower we should have the flexibility to do the tower, but it should be part of the criteria that we're, I think, 500 feet. Again, if that's what we decided. I mean, I think Paradise Valley which is built up as 300 and so at some point -- at 300 I would say absolutely. If they're less than 300 they shouldn't come in. But I -- hard and fast, I don't know how hard and fast it has to be. If they come in for, lack of a better word, a variance. WESLEY: I'm not sure which direction you want to go, but I'll point out this one page that was coming up on the slides and that's in terms of the hierarchy of sites, is another way to approach this, either in conjunction with or instead of. Because it sounds like, at least some of what you're trying to do is direct them to be as far away from residential as possible. And so if that's what we want, then we should maybe make it as easy as possible to go where you really want them. If, a minute ago we were saying everything should have a special use permit, then it really doesn't matter if you're applying in a residential or commercial, you'd have to go through a special use permit. So again, maybe it's this hierarchy of sites criteria, where you've got to -- if you're trying to go in a residential area you've really got to justify why you're going there versus the ones we really give a priority to in the industrial areas or the commercial areas. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 18 of 54 VICE CHAIR WATTS: John, why couldn't we do both? Why couldn't we say in order to apply for a special use permit you have to meet this minimum conditions; that 500-foot threshold? I mean, I think it effectively does the same thing that Commissioner Kovacevic said is what we're trying to do, it's not an either/or, it's a "it-has-to-be". We've given them design specifications that if you want to apply, which you are required to do, consider the fact that at a minimum you have to be 500 feet. WESLEY: We could do that. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. WESLEY: But again, when we do that the blue areas on the map are the only places that are left and within those blue areas some of them aren't available at all, because of the existing towers that are already there. So it leaves you a spot in there, leaves you a spot right there. It leaves you this area, which it probably wouldn't happen in, you've got a lake in the plat 08 area that's already developed. It leaves you these two places. And those are the only areas in town then that meet that initial criteria of 500 feet away and are separated from existing towers. And then within those areas, you'd have to apply for a special use permit, that's what I'm hearing. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. No, that makes sense to me. We have a consensus on that? We're okay with it? COREY: Sure. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Patrick? We're good? SVEUM: Can I ask a question? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Sure. It sounds like Phil. Go ahead, Phil. SVEUM: Yeah. I guess, I -- and I'm not an expert by any stretch with this, I just got into it. But I -- what's the rationale between 300 and 500? I mean, is there scientific rationale that there's -- it minimizes this health risk? It has a impact on valuations of property? I mean, where is the I guess, the specific advantage between 300 and 500 feet? VICE CHAIR WATTS: I think -- because I'm not getting John to cooperate by answering for me. I think the issue is both property values, health and welfare. Because we still TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 19 of 54 don't know for sure the governance of the accretiveness of an output on a particular tower. So if we design for four providers and we end up with six or eight, are they the same frequency, complementary frequencies? So I think it has an effect -- potentially has an effect on both property values and health and safety. The closer you are to this -- if you can envision a cloud coming off of the output port part of the antenna, there's a stream -- there's a cone or a stream, a cloud in some fashion, and it has the potential to have a problem that cause health problems. On the other side there is a physical component of a -- I think it's a three by three by four base with a tower with a monopole on top of it, that could potentially be in somebody's front yard. And that has a detrimental effect on the property values. So both of those things can be considered as potentially detrimental and that's what we were trying to avoid or to minimize the opportunity for any tower to go in anywhere. Does that help, Phil? SVEUM: Yeah, it does. It sounds like it's just to minimize whatever impacts there might be. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Correct. SVEUM: Impacts really are not -- they're not specific right now, obviously, they generally are. But this is a way to try to minimize that impact? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Correct. SVEUM: Okay. Thank you. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. DAPAAH: Chair, is this -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Go ahead, Patrick. DAPAAH: So 500 feet is this -- does that sound like something that will pass? I mean, what are other municipalities doing? What is Paradise Valley -- you see that thing you mentioned -- 300? And -- KOVACEVIC: Paradise was the shortest distance at 300. Then there were a number at 500. And then some of them are silent. Some of them, like John was pointing out, there's preferential site criteria which doesn't really give you a distance. So I mean, everybody's all over the board. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 20 of 54 VICE CHAIR WATTS: But the numbers that I've looked at, the number of ordinances, it's north of eight. They have been 500 or better. 500 is the minimum and it looks like we mitigated some of the potential problems by the areas in blue, as John's outlined, by having it 500 feet. DAPAAH: Okay. Along with trying to control sound and all that, and all these requirements, 500 seems pretty reasonable then. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. I'd like 1,500 but we're not going to get it. WESLEY: Okay. Are we -- so again, what I heard what you want to see in the ordinance is, a criteria that any new towers have to be at least 500 feet away from any residentially zoned or used property, as a minimum to then be able to continue on to get a special use permit to the town council. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Correct. WESLEY: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Chairman Gray, comments? CHAIR GRAY: No. I mean, I'm with you. 1,500; 2,000; 3,000. I don't really care for any of this. So if we think 500 is on par with piers and it's not a outlier, that's what we have to avoid in these scenarios. We can't be --- we can't have such a tremendous outlier that it's dismissed, then I'm good with 500. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Thank you. WESLEY: Vice Chair, and Chair Gray, you don't have those other ordinances in front of you right now. From what I recall from them, however, is that you could still apply for a conditional use permit in those other areas within the towns, it just had that limit on where you could go without having to apply. I don't think in those other towns there's a total prohibition of any place else in town that didn't meet that criteria. CHAIR GRAY: You know, I don't really want to belabor all this that much anymore. But I kind of view this as kind of the same -- my way of thinking, right? So I view this as why is this any different than how liquor licenses are apportioned in places? We can say, yep you can put a tower here and that tower can have two antennas on it, I don't really care whose antennas they are or the diversity of those antennas. But there's limitations TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 21 of 54 there and if the next provider is willing to lease that antenna at a higher premium, let it be transactional. I don't know that we should -- I don't know that we should open up capacity necessarily on private property. WESLEY: Moving on? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Please. WESLEY: Okay. So moving on in Section 17.03, next Section C talks about buildings and other equipment. And basically, this addresses some things about the equipment cabinets and how they relate in a couple of different settings. Colocation, so just moved from another portion of the code. No changes but again, it kind of outlines some of the requirements. Mostly that new towers, again, designed to accommodate future colocation, requirement that people cooperate with that. Third- party review if there is a conflict. I got a typo. Then location required if it result in significant interference, and people fail to comply it will result in denial or revocation. So again, this will be a place where I could come and look for some additional statements about the tower being designed initially, not only in terms of its structural but its literal capacities to handle multiple colocations. Not sure if it will be in here, it will be someplace else. But this is one of the places where I would look to include that. VICE CHAIR WATTS: And John, how do we validate whether there's significant interference? What measurement? Because that -- it's a great statement, but there has to be a process. WESLEY: Where am I in the code here? Maybe I'm too far past it already. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Is this going to the third-party testing? DAPAAH: Yeah. WESLEY: It's up here. So it's number 4 in the list here. It's the actual wording. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I hate to belabor this but that doesn't really answer the question: what constitutes significant interference? I mean, there has to be a measurement. Something that we can -- some standard that we can apply to that. WESLEY: So we can probably push that back to some of the third-party review to verify that there is -- there got to be interference. But I couldn't tell you, standing here today, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 22 of 54 what those criteria would be. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Maybe you just said it, though. Maybe it is the engineer's report that the time it's submitted that they've done the testing in the area and there wouldn't be any. So a validation by the electrical engineer or PE, somebody, that can do that. I think we should include something to get some verification. It's too ambiguous otherwise. WESLEY: Okay. Then we get into the actual types of applications. And so there are two types -- the administrative and public review. And administrative, at this point, as they're drafted really are the modification occurring to existing towers. And describes them; those types of changes that would be allowed. How much you can increase the size and so forth of towers. And then public review, again, this was set at 300 feet, but now we're saying we'll change that to the 500 feet requiring the special use permit. And then from there we move into the actual processing of applications. So the initial part is very much like we've done in the Section 2.02 changes of the Zoning Ordinance with other applications and in terms of what the basics and middle statement of process is. Then there were all the things reviewed in 17.03, in terms of general requirements. And so if they apply to a particular type of application, they need to provide that. You've got to provide the inventory of existing sites. And then also provide some criteria for the specific criteria for the utility service antenna because they are a little bit different. And then we go through the actual rest of the process here. Listing requirements for existing towers and proposed towers. We've added in the photo simulations of the new tower, and you pay the fee. Have a section that's been added in terms of shot clocks. It's one of the things that there was concern about. And there are some specific standards from FCC rules. And so I've added extensive language on how the shot clocks would work and what starts and stops those shot clocks, so that we don't get something approved just because we didn't act in a timely fashion on it. And going to go through the actual processing with the different bodies. And so the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 23 of 54 public review is the same as for a special use permit. And we've added in the requirement as council request for the drive-test and council may approve conditions on the approval. Section on removal of abandoned towers, it's the same as the current ordinance. And then the federal and state requirements. The initial paragraph there is one that's been in the code for a while, but we've added the paragraphs on the initial certification of RF compliance in 45 days and the opportunity then for the town to request a random ongoing tests. And the penalties involved if somebody is in noncompliance. And then staying in compliance with building codes. And staying in compliance with the noise ordinance. And the last section of 17.07, there's really no change except for a few section number references. So as mentioned earlier by Commissioner Dapaah, we did receive today a letter from CTIA, and I'd have to look over there again to remember what CTIA stands for. It's the wireless communication advocacy lobbying group of some kind. They question some sections of the draft ordinance, had some concerns with them. And so the ones listed here, and Commissioner Dapaah, the ones you brought up before, all the sections pulled pretty much directly from what our previous consultant had drafted. And so at least in general, we feel confident with those that they would be in compliance with the rules. The one that they highlighted with regard to the new utility service antennas we have been working with SRP on what those standards would be. They are comfortable with them, and so again, we feel confident that we're not going to have any utilities pushing back on that. They pointed out the section saying, "no signs". I knows this is only administrative that that means some kind of commercial sign, it doesn't mean you can't put up any required signs. But we can modify that language a little bit, just make sure that's clear that any required signs can be there. That's no issue to make that change. A couple of other sections that they questioned are in the current ordinance, just being repeated. They have been there, again, and used for a long time. Again, we're comfortable with those. And then, the language they questioned in 17.05C was again some of the view criteria with regard to the process of mostly just agreeing with, I think TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 24 of 54 the language is fine and is clear enough for this type of reading. Let's see if I -- I've gone past it here. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Commissioner Corey, you have a question? Commissioner Corey? COREY: Just two things. One, previously you mentioned the drive-test to verify gaps in coverage. And I'm just curious, like, what happens if there is a gap? What's the -- how do we correct that? WESLEY: Sure. So Vice Chair and Commissioner Corey, usually when a tower company's in here promoting and applying for new facilities, it's because they believe there's a gap in service. They get so many customers complaining, I just don't get service here, and so I need to put in a new tower. That's the only way to provide our customers with reasonable and consistent access to the network. And they usually provide some type of heat map that they have generated just from their computers that show where the gaps are. And so this is a step beyond that, in requiring them to drive the streets with the meters that actually register the amount of signal being received and produce that in a document for us to look at and verify where there really are gaps in their service where people can't get the service they need. COREY: And if we -- okay. So if they put a tower in and then we find out, oh, there's still gaps in certain areas, how do they correct that? Do they change the tower, or do they move the tower? WESLEY: They're not going to move a tower. COREY: Well, I mean, plan on locating it somewhere else. WESLEY: They might add more towers if that's the case. COREY: Okay. WESLEY: But hopefully when that comes in, we look at the gap and where it is and what they're designing and what they are really filling in all the gap. COREY: I'm just mentioning that because we're being restrictive for the right reasons, but if we find that there's a gap later on or when they're installing it, then it sounds like we need to be kind of flexible in working with them so that they can put it in the right spot or have the right coverage broadcast. Right? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 25 of 54 WESLEY: Um-hum. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I think the issue is validation that there's a gap. Because coverage can be because of capacity; it can be because of frequency; it can be because of output; it can be even reduced frequency and output. So I think generally speaking most of the providers would -- I'm going to use a nontechnical term -- crank up the power in order to cover the gap. COREY: It's very technical. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Right. So we don't want that. We want validation. And I think we ought to have a way to capture that validation, have them file the data that says here's the gap, here's the bell curve, here's where the time of day over a period of time, to validate that there actually is a gap rather than just wholesale say, add a tower or you can crank it up a little bit because you're within the confines of what the FCC says is okay. So I'd like to have something more definitive in there about how do we determine and validate that there are gaps. And maybe that's a third-party. You know, a nonbiased third-party that's going to collect that data and/or review the provider's data. So they make their records available so we can do that. We want to help them, but we don't want to give them carte blanche to just do whatever they need to do to increase coverage. COREY: Yeah. And just to follow up on that. Like, we were talking at the beginning of this meeting briefly was, during the 4th of July I was down at the fountain watching the fireworks and there was no coverage. I couldn't send text messages; it wasn't going through. And I think it's probably because there's a lot of people down there one time, using the bandwidth but maybe that's an opportunity where they can crank it -- what was it? Crank it up or something? To be able to provide -- CHAIR GRAY: That's an opportunity for COWs or temp facilities that clearly was missed by the provider. COREY: Yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Regardless, I think it needs to be validated and we need to come up TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 26 of 54 with a way to validate by collecting the data, analyzing that data, looking at when the capacity or lack of capacity occurs in order to substantiate adding a tower. Because most likely it's going to be adding a tower, not cranking it up. At that point, they probably cranked it up. COREY: And just -- SVEUM: And just, Chair -- sorry. Go ahead. COREY: Sorry, just my last note. That, yeah, so it was interesting to read the CTIA feedback. And my only major concern here, John, is they brought up multiple examples where this ordinance is inconsistent with federal laws. So that will be my major concern here. I know you said you're going to review it with the attorney just to make sure that we're doing everything right, we don't want to get in trouble for something here. So that's my recommendation is, just to take it back to the attorney and make sure that we're following the laws here. VICE CHAIR WATTS: To add to that and sorry to cut you off, Chairman Gray. When we started on community housing we were told you can't, you can't, you can't. You can't; it's restricted. You can't do this; you can't do that. And if we take a word of a lobbyist or our attorney and say that you can't do something that we successfully have done with community housing, then we are being remiss. And I think it's incumbent on us to make an aggressive, protective ordinance; not prohibit, but manage the implementation and serviceability of anything we allow in the town based on this ordinance. COREY: But just to review it with them, make sure. VICE CHAIR WATTS: With the concept of reviewing is not acquiescing to what somebody doesn't want to get sued for. Back to you, Chairman Gray. CHAIR GRAY: I'm sorry, Commissioner Corey, there's a delay and I keep jumping on top and I don't mean to do that. So I promise I won't do it again. I want to go back to the conversation about heat mapping and doing that sort of study -- that gap analysis study. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I almost want to say what we ought to write into our ordinance is not something that's on the solicitation side but something that's on the closeout side. So you put up a tower, we have third-party TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 27 of 54 commissioning, or the town is a part of that commissioning process. We validate that the tower's outputs are where they're supposed to be per code and per FCC regs, and the heat map is a part of the closeout and the commissioning process of that tower, so that we have that baseline. Because that to me is more valuable at that point where we can say -- let me say this differently. If we don't have it there, then when a gap is identified, the power's getting cranked. And I think Commissioner Watts, you've essentially said that. Whereas, if we see a gap closure, that's kind of a trigger for the municipality to say, hey, something's changed here. Somebody's changed a parameter and cranked up the output here and we need to dig into this a little bit. So I'd like to see that language on the commissioning side of a tower's installation versus on the application side. Because I don't understand how you heat map -- and I guess you could do it. But it's a lot harder to heat map something before you're actually generating the signal. And I think if we are going to ask for it on the application side then really what we're saying is similar to the way wind turbines are surveyed on ridgelines. We're saying go out and put up a temp tower, beam the signal, heat map it, and report back. And I just don't think that that's something that's ever going to come to fruition. WESLEY: Chair, if I may? So the drive-test is going out and testing the infrastructure that's in place now, and by doing that testing showing -- documenting that, in fact, there is a gap in service. So that then justifies the need for the additional tower. VICE CHAIR WATTS: John, I think that's where I disagree. Because based upon the timing, there could be an insufficient capacity or there could be a reduced output. There's some variables -- a lot of variables that could be applicable to why coverage isn't available at that point in time. Could be interference by the fireworks. COREY: Yes. A surge of people. VICE CHAIR WATTS: You just don't know. So we need some validation again as to why some justification and commission process is pretty much industry standard. Whether it's in the telecom industry, whether it's in mechanical industry; commissioning is an important part of making sure everything is installed the way it was designed and the way it was presented by the engineer. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 28 of 54 WESLEY: Sure. Yeah, I can see adding that other piece in too, but I was trying to cover the difference in what they were doing. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. DAPAAH: But that's if the town actually invest in a third-party commissioning process. Right? Because -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's going to be on the provider. DAPAAH: That's going to be on the provider. Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: The provider and we can look at it and see if the data is valid, if there's any loopholes in the data. DAPAAH: Okay. I would think that the town would also have someone that can look out for the town on this matter, just to ensure -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: I would say, I'd agree ideally that if we had somebody that was certified, because you need the certification to read the data and to use your own -- it's not in an -- it's a spectrometer, I believe. That you have to look at and see what the frequencies are and what the volumes are, and then compare that to the provider's data. That's where the bell chart comes in, when you show time of day and how much usage and capacity and what you've got, what you projected; that it's all consistent. So I think I'd love to see that included, that we would have somebody on staff. I don't know if we're going to get that through because of the training and the certifications. DAPAAH: Yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But it certainly can't hurt to ask. In-house certification. Go ahead. KOVACEVIC: Have you gotten through? WESLEY: Yes. KOVACEVIC: I made a list of things that I think were -- at least that were in other ordinances that we haven't addressed in ours. So I would like to go through that. We talked about the public process and getting an SUP. We talked about monopole towers using stealth technology. One of the ordinance stipulated no RF emissions below eight- and-a-half feet above grade. Is that something that would make sense for us? Okay. We talked about the old noise limits. We talked about setbacks. We talked about TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 29 of 54 holding the setbacks, even if the zoning's vacant and unplatted at 500 feet, right? WESLEY: Yes. KOVACEVIC: Okay. The new towers must provide for colocation and one of the -- they usually specified at least one -- or one of them said a new tower has to be able to colocate three additional users. Did we want to specify that? You're -- I know we talked about reviewing the power and the downside of that from health, safety, and welfare, but -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Are you asking to put that into the ordinance -- KOVACEVIC: I'm throwing it out there, yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- every design has to be able to support at a minimum three, four providers? KOVACEVIC: I think so, yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. KOVACEVIC: I mean, it's a -- I'm suggesting. I'm throwing it out there for discussion. We can go through them all or we could go through them one at a time and get feedback. VICE CHAIR WATTS: What's the value in stipulating the number of providers per tower? KOVACEVIC: I think you get -- like, in the case of adding three, you get a lot of use out of that tower. I mean, you're specifying -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: You want to put a maximum on it too, then? Because then we go back to the electrical requirements for the different providers. KOVACEVIC: I don't know. What I did was, I went through the ordinances that were provided to us and I pulled out what the other towns did. I don't know any more about how a tower works today than I did a year ago. But I know what's in these ordinances. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. WESLEY: Chair, and Commissioner, another thing we had to be concerned about there, a little bit at some point is, it often gets harder to be stealth or camouflaged, as you add more and more antennas on and more providers on it. So I think depending on the design that you start with and where it's at and what you're trying to do, that can be a TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 30 of 54 challenge maybe even adding the second one. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. That sounds right. I don't know how you'd do it. But colocation, it seems to be pretty standard -- the requirement of providing colocation. And if these things are going to look like palm trees, I would guess you could colocate. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Palm trees in the desert? KOVACEVIC: Yeah. WESLEY: So if we're going to do that, I think this would be the place right here. We could add a number. Shall be designed to accommodate at least two or three more antenna, whatever number we want to put in there, rather than just leave it open. If that's the desire of the commission. VICE CHAIR WATTS: To me that's a tough one because I don't know -- to one of my original questions, are the outputs accretive or parallel? And I think that's -- we need some technical input to be able to answer that question. I'm not sure. Because I think as long as you have -- if you design it initially to say I can have four providers on the same tower based on colocation, but I can't exceed six providers. There needs to also be a basis why you can't exceed the six. So I do think we need some more input on that. A little bit more research. WESLEY: Okay. So I don't know if this would be a time to remind the commission -- I'm going to use it as a time to remind the commission. You talked about it at your May meeting, you held your public hearing. 90 days to make your recommendation to council. So it has to happen before your next meeting. So if we can make a recommendation we need to schedule a special meeting between now and your August meeting to finish up. KOVACEVIC: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I don't want the fear of a special meeting -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. I'm -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- to deter us either. KOVACEVIC: I'm here. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So in your research, how many towers or how many providers on a TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 31 of 54 tower have you seen, kind of, universally? KOVACEVIC: Most of -- they all ask for colocation. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Right. KOVACEVIC: Some of them specify one. The most I saw was three. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. KOVACEVIC: Can I -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. Go ahead. KOVACEVIC: -- go on? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah, please. KOVACEVIC: There's security -- one of the towns asked for security for the maintenance of the paint and the maintenance of the landscaping around the towers. So they provide a bond that covers two years of maintenance of the landscaping. I don't know if that's something we want to talk about. One of the towns -- or most of the towns provide secure -- ask for security for the removal of the tower if it's abandoned. And that, typically, is a reservation of the lien rights. They don't require that you put up a letter of credit or a bond or anything. It's just if we have to remove the tower, we have lien rights on the property. One of the town's requires annual RF testing at permittee expense. I know that the trade group said that's -- that they felt that that was a -- that that was the FCCs realm and not ours but one of the towns didn't seem to care about that. The building -- we say they've got to comply with our building code. Do we have a building code for towers? WESLEY: I don't know if there's a specific tower building code, but there are electrical codes and structural requirements for -- KOVACEVIC: Because they name ANSI -- A-N-S-I, and I mean, most of the towns name the -- who provides those kind of standards. The fiber optics and the power to these towers and from these towers is underground. I think that should be specified. WESLEY: That's already in our codes. KOVACEVIC: Okay. It was the California ordinances; they required a backup power TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 32 of 54 supply. Is that something we would want? WESLEY: Possibly. It's my understanding the FCC is requiring that in most cases anyway. KOVACEVIC: Okay. I have -- WESLEY: To have. KOVACEVIC: -- I don't know. I didn't look at the FCC -- what the FCC requires. And I noticed it was in the California ordinances and it was not in the Arizona ordinances about a backup power supply. We need to make a statement that the paint color and finish must be maintained in a good condition at all times. And graffiti needs to be removed within 48 hours. I think we need to have that kind of language in there. Testing at permittee expense for interference, structural, or electrical integrity. If it's ever in question, that we have a right to test. And I think some of them limited it at to once a year, but we should get the right to test for if there is interference or if there's a question of structural integrity or electrical integrity. A couple of the ordinances have parking requirements to provide at least one off-street parking place for somebody at the tower. This is an important one to me, I think the permittee should indemnify the town against lawsuits. If the -- I mean, if we pass an ordinance and then somebody comes in to put up a tower and the citizen group comes in and sues the town for allowing the tower, the permittee should indemnify us. I think we need to make a statement that the tower cannot interfere with the government emergency response network if we have one; I don't know if we have one. Or any town or county communications. That was in a number of the ordinances. Insurance requirements, they should be in the ordinance. I know that we limit lighting, but we should also make a statement that it needs to comply with the Dark sky Ordinance. And one other thing, the -- there was a statement made in one of the ordinances that any new developments over a number of acres -- I think the number was 65 acres, but this would cover the state ground, that any development over X acres must provide a tower location. Which means they would have to set aside a location that's 500 feet from any residentially zoned property. So that's my list. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So the ones that I'd like to see, and that I agree with you, are the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 33 of 54 testing, structural, backup power, parking requirements, indemnification, insurance, lighting, and the acreage or the area for a tower on any new development. And ones that I can waive on, because I think we already covered it, are paint color and finish. I think town codes already take care of that. The graffiti issue is already taken care of. Signage is already taken care of. You have to put emergency signs there, what to do and it has to padlocked, it has to have emergency access. And we don't have a frequency issue, I don't believe, because our fire, live, and law enforcement uses a separate frequency other than cellular frequency. So but the ones that I would look for support, hopefully, are the ones that I just said: the testing, structural, underground utilities, backup power, parking, indemnification, insurance, lighting, and tower location on any development. WESLEY: So just on one of those, anyway, the lighting. Tower shall not be artificially lighted is already in there. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. But yet it still has to have FAA approved lighting. WESLEY: Unless the FAA requires. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. WESLEY: And then our town codes already require underground of the wires coming and going. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. SVEUM: I have a question. Phil. CHAIR GRAY: Go ahead, Phil. SVEUM: So if a provider was to locate and I assume on someone's private property they would own that antenna or that pole. And if there were multiple providers on that pole, who would be responsible for the other providers and what their business is that's being conducted with their equipment on that pole? That make sense? VICE CHAIR WATTS: It does. I'm going to try, and John, if you'll help me along the way. Generally speaking, there is a builder who designs, engineers, and builds the tower and then leases the provider space for equipment and their antenna. WESLEY: And all that's done, usually -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 34 of 54 SVEUM: Okay. WESLEY: -- with a ground lease from whoever the property owner is. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Right. SVEUM: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yep. So the -- SVEUM: And -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- you get different -- you get different insurance requirements here. You get one for the construction and then one for the provider. So they both have to have that same insurance. SVEUM: Okay. Would these providers be typically competitors? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Verizon -- they can be. Verizon, T-Mobile, there's a plethora of them and they all have potential output. But they also -- some of them share and then sell their product out as well. So there's a variety of different arrangements and we've got to be capable of handling all of them. SVEUM: So the company or entity that secures the site, builds the pole, or installs the pole, and has the lease with perhaps Verizon, would that be like a master lease for Verizon, and they would sublet to other providers or would each one of those providers lease directly from the owner of the pole? VICE CHAIR WATTS: My understanding is that the builder retains the leases. They're the master lessor and that they lease the capabilities that they've built for to various entities, like Verizon, T-Mobile, and so on. WESLEY: So -- and Phil, I think you asked -- and I don't know the answer for sure, but if Verizon has leased a portion of the tower and has some antennas up there, could they then sublease to another provider to share their antennas? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Right. WESLEY: I don't know. That probably does happen, but I don't know for a fact. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I'm pretty sure they do because you've got a third-party that is leasing and say, there's Consumer Cellular for instance, they use like a T-Mobile and sublease from T-Mobile, and they use their capabilities. So I think that's exactly what TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 35 of 54 happens. SVEUM: So we would need, as the town, to be protected by the various providers that are on each one of those poles. Because if there was a lawsuit, the town would be included in anything that would -- in the form of a lawsuit for many of the residents that had that pole on their property. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I think that that's correct. I think that you've got a building construction structural indemnification that you're looking for in case the thing falls over and then you're looking for the tower people that lease it and the providers, to make sure that they don't do something that could cause harm to the general public. SVEUM: So would it not be appropriate then for the town to approve all providers that are on that pole? VICE CHAIR WATTS: I think that's what I'm saying. Yeah. WESLEY: So -- SVEUM: Oh, okay. WESLEY: Vice Chair -- SVEUM: I just wanted to make sure. WESLEY: So again, I don't know enough of the details. If Verizon is then -- or T-Mobile subleasing now to Consumer Cellular, I'm not sure we would know that piece. VICE CHAIR WATTS: No. But your master lease would say any subsidiaries, any third- parties that you would use. That they'd indemnify us on behalf of them. WESLEY: Right. SVEUM: I guess, my thought process here is always looking at the worst-case scenario where there's a problem and one of the providers may be streaming or doing -- providing inappropriate activity, for instance, that could cause a town a problem eventually or even -- or cause all the providers and the town a legal issue. So I don't know if it's worth considering or not. It just comes to mind. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I think that's where the indemnification comes from. SVEUM: Yeah. As well as the property insurance. CHAIR GRAY: Vice Chair, Commissioner, I share some of the same sentiment. I think TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 36 of 54 this all started with Commissioner Kovacevic. On the build -- so first of all, you go back to -- you made reference to the community residences proffers that we went through and so on and so forth. And one of the provisions that we had wished to see stipulated within that, in our draft language that we put forward to council, we had insurance criteria in there and hold harmless indemnification language that we wanted from those, in that case, community residence providers to issue a hold harmless and an additional insured of the Town of Fountain Hills. And the town attorney said no dice, you can't do that. And then the majority of the council went with the town attorney and stripped that language out. So I think in this case, I mean, you're kind of apples and apples here. I think you're going to end up in the same spot, different subject matter but same rules of the road so to speak. But I think in this case what I want to add into your conversation there is, if you did a quick Google search on the computer, you go back to June 18 of this year of 2024, you can find a Cox Communications pole with a bunch of gear hanging from it that got backed into -- it got hit, let's say, by a box truck and that pole landed in the backyard, with that gear -- landing in a swimming pool that had five kids in it. So I want that to be a part of the narrative and the record on this particular insurance provision. Because that's a real-world example, 20 minutes down the road, within the last quarter of this calendar year where bad things -- luckily none of the kids got injured because the lines, for whatever reason, weren't energized. But that's a real-world example of what could have gone terribly wrong because that pole -- that pole happened to be in the right-of- way by the way. But because that pole had that adjacency and did in fact cause harm. I think that Tempe could have been in a little bit of pain because of that. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Thank you. Anything else on -- Commissioners? DAPAAH: So these are all very valid questions. Thank you for doing all that background work. That's pretty solid. So my question is on the power backup. I never thought -- are we talking per pole? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yes. DAPAAH: And what is the source of energy? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 37 of 54 VICE CHAIR WATTS: Gas, battery. I do think that John commented that -- I'm not positive of this, but I think the FCC requires that there is a consistent supply for power. So it could be propane, LP. It could be gas if it's available in the area. A little genset. DAPAAH: What's the industry standard? WESLEY: Chairman, unfortunately, Commissioner Dapaah, I don't know the details of it, but this started, I don't know, half a dozen years ago or so that the FCC did some rulings and I think identified certain towers, so that there's enough coverage left in an area. And they have to have a backup power so there's always a system operational. And so it's not required for every tower, but I know there's some percentage of them or some spacing of them that does require that from the FCC. DAPAAH: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. I don't remember offhand the exact, but I remember reading about gensets being required, order of magnitude depending upon the service entrance coming to the unit would depend. DAPAAH: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But it could be whatever uninterruptable power source you need. DAPAAH: Interesting. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Anything else, Commissioners? John, anything else? WESLEY: I know we've got at least one person hoping maybe to speak a little bit. So I want to take -- TROLLER: I'm here. WESLEY: So just, again, just to set some expectations a little bit, because you brought up some of the comparisons with the community residence ordinance. You've thrown out a lot of things. Some of them are easier, some of them may be a little bit harder. Brought back up this intent statement here that we need to balance things with. We have to comply with the TCA and provide reasonable opportunity for service, while providing also protection to the public. So it may be some of these things, particularly as I go back to that map of the 500 feet and what that does and how limiting that is, that we may come back and say that really is too much. And some things like that. But TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 38 of 54 anyway, I just really want to set that expectation. We'll be looking at that. And whether you keep it at 500 feet, it gets to council and some things -- as we look at the decibel limit, council has previously decided we're not doing decibel limits anymore. So just want to put that out there that this will have that type of continued review, things may change. But understood. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Paula? WOODWARD: We have one speaker card for call to the public: Lori Troller. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. And if I'm not mistaken, Ms. Troller has asked for six minutes, plus or minus a couple of seconds. TROLLER: It's a lot longer now. I'm going to ask for ten minutes if possible. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Talk fast, please. TROLLER: Talk fast. Good evening, Chair Peter, Vice Chair Mr. Watts, and commission. Before I start on what I was going to present, I do want to say that when Mr. Wesley's presentations are over an hour-and-a-half and the public gets three minutes or six to respond, it's not even adequate. And so I would like to ask for some sort of opportunity for me to provide my insights. I can answer so many of these questions and there were so many things that need to come into discussion that it would greatly help this process. One thing, you guys were talking about distance. The automatic distance, the 300 or 500 feet. There's one thing that was completely overlooked, was that there is the ADA, and the ADA recognizes a disease that when people are near these towers they literally can't live near them. They can't be in the presence of it. You've seen April McCormick (ph.). She doesn't live here anymore. She had to move because of the exposure in the town. Her face will start to fall, like she had a heart attack. She will lose her voice, and this is within 30 minutes of exposure. And it takes her days to recover. This is a very real thing. So when we automatically put a tower up just because it's within 200 feet or 500 feet or whatever your number is, you are ignoring the ADA requirements to notify people. Everyone must know this. So these distances can't just be an automatic thing. There are other laws in place that we will be violating. The PV -- you mentioned PV quite a bit and they're 300 feet. There's a little bit of TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 39 of 54 history to that. PV went into negotiations with several telecom companies, and they agreed that Paradise Valley would define a corridor for all the main towers. And they said hey, telecom guys if you promise to keep the majority of your towers in this corridor, we'll let you have the 300 feet. That's why that number is so low. When it came down to actually putting those networks in, telecom company said [gesture on video] and they put them wherever they want and now they have a problem. So that's why that 300 feet is there because they thought they were going into some sort of agreement with the telecom companies that they didn't live up to. Regarding sound. You guys were talking about sound a lot. So there's the actual tower itself and then there's this whole conglomerate of little facilities that go around the base of a tower. You can require all that be built underground. Most of that's your noise generation, put it underground. Just make that the requirement. So you can play with that thought. The submittal process that John was talking to, that got glanced over very quickly. There is a lot of information that goes into that. One thing this town needs is a database. When I ask John about previous decisions, approvals, or denials of any towers we've had, that process is over a 100 questions. And he cannot tell me how he came to an approval or a denial. We need to be able to track that. We need to be able to pull up a map and say, we definitely have this tower here. This is the equipment on here. This is what, when it went in, what it was set to be emitting. So when you do tests later on, throughout the year, you can say, hey, this is the -- hey, this number is way low, this number is way high. We need a database. We need to able to track this stuff. A lot of that information is collected at the point of an application. All that's available. Because when we have staff move on to greener pastures, we lose all that knowledge. That, we can't even ask anybody. So we do need a database. That's a whole other topic. Drive-by tests. Do not use drive-by tests. Drive-by tests -- what notoriously is falsified in court case after court case, are drive-by test information. Telecoms constantly lie about that. They just take some sample somewhere, put your street name on it. Oh, that's TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 40 of 54 been proven over and over again. What you really want are dropped call logs. That's your information, my information, how many calls did we make and how many calls were dropped. And you need the data behind that. That's the type of information you need. Now, if we don't define that in our ordinance, if we don't define how they are to provide that, in a court case they said, well, you didn't say and you didn't define it, so we don't have to give it to you. We're putting a tapper in. So be very specific on what you're looking for when you're looking for what you call, gaps. Now, there's another thing. What is a gap? Is a gap 30 feet? I can't make a phone call between here and there; is that defined a gap? It doesn't. So there's all these other definitions of what's a gap? And is that gap there all the time? Is it raining? Do we have gaps all over the-- did they take that -- did telecom go out on a rainy day and take gap information? Drive-by test information on a rainy day or during the fair? Oh, look at this. You know if they did a test when we were all at the fireworks, they're going to say we need 19 towers around here. That's not fair. It's not accurate. So all of these things, you've got to nail them down. You can't just say, we need testing. You have to define it. And if we don't define it, in a court case they're going to say, you didn't define it. And so they win cases. So you got to be really specific. And this has been why I have been forever saying you guys need to bring people in. Who here knows how to say what those numbers should be and what's real? This is where the experts come in. This is where their advice will help us. Let's see. I think Peter was speaking about -- unless it's written in an ordinance the industry has complete -- oh. So Vice Chair Watts was speaking about they turn it up or they turn it down. Well, don't you think we want to know where it's set? And we should always know where it's set? These things are emitting pollution. That's a part of the problem. So if this were something that we could actually see, an amount of smoke coming out of a building. Well, okay, we're going to allow a certain amount of smoke. But if they started just like, unbeknownst to us, just putting out way more smoke on some days and some days none, we would want -- we can see that. We have grasp and we can know that that is. We know whether we need to be concerned or not. So when TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 41 of 54 we do not have those volumes measured by these towers, this is invisible pollution. You can kind of tell with your phone, your gaps, your -- so I'm just saying, because you can't see this, doesn't mean you don't measure it and you don't want to know. You do want to know. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Can you -- Lori, can you wrap up, please? TROLLER: I didn't even get to my -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: It's eight minutes. TROLLER: Okay. Real quickly. There's a big problem right now, is that Mr. Wesley is editing the code. So in Fountain Hills and everywhere else, when we have law it's written in the form of an ordinance or a resolution. And the difference between those two doesn't matter in this application so we're not going to get into that. But you guys aren't dealing with a resolution or an ordinance. He's dealing with the municipal code or the zoning code. Right? And he told you earlier that you cannot -- you can't touch the piece in the municipal code. And right now we have a law on the books, it's a resolution -- happens to be a resolution and it's Resolution 2018-18. This is what you guys need to be updating. Now what happens is this resolution gets codified. It gets codified into code. And it gets either codified into municipal code or zoning code. So now what Mr. Wesley is working on is Chapter 17 which is the cellular code. You guys aren't touching the broadband. I have never talked about cellular. The council was only ever talking about broadband. Broadband was codified into Section 16-2. This is the only piece you guys are working on. You are not touching this. Now, this is code. The only time you touch code is when there's errors to it. These aren't errors. This is a modification to the law. You guys need to be updating the law not making codification changes. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Thank you. TROLLER: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WATTS: And you got your ten minutes. TROLLER: Thank you. It felt like two. VICE CHAIR WATTS: With that we'll -- no other speaker cards, Paula? Just the one? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 42 of 54 WOODWARD: No, Vice Chair. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. With that we'll close the public part. And Commissioners, comments? DAPAAH: I would like to thank Lori. I think Lori, you've really contributed to our understanding and clearing up some of the stuff for us. I really appreciate it. I would like to know -- I'm interested about this thing she's talking about with putting everything underground. Is there any city with that? Because that's another added thing that we would have to -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Are you talking about the equipment itself? DAPAAH: The equipment itself. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. It's a vault. Think about a vault that you've got a mechanical room vault with pump stations. DAPAAH: Right. But would that be -- would that have to be in a conditioned space? Are we now talking about an air conditioner? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, if it's outside on a pole, it's not going to be in a conditioned space. DAPAAH: But it's got free airflow. VICE CHAIR WATTS: It does. But you could put ventilation fans in. You could do that. So I mean there's ways to build a vault and I think that's a great idea, because that would abate a lot of the noise issues or concerns -- DAPAAH: Right. Right. I think that is a very -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- being in a vault. So maybe a vault's the way to go. DAPAAH: Yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I think somebody's going to look at that and say, look, by the time I do acoustical enclosure, distancing, measurement, and the lot, that a vault may be the way to go. It's underground, out of sight, out of harm's way. I agree. And I also think that to Ms. Troller's comments about data, I think we've been driving home all evening the collection, the analysis of data, understanding where the gaps are. While we didn't come right out and talk about the data logs themselves, we said we TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 43 of 54 want all of the providers' data. We want them to be able to validate that. What that is we haven't defined yet, but we have moved to take that next step and define it. So I agree with that as well. Commissioner Schlossberg, please? SCHLOSSBERG: Yeah. And I wanted to follow up on Commissioner Dapaah's comment and I wanted to thank Lori, not for clearing things up, for making me more confused as it were. But through this whole process again, I've not said much because I'm still so confused. Vice Chair Watts has become a semi-expert. Commissioner Kovacevic has learned a lot as well. But I mean, I go back to what Lori said and the fact that we don't have professional help. I've said this before. It's just -- it's absurd that we're tasked with making a recommendation when -- I honestly, I mean, a sliver of a percentage of a clue, what I'm talking about up here. It's absurd. So I will leave my comments at that. But thank you, Lori. And wow, you could have gone on for a long time. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Any other comments, Commissioners? Commissioner Gray and Phil, sorry about this. I'm terrible at pronouncing last names. CHAIR GRAY: I'd like to be there, Commissioner, because I've got a lot of thoughts about this having -- I started where Commissioner Schlossberg was. I'm a notch or two away from that position. I'm out of the starting blocks but I still have a lot to learn. So I jotted down a bunch of notes. I went back through our old meeting minutes. I went back through council videos. I went back through text messages and emails and tried to get to a spot tonight where I feel good about something going forward, and I'm not. And so I'm kind of going to kind of skim my notes, but I want to read them because I want to remember them, if for no other reason the verbatim transcript is going to help me do that. And also, I want to be clear, I want what I say to be reflective of me as a resident who has a small family in this town and then a commissioner. That's where I come from on this topic at this point. And I have to say what we've seen transpire on this is, it's nothing short of unbecoming of government when our entire interest -- what we should be doing here, should be in the interest of the citizenry of the town and the private property owners of the town. I've had a lot of conversations. I've had a lot of TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 44 of 54 conversations with Lori. I've had a lot of conversations with Rick. I've had a lot of conversations with folks that we deal with tangentially in and around the hospital, they're in the telecommunications industry, and I haven't talked to anybody who hasn't cited some significant concerns with where this industry is going and what the actual product even is today when we start to get into the -- when we start to get into the higher decibel outputs. And that's a total aside from having the conversation -- I made reference to the pole, the Cox pole in Tempe that fell. You know, that's another real-word example of -- we got a -- we got to play in this at a more macro level than what we're doing here. And we've got to do that with all the right tools -- arrows in our quiver, if you will. So I'm doubling down on the need to review this whole thing holistically and across both sections of code. I am not by any means; I want to be crystal clear. I am not saying combo the sections of code together. I'm not saying make Section 16 go away. I'm just saying how in the world can we talk about having tower parameters and placements and separation distances on private property, when we could just rack them out in the ten-foot right-of-way throughout town? How do you not talk about those two things as an intermingled topic and then bifurcate them back out to their respective spots in the code after all of that conversation has happened? So the reason that hasn't happened is obviously we've been limited by the town council and the town attorney in what our span of scope here is. And I went back, and I watched all of that and if the basis, which is what I think I heard of this limitation is to save us somehow from preemption, I got to say that's a false notion. Because as Commissioner Watts pointed out in his example earlier, we've been preempted before as a commission. Most of this commission was the same commission that was in place absent, I believe, Commissioner Dempster at the time, that worked through the community residence piece. And so you can't tell me today that you're going to save us from preemption because we were preempted when that topic came to light as well. And so if it's not preemption, then the basis must be for some sort of special interest, maybe an inadvertent transfer of wealth from private property owners to the town via TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 45 of 54 these small cell agreements that seem to be proliferating throughout the country. Everybody's chasing the ten-minute city and maybe that's what we're doing here, but nobody's talking about it. We're just saying we can't talk about it. If that is what we're doing, that's not something you do in the dark. That's something that gets daylight and we have the conversation out in the open. We talk about the property values, we talk about the health consequences, and we weight this whole thing in a extremely complex and -- well, complex deliberation. But you can't talk about placement here on private property versus placement in the right-of-way. You've got to talk about the whole thing holistically. So I got a note here about John. John, I really, really, really don't envy the position you're in and I want to be really clear that what I'm saying, my thoughts here, they have no reflection on you or staff in general. I've got a tremendous amount of respect for your position, and I absolutely recognize that you're obligated to take this direction and work with the tools that the council affords you to the best of your ability. And I absolutely think that's what you've done. I just, again, think our span of control here is misguided, so. I guess, in my opinion, again, and I having observed I've come to this revelation that when the council removed most of the meat of consideration from the topic, it was incorrect. And I believe that compromises this commission's ability to make that meaningful recommendation tonight or at any time, or at least a recommendation that would holistically benefit the community and residents. I'll go a little bit further and say I think this approach actually does a disservice. I think it does a disservice to the town. I think it does a disservice to the residents. As we make a recommendation, if we make a recommendation tonight for Chapter 17 in isolation, it insinuates that we've addressed the topic. And I know John said at the onset, we might pick up the other part of this at a later point in time, but I don't think you can do them in isolation. I belabored that, I guess, to this point. I don't think addressing Chapter 17 in isolation does anything. I think it insinuates we've addressed the topic -- we've actually done nothing more than placate it. So that to me is kind of on par with, we've become complicit in the narrative TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 46 of 54 of, let's move on; there's nothing here. And I think this commission has shown over time that we've got a little more integrity to display to those that we deliberate on behalf of. I wrote down six points in time that are really interesting to me. That again, I just want -- I want this all in one spot. So the first point in time is, how did this whole thing start? And that was after an extended series of calls to the public. Open calls to the public, the council requested staff onboard to consult and to facilitate a review and recommendation of ordinances related to towers in the general context of small cell distribution and broadband. Two consultants were hired by the town. Contracts were executed by the town attorney, somehow as signatory. And then, my second point in time is, the scope of work for the Campanelli agreement was obtained through a FOIA by a resident and that scope of work very clearly states review and updates of Chapter 16 and 17 of town code and ordinances. And I have to note here that that agreement was received in full, and it was unredacted. The second consultant, whose business is centered around negotiation of contracts between public entities and tower operators, was then hired. The third point in time is the town then runs out the clock on the Campanelli retainer, releases the consultant through a lengthy and puzzling process run through the town attorney. Next point in time is the scope of work that this commission is tasked with is quietly modified by the council behind closed doors in executive session. And we're told only have eyes for Chapter 17, and the Campanelli documents are placed into privileged and confidential status now by the town attorney. And then finally, and the most impactful of my six points in time here is when the guns starts to really smoke. And that's when another FOIA request is made by a second resident for the very same Campanelli agreement after the May zoning commission meeting, when that agreement was passed on to me and would you believe that that agreement was now fully redacted? There was not one word in the scope of service for Andrew Campanelli that wasn't fully redacted. And so I end up saying, what in the world is going on here? And I'm not a conspiracy theorist but after you direct us, we TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 47 of 54 hire consultants, we go through review, we let agreements expire, we fire or maybe, I should say not retain a consultant, we pivot and then we redact, all behind closed doors. Went from literally talking about ordinance development, even I am going to begin to wonder what is going on here. The commission, John, members of the public -- Lori, you in particular, have arguably hundreds of hours invested in this topic. The commission, finally stumbled on the realization, back in May, that the gap and most of our confusion, or I should say, most of my confusion and what we sought to accomplish was actually in Chapter 16 and not 17, which we had been told to put the blinders on for. But in retrospect, I guess, that really shouldn't surprise me. This commission, we're not always on the same page all the time, but what you can always say about this commission is that good things come from debate; good things come from research; good things come from the debate on that research; and good things come from the public participation. To roll over or turn around everybody says it's preempted or don't look here would be a dereliction of this commission and that's why we hung it all out there back in May and made the very specific request. And the request was two-part. The request was, A, we'd like to look at 16 and 17. We never said we'd like to combo them. We said we'd like to look at them, and maybe, tangentially we said the word, "combo". But if you go back and look at those minutes, it very specifically says look at Chapter 16 and 17. And the other request that we made is, we made the request to understand why. And we made that request and we said we'd take that request under admonishment in executive session or publicly, but we made that request. We never got it. The following morning, though, we got an email from the town attorney saying it's not going to happen, present your findings without delay. The clock's ticking essentially. That was long before John ever even posed the question to the council and that gets flagged as, a, noted, because we got the correspondence. And b, out by all accounts. Because we never asked the attorney's permission, we asked for council. But we were told within 24 hours to move along by the attorney. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 48 of 54 Once it got to the council we got the public lectures from the council on the rule of law, insubordination, protection of staff, trust what you can't see, trust what's behind the curtain, and of course, a few amusing analogies with respect to our collective skill sets. But we still never got that logical explanation that pass the bar. And ironically, only Councilpersons Friedel, Toth, and Skillicorn ever reached out to the commission to understand the basis of our request. If we were paid employees, I'd say I get it, but we're not. We're a cross-section of volunteer-residents with a singular objective of protecting the residents and the residents' investments in this town. We absolutely recognize we don't make policy or law, but we sure as heck have the ability to recommend and have an obligation to do that to the best of our ability. So when you leave the commission in the dark, you start to hypothesize why. So here they are. Door number 1, that Andrew Campanelli is wildly incompetent, maybe even dangerous and the town attorney gave him grace and a swift and quiet termination. I would buy this door except that we know that several other public entities here in Arizona and across the nation are utilizing the consultant to draft ordinances to protect their residents and investments. We have no idea what was ever in it. John did a nice job tonight of telling us where there were gaps in that ordinance and maybe those are gaps we would plug, maybe they weren't. But that's door number 1. Door number 2, the second consultant's onboarded. This consultant specializes in lease agreements between providers and municipalities. He inadvertently or directly makes a sales pitch, and the town sees dollar signs. The conundrum with door number 2, is those dollar signs, if not managed, are at the expense of the average citizen from a number of angles, predominantly property values and health. And that is not appropriate without us at least having a conversation. Door number 3, the commission is the same commission that presented the community resident ordinance to the council for a vote, as Commissioner Watts had outlined earlier. When we went through that process we were repeatedly told that the Prescott matter was the only model. We were told you can't, it's protected, it's untouchable, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 49 of 54 ADA, Fair Housing Act; and my favorite, it's preempted. But in the end the creation of that ordinance should be a very good reference of what can come of challenging perceived boundaries. This commission had the fortitude at that time, to say thanks for the advice, to walk away. However, we said at that time we're not going to run and hide. We'd rather present the language that's on the books today by all accounts, and that language has curtailed the number of homes converted to higher occupancy dormitories and has become a model ordinance for municipalities nationally that does it for all the right reasons. It promotes the types of homes when they're set up for the right reasons and it discourages the types of homes when they're set up as profit centers for corporations to the detriment of neighborhoods. The result of this a couple of years later is the number of homes is down significantly in Fountain Hills from the trajectory we were on. I view that as a success on behalf of the residents. And there might be a little bit of a -- I won't say: retribution is not the right word, but I'll use it anyway. It might be a little bit of retribution today because we didn't listen when we were told there's nothing you can do in this space, look elsewhere. So I'll wrap up here. I suppose special interest and personal interest could be in the mix, but I'm more inclined to believe it's a combination of doors 2 and 3, where town leadership has probably been pitched a potential financial gain through leases of right- of-way in folks' front yard in exchange for property values and health, through the town attorney who promotes a zero-risk mentality. Which in my way of thinking, benefits the attorney and his firm for making the next sales pitch to the next municipality for services. However, the downside here to us and to the town is that the zero-risk approach is paid for indirectly by the residents when we say we can't, or we'll get sued over time. I have a really hard time with this strategy. So ultimately, what do we do now? Do we take Chapter 17 in isolation? Do we punch it through tonight as we've been requested to do, to be in conformance with code and with all of the questions and the redlines that were fleshed here tonight? Or do we look at a path that is not often traveled? Frankly, I don't think we've ever traveled it, and say we're missing critical span of control to make any meaningful recommendation to the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 50 of 54 council, and we should simply defer? So if I was to make a motion, and I want to talk about this. But if I was to make a motion this evening it would be a, to say the work on Chapter 17 has been great. But we would be making a mistake to put anything forward on Chapter 17 without at least taking a hard look at Chapter 16. Preemption or not, I think that we can find a way to look at Chapter 16 and at least, the very least that comes of that, is we say we looked, we tried, we couldn't find a way. I guarantee you we'll find a way to do something impactful and meaningful to the residents and the property owners of this town if those restrictors are taken off of us and we can look at both of them. So my motion would be to park what's been done on Chapter 17, and effectively forward a recommendation to the council of quote-unquote "no recommendation until such time the council affords the commission the latitude to review and recommend modification to all facets of towers, their placement across Chapter 16 and Chapter 17". I think we owe it to everybody in this town and every resident who could be affected at some point in the future by right-of-way placement of a tower to say we actually looked at. So in closing, while we might say preempted, I think we should once again say, that's great, but let's go ahead and take look at the topic anyway and see if we can't effect some meaningful change. And so Chair, I'll turn that back to you. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Any other comments from commissioners? CHAIR GRAY: You still awake? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yep. Still awake. So in a -- SVEUM: This is Phil again. Phil Sveum. Again, uneducated for the most part with this. I couldn't agree more than -- I couldn't agree more with Peter on -- with his conclusions. I heard some great information tonight from commissioners that have been on top of this for months. Lori, your presentation every time I've seen it, heard it, you're a great asset to the town on this topic. And John, you do have an impossible job. I think I'd like to see us follow Peter's advice and park it for the time being and try to figure out what the town really wants out of this and how we can go about helping it accomplish that. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 51 of 54 Thank you. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Yeah. I also concur with what Chairman Gray is talking about and if he presented a resolution, I will second that. VICE CHAIR WATTS: In addition to what Commissioner Gray said, I think we got a huge amount of additional data this evening. A huge amount of open-ended questions that we don't have answers to and a whole heck of a lot more research. And I don't think that we can do the research sufficiently without all of the information. Just like any other trade, and I don't' care whether it is a framing contractor, he needs his hammers and saws, we need information. That is what will give us the ability to provide a very succinct, accurate, protective ordinance. Without the information, I think we're dead in the water. And so I appreciate all the kind words from Commissioner Gray. And Commissioner Gray, did you actually make a motion, or you intend to, or what do you want to do? CHAIR GRAY: Well, I mean I'm happy to. My motion is really simple. It's unconventional but it's simple. I -- there's great work on the table. I'll say this part again, I -- John has done a tremendous job to getting us to this far with -- essentially, what I view as two hands and one foot tied behind his back and we're fumbling along as best we can, largely led by you, Commissioner Watts, and a lot of the intel and research of Ms. Troller. I got to say, I can't follow 70 percent of it. I tried. But we can't do this like this. I don't care what anybody says. We can't -- I'm not going to be a part of being told that I have to put blinders on like I'm going into stall number 5 in the Derby, and I'm not supposed to look left or right. That's not how you develop the best possible product for the citizenry. Now, if there's another objective, by all means let's talk about it. But let's sanitize that out in public, in daylight. Let's not hold that in the backroom. Because we're talking about ordinance development here. And so we either look at this topic holistically across both the public and the private space or we just wait until such time that we, the town, as a body is willing to take that angle on it because whatever we do tonight, whatever we do in isolation with Chapter 17 will have an impact or will be TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 52 of 54 impacted by whatever happens within Chapter 16. And God knows if we don't touch Chapter 16, then it's preemption, preemption, preemption, don't touch it, they can do whatever they want. And I'll say it one more time that's exactly what we were told the community residences and what we have, and what we came out of that, I don't' think anybody fathomed we could have come out of that process with that. But we did. Between John, between public input, between our -- Ms. Bell, all of the research that happened and the collaboration on that resulted in something really special. So so why the hell wouldn't we try to do the same here? And so my recommendation because we're up against the timeline and the mandate, my recommendation is to forward a recommendation of no recommendation tonight. And again, solicit the approval to broach into, to unveil Chapter 16, look at the whole thing holistically, and then recompartmentalize it like adults into their respective chapters of code so we don't screw up the system. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Do I have a second on the motion? DAPAAH: Yes. I will second that motion. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Commissioner Dapaah seconds. And one other comment I want to make sure the commissioners understand. Because we have a timeline we have to deal with as well, to John's point during presentation, we could have possibly have a special meeting in -- I'm not sure when that would be, John. August? Early August, later August? WOODWARD: Before the 12th. WESLEY: Vice Chair, it would have to be before August 12th. WOODWARD: August 121. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So we may put ourselves in that position, just so that everybody is aware. So with that said, Paula can I have a -- oh, hang on. One second. Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: So I just -- I don't' have my arms around what we're doing. I can -- so we're saying no recommendation because we don't feel we can rule on antennas without ruling on the small cell right-of-way broadband part covered in Section 16? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 53 of 54 VICE CHAIR WATTS: I think that's part of it. But I also think that it is because of the complexity of right-of-ways (sic) versus private property-public property. Without all that information and without the technical and legal expertise to be able to answer all of the questions that we've got in front of us tonight, that we're going to defer. Paula, rollcall please? WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? DAPAAH: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Sveum? SVEUM: Aye. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Aye. WOODWARD: Chair Gray? CHAIR GRAY: Aye. WOODWARD: Seven-zero. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Thank you, Paula. And with that, we'll move to item number 6. Commission discussion request for research. Anybody have any topics that they'd like John and staff to address other than? I thought you had to go? COREY: I couldn't leave. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. I'm still hammering on bicycles and pedestrians. So don't lose sight of that one. WESLEY: okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Without any comments, we'll go to 7, summary for commission TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JULY 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 54 of 54 requests from John. WESLEY: I heard bicycles and pedestrians. That's my summary. VICE CHAIR WATTS: The bicycles and pedestrians is safety. It goes back to walking out. And this weekend, people walked out in the middle of the crosswalk at the Avenue of the Fountains and Saguaro; didn't look. Almost got run over by somebody making a turn because they thought they owned it. Same thing's happened at the roundabout several times where people have walked out and bicyclists blowing through stop signs, blowing through red lights. I know MCSO, their law enforcement is primary on vehicles, safety. But at some point I'd like to talk about bicycles and pedestrians. WESLEY: I guess, number 8 on the agenda? VICE CHAIR WATTS: I don't want to know the agenda. I just want to note it. WESLEY: Fine. So in terms of my report, Aguust meeting. At this point, it looks like you will likely have two special use permit applications for consideration and one ordinance text amendment. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. That's it? An easy August. WESLEY: Should be. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Should be. WESLEY: Maybe. DAPAAH: So we are meeting in August? WESLEY: Yes. You got to meet in August. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yep. And I think with that, do we have a motion to adjourn? KOVACEVIC: Motion. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Wow, that was quick. That's unanimous. COREY: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Thank you, everybody. Have a good night. ITEM 5. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 08/12/2024 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, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: A request for approval of a Special Use Permit for property located at 12005 N.Panorama to allow residential use of commercially zoned property.  Staff Summary (Background) The Request This request is for the lot at 12005 N. Panorama Drive.  The lot is approximately 0.61 acres in size.  The property is improved with two, two-story office buildings with a central outdoor stair, a parking lot with spaces for 28-vehicles, and a detached storage building/garage.  There are currently 12 office suites in the buildings.  The property was developed in the late 1980s with initial occupancy in 1989.   Improvements also include rooftop solar which provides power to the building. The request is to remodel the existing buildings to convert the land use from offices to 12 one- and two-bedroom apartments.  There will be no exterior changes to the buildings or parking area except to add a small outdoor amenity area. General Plan  Our Commitment, page 13: Maintain the delicate balance of land uses that make the Town a desirable place to live, work, enjoy and visit. Our Commitment, page 13: Support existing businesses and continue to attract businesses that stimulate the Town’s economy. Our Vision, page 14: Residents enjoy a walkable community that is conducive to civic involvement and activities. Our Vision, page 14: A variety of housing options are available in safe, quiet, pleasant, and enjoyable neighborhoods. Thriving Neighborhoods Goals and Policies, page 23 Goal 2: Support a housing strategy that encourages a broad range of quality housing types to address current and future housing needs and to support long-term economic vitality. Policy 1. Encourage a broad range of housing types affordable to all income ranges and age groups in a manner compatible with adjacent development. Policy 2. Encourage a range of housing types and residential densities and maintain consistency with the existing character of infill areas in conformance with criteria provided in Table 1: Character Areas Plan. Policy 4. Encourage quality urban, compact, walkable mixed-use development that complements surrounding uses in the Town Center and in other areas that may become available for urban development. Policy 6. Support quality residential development that meets Town housing needs, promotes the vitality of established neighborhoods, and enhances the quality of life of Fountain Hills. Goal 4: Attract quality residential development that supports the healthy and active lifestyle valued by the community. Policy 1: Ensure that new neighborhoods: a. Sensitively and aesthetically integrate residential development to the social, built and natural environments by supporting neighborhood connectivity to Fountain Hills’ Great Places. Character Area Goals and Polices, page 38 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. Policy 4. Direct commerce and employment to the character areas that sustain them in conformance with the Character Areas Plan map and Table 1. 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 3. Support a mix of residential, employment, and commercial uses at densities and intensities and in the development form that reflect the small-Town character of Fountain Hills. 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. Uses and Development Pattern for the Saguaro Boulevard Character Area: Continuation of the mix of uses and low scale development pattern.  Improvement along the Saguaro Boulevard frontage, possibly to include the removal of the frontage road, to present a high-quality street scene of active uses.  Redevelopment along Saguaro must consider the impacts of light and noise on the residential uses along Saguaro. Zoning Ordinance This lot and the surrounding area is zoned C-3 and developed with a variety of commercial uses including offices, auto repair, outdoor storage, retail, and restaurants.  The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12, defines the intention of the C-3 zoning district as follows: "C-3. General Commercial Zoning District: The principal purpose of this Zoning District is to provide for commercial uses concerned with wholesale or distribution activities in locations where there is adequate access to major streets or highways. Principal uses permitted in this Zoning District include retail and wholesale commerce and commercial entertainment." The C-3 zoning district is the most intense commercial district in Fountain Hills, allowing uses such as art metal and ornamental iron shops, cabinet and carpentry shops, landscape material sales, lumberyards, miniature golf courses and driving ranges, and automobile sales by right. Existing surrounding uses include a variety of outdoor storage activities, auto repair and office.  There are retail and restaurant uses available along Saguaro Boulevard.   Section 12.03 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for consideration of residential uses in commercial zoning districts through a Special Use Permit.  Residential uses are not allowed by right in the commercial zoning districts in order to keep the focused first on the desired primary activity in these areas.  Residential uses in a commercial area take away the opportunity for the commercial activity that could take place on the property and can create a problem for existing or future commercial activity in the area. Section 2.02 of the zoning ordinance establishes the process and criteria for consideration of a SUP.  Section 2.02 F. 1. d. of the zoning ordinance states: d. In order to recommend approval of any use permit, the findings of the Commission must be that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor shall it be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. Analysis This area was zoned and platted prior to incorporation of the Town for commercial uses.  It is still the desire of the Town to have this be a successful commercial center.  In consideration of this request for the Special Use permit, the questions become:  1. Would the proposed residential use be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, or comfort of the neighborhood? 2. Would allowing residential use of this property be detrimental or injurious to the current commercial property improvements? 3. Is the residential use being designed and established in a manner that creates a desirable living environment in a manner compatible with the adjacent development and supportive of the general welfare of the Town? Impact on public health, safety, peace, or comfort of the neighborhood.  Redeveloping the existing buildings for residential use is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, peace or comfort of the surrounding neighborhood. Impact on the adjacent commercial property improvements.  Owners of surrounding properties and the existing business on those properties have been established in an area devoted to non-residential uses.  In this type of heavy commercial area, higher levels of noise and activity are anticipated and expected.  The introduction of people living in the area creates the potential that the residents will expect and not tolerate the level of noise and activity historically associated with this area.  As noted in some of the General Plan policy statements above, there is a desire to maintain the established commercial areas and encourage job growth.  The Character Area plan for this area is to maintain and improve upon the commercial nature that has been established.  Other properties in the area are underutilized.  Reuse of this property could stimulate others to rethink how their property could be used in a more productive manner. productive manner. Creating a desirable living environment that supports the general welfare of the Town.  As noted in several of the General Plan goals and policies stated above, a key component of the Plan is to create and maintain quality residential neighborhoods for people to live in.  The places established for people to live should provide quiet neighborhoods or be part of a mixed-use urban environment that supports an active lifestyle.  As currently developed, this location does not support either of these two types of living environments.  It is not a quiet neighbor and the surrounding uses and development pattern, including the lack of sidewalks, does not create an active urban environment.  Residents of these dwelling units will potentially be subject to noise, activities, and views that are not typical for a residential living environment. Citizen Participation Copies of the applicant's citizen participation plan and report are attached.  A meeting was held and one neighboring property owner attended.  This neighboring business supported the request.  Property owners within 300' were also provided a phone number and email address to contact the applicant with questions or comments.  No other comments were received. Staff received one email, copy attached, expressing concerns about introducing residential uses into this commercial area with its associated noise, odors, and activity.   Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 2.02, Special Use Permits Zoning Ordinance Chapter 12, Section 12.03, Uses Requiring Special Use Permits Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff sees some challenges with approving the requested Special Use Permit and allowing residential uses at this location within a commercial district.  This isolated pocket of residential activity will be subject to negative impacts from the surrounding commercial activities. However, the General Plan encourages a wide variety of living options and opportunities.  Further, this building has been vacant for many years.  Repurposing the building for residential uses would be a creative reuse.  The applicant's Good Neighbor Policy states the intent to work with surrounding property owners to resolve any disputes or concerns. Staff can support a recommendation for approval of this requested SUP to allow up to 12 dwelling units on this lot in the existing buildings. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to recommend approval/denial of SUP 24-000002. Attachments Vicinity Map  Project Narrative  Site Plan  Citizen Participation Plan  Citizen Participation Report  Good Neighbor Statement  Opposition Email  Vicinity CASE: SUP24-000002 SITE / ADDRESS: 12005 N PANORAMA DR APN 176-08-601A REQUEST: SUP FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, CONVERT OFFICE BUILDING INTO 12 APARTMENTS, IN THE C-3, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONING DISTRICT. 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 DetailsDetailsSUP24-000002SUP24-000002 PA N O R A M A D R TIO G A D R FAL C O N D R FA L C O N D R SAGU A R O B L V D ENTE R P R I S E D R C O L O N Y D R A L L E Y ALL E Y ALLEY ALLE Y Arthur and Heather Tolis 16115 E. Glenview Drive Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 480-270-9244 / 480-432-6764 Art@TolisMortgageUSA.com / TolisGroupAZ@Gmail.com REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT / AND OR ZONING CHANGE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IN ORDER TO PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT TOWN AND COUNCIL INITIATIVES TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING OPTIONS. PROPERTY ADDRESS 12005 North Panorama Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Project Overview/ Conversion Narrative The property at 12005 North Panorama Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268, currently encompasses over 10,120 square feet, and includes 12 office units under C3 zoning for commercial use. However, with the shift in office space needs and a growing trend towards home-based work, this property is poised for conversion into residential housing. This change aligns with the town's general and strategic plans, addressing both the surplus of commercial vacancies and the increasing demand for residential options. Current Zoning: C-3 C-3. General Commercial Zoning District: The principal purpose of this Zoning District is to provide for commercial uses concerned with wholesale or distribution activities in locations where there is adequate access to major streets or highways. Principal uses permitted in this Zoning District include retail and wholesale commerce and commercial entertainment. The property sits adjacent to an automotive repair shop, a water company, an RV (Recreational Vehicles) self-storage facility, other commercial office space, and is near residential areas and Fountain Park—a mere four-minute walk away. The surrounding amenities, such as a local deli/neighborhood convenience store, Fountain Park, Four Peaks Vista Park/Dog park, skate park, soccer fields, etc. are all within a short walk. In addition, there are multiple dining options for residents to enjoy the convenience of walking from the property. The proposed development involves transforming the existing structure into 12 residential apartments, each approximately 840 square feet. These units will offer one and two bedrooms, a kitchen, and a full bath. The current design of the building, including separate utilities for each unit and adequate parking (28 spaces), makes this conversion feasible. Within just a short distance down the street from this property are multi-family residential condominiums and significant single family housing developments all within walking distance of the Fountain Park and other park amenities. This change will not adversely affect the area and will contribute to the added safety and vibrancy that comes with added residential activity. Compliance and Upgrades Our plan includes/will include all necessary updates to meet residential building codes, particularly concerning fire safety. The existing cinderblock walls have the required fire ratings, and we will install fire suppression systems and other mandated fire-related upgrades, as necessary based on current updated code requirements. All changes will be documented and submitted for permits and inspections to ensure full compliance. Timeline and Approvals We aim to secure approval for the residential use of the property at the September town council meeting with full approval recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commissioners at the August meeting. Following approval, the goal is to close escrow by November 1. Renovations are projected to take 3-4 months, allowing for a phased approach to construction and occupancy. Market Positioning These new residential units will be competitively priced between $1800 and $2200 per month, aligning with the current market rates for comparable properties in the area. The location's convenience and the vibrant local amenities make it an attractive option for potential residents. We will also be providing as an added amenity a dog area along with an outdoor grilling area for community gathering and socializing. The property has adequate space outdoors for this added amenity and a central courtyard with park benches and a water feature for residence to enjoy in peace. Conclusion The conversion of 12005 North Panorama Dr. into residential housing addresses both the excess of commercial vacancies and the housing needs of Fountain Hills. This project will provide well- located, market-aligned housing, contributing positively to the community's development and supporting the town’s strategic goals. We respectfully request approval of this needed residential apartment housing and look forward to providing a first-class residential housing option for future residents. Thank you for your consideration, Art and Heather Tolis Site Plan 12005 N. Panorama Dr.: All existing site improvements to remain Existing Building Existing Building Existing Building Existing Parking Art and Heather Tolis 16115 E Glenview Drive Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 480-270-9244/480-432-6764 Art@TolisMortgageUSA.com / TolisGroupAZ@Gmail.com Citizen Participation Plan for 12005 Panorama Special Use Permit Date: May 29, 2024 Purpose: This Citizen Participation Plan informs citizens, property owners, and nearby neighborhood associations of the special use permit application for residential uses of the former office building at 12005 N. Panorama. This plan will ensure that those affected by this application will have an adequate opportunity to learn about and comment on the proposal. Applicant: Art and Heather Tolis 16115 E. Glenview Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Location: The property considered for this SUP is on the east side of North Panorama Dr. north of Saguaro. 2. Action Plan: 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 for citizens within 300’ of the project location. 2. All persons listed on the contact list will receive a letter describing the project, project schedule, and invitation to a neighborhood meeting to be held at the property 12005 N Panorama Drive – 1st Floor conference room July 10th at 2pm. The letter will also include access information for anyone wanting to attend the meetings virtually. The meeting will be an introduction to the project, and an opportunity to ask questions and state concerns. A sign-in list will be used, and comment forms provided. Copies of the sign-in list and any comments will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. 3. Presentations will be made to any other groups or citizens 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. Follow Up: On or before July 31, 2024 a Citizen Participation Report will be submitted to the Town summarizing comments received and actions, if any, to be taken in response to the comments. Schedule: Mail letters by June 30th, 2024 Neighborhood meeting July 10, 2024 Neighborhood Meeting Report Property Address: 12005 North Panorama Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Meeting Summary and Response: A neighborhood meeting was conducted in July to discuss the proposed plans for the property located at 12005 North Panorama Dr. Notifications were sent to all residents in the vicinity, inviting them to attend the meeting or reach out via phone or email with any questions or concerns. Community Response: Personal Contact: Only one individual reached out personally via phone. This was the owner of the property immediately to the west of the building. Inquiries and Support: The owners of Mike’s Automotive inquired about the plans for the building. They expressed strong support for the vision and intent to utilize the building for residential purposes. They agreed that the location was excellent, noting the benefits of the nearby amenities, including the park and various restaurants on Saguaro within walking distance. They believe the proposed residential use would add vibrancy to the area with minimal impact on their business or the surrounding neighborhood. Meeting Attendance: No other property owners in the area attended the meeting at the building. No additional contacts were made via phone or email, despite the contact information being provided in the communication sent to all residents. Conclusion: The overall response to the proposed residential use of the property at 12005 North Panorama Dr. has been positive, with support from neighboring businesses and minimal concerns raised by other property owners. Respectfully submitted, Art and Heather Tolis Art and Heather Tolis 16115 E Glenview Drive Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 480-270-9244 / 480-432-6764 Art@TolisMortgageUSA.com / TolisGroupAZ@gmail.com Citizen Participation Plan for Special Use Permit for: PROPERTY ADDRESS 12005 North Panorama Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Good Neighbor Policy for Changing Property Use from Commercial to Residential Use Introduction: This Good Neighbor Policy outlines the commitments and actions we pledge to undertake to ensure a smooth and respectful transition as we change the use of our property from commercial to residential. Our goal is to foster a positive relationship with our neighbors and maintain the quality of life in the community. We believe this change will bring more vibrancy to the area and provide for a safer environment for the public right of way from Saguaro Boulevard to the northeast corner of Panorama Drive adjacent to Fountain Park. Commitments: 1. Transparent Communication: - We will notify all adjacent property owners and neighborhood associations of our intent to change the property use, including detailed plans and timelines. The required 300 ft notification will be provided. * Expected Timeline: Mail out Notifications regarding Special Use Permit Request – June 2024 Meeting at Property for Property Owners – July 2024 Planning and Zoning Meeting Approval – August 2024 Council Final Approval September 2024 - Detailed plans will include start dates / end dates. We expect the construction upgrades to begin once we close escrow – expected date November 1, 2024. - Notice will be located on the property to add to the transparency of the zoning request with the dates and times of the upcoming related town meetings. 2. Community Input: - We will hold local property owner community meetings to gather input and address concerns from neighbors which will be scheduled for July 2024 - Feedback will be considered in the planning and development process to minimize negative impacts and will be shared with the Planning and Zoning commissioners. 3. Minimizing Disruption: - Construction activities will be scheduled to minimize noise and disruption, adhering to local noise ordinances, and working during reasonable hours. - We will implement measures to control dust, debris, and traffic associated with construction. The property has adequate parking and a work area behind the building which will be used in the construction upgrading phase. 4. Parking and Traffic Management: - A traffic and parking plan will be developed to address potential issues arising from the new residential use. The property has adequate parking and there should not be any issues with traffic. Each tenant will have an assigned parking space which will eliminate parking issues and unlicensed parking on the property. - Adequate parking will be provided on-site to reduce street parking congestion. 5. Environmental Responsibility: - We will ensure that any construction or renovation follows environmental regulations and best practices to minimize ecological impact. - Green spaces and landscaping will be incorporated to enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetics and environment. - The open space/pocket park will be created for residents to enjoy barbecue grill and quite enjoyment on the property. 6. Safety and Security: - Site safety will be a priority, with secure fencing and clear signage to keep the area safe for residents and passersby when construction is being completed. - We will work with local law enforcement to ensure the new residential development contributes positively to neighborhood security. Currently, the building has security cameras and motion detection lighting. With the added activity and residential use, it will be safer than the current vacant building. 7. Property Maintenance: - The property will be maintained to a high standard, ensuring it is clean, safe, and attractive. - Regular maintenance and prompt repair of any issues will be carried out to prevent negative impacts on the surrounding area. 8. Conflict Resolution: - A designated point of contact will be available for neighbors to voice concerns or complaints. - We commit to addressing and resolving issues promptly and respectfully. Implementation: - Notification: Detailed letters and emails will be sent to all affected parties outlining the project, timeline, and contact information. - Meetings: Initial and follow-up community meetings will be scheduled, with dates and locations communicated well in advance. -Feedback Channels: A dedicated email address will be established for continuous feedback and updates. -Monitoring: Regular monitoring of construction impacts, and community feedback will be conducted to adjust plans, as necessary. Conclusion We are dedicated to being a responsible and considerate neighbor during this transition. Through proactive communication, thoughtful planning, and a commitment to addressing community concerns, we aim to ensure a harmonious integration of the new residential use into the existing neighborhood fabric. We strongly believe the new vibrancy which will come from this location will add value to the adjacent business owners on Saguaro Blvd which is walking distance of this new residential upscale/updated apartment complex. Contact Information: Project Manager: Art and Heather Tolis Phone: 480-270-9244 / 480-432-6764 Email: Art@TolisMortgageUSA.com Thank you for your cooperation and support as we work to improve our community. Hello John, We just received notice about an application for a special use permit for 12005 N Panorama, the Christensen Corporate Center. We own and operate Breton's Automotive which is located just behind the property in question. There are multiple reasons that having a residential property in the midst of multiple businesses like ours is a terrible idea. The surrounding businesses which have all been here for many years consist largely of automotive repair, construction companies, and RV storage. This area is constantly bustling with things that I most certainly would not want outside my home or bedroom window. Our business hours are from 7:00am-6:00pm Monday - Thursday. Automotive repair comes with loud noises and aromas that I doubt the average tenant would appreciate waking up to or living with every day. There are also delivery trucks and customer traffic associated with our business and that of our neighbors. I foresee a tremendous number of complaints from any residents that move into what should remain a commercial property. This is a bad idea for the area for which it is planned, and it will result in unhappy residents, as well as unhappy business owners. On behalf of my family and our business I request that this special use permit be denied. Carole Breton 17123 East Falcon Drive Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 (480) 421-9048 www.bretonsauto.com From:John Wesley To:Paula Woodward Subject:FW: Special Use Permit (APN# 176-08-601A Date:Tuesday, August 6, 2024 11:30:15 AM Attachments:image002.png Please add this to the P&Z packet. From: Ben Siegert < Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 11:25 AM To: John Wesley <jwesley@fountainhillsaz.gov> Cc: Jerrad Trulson Subject: Special Use Permit (APN# 176-08-601A EXTERNAL EMAIL Mr. Wesley, My name is Ben Siegert, I am the Vice President of T&T Construction Inc., we have owned the property at N Falcon Drive since 1996. We are located directly behind 12005 N Panorama Drive. We are against rezoning of the subject property for residential use. This area is a commercial area with several construction yards, mechanic shops, and storage yards used for small contractors and their equipment. The nature of the work around these commercial areas involves early hours loading and unloading of materials, equipment operation, power tool usage, and trucks operating with back up alarms. There are multiple contractors with Emergency Job Order Contracts for municipalities and private utilities located in this area. These contracts require response outside of normal working hours and could be at any hour of the day or night. This could lead to disruptive noise to the residential property if approved and would be considered acceptable within the Town of Fountain Hills noise ordinance. While the above is inherent to a commercial area, this will be a nuisance to future residents if the property is rezoned for residential use, resulting in complaints to the Town and the existing business operators in the area. We are not in favor of the special use rezoning to allow residential usage of the subject property, and hope the Town takes these concerns into consideration. Thanks, Ben Siegert, V.P. P: ext. 14F: www.ttconstruction.com ITEM 6. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 08/12/2024 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):  CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance #24-13 amending Zoning Ordinance Section 5.14, Home Occupations, regarding allowances for on-street parking.  Staff Summary (Background) In early 2024 staff processed an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance addressing several issues with the Town's home occupation regulations.  This ordinance was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on February 12, 2024, and recommended for approval. The Town Council considered the text amendment at their meeting on March 19, 2024.  At this hearing there were some comments from the public and discussion by the Council for some adjustments to the ordinance.  One of the comments made from a citizen had to do with the potential impact of on-street parking from a business being operated in a home.  The subsequent motion by the Council did not include the additional language regarding on-street parking.  Staff has been asked to bring this issue back through the review process to address the concern presented at the Council hearing. The request made at the Council meeting was to adjust the ordinance to require that during business hours, all parking associated with the property has to occur in the garage or on a paved driveway or on-site paved parking space if there is space for them.  Only if all on-site parking is occupied could there be any parking on the street. The proposed ordinance language is: G. Traffic and Parking. Customer/patron and shipping/receiving trip generation shall not exceed six (6) vehicle trips a day. No more than one (1) vehicle used for commercial purposes associated with the business may be parked on site and must comply with Section 12-3-10. During business hours, parking by customers, patrons, or employees must be on the property on an approved paving surface. THERE SHALL BE NO ON-STREET PARKING FOR ANY PURPOSE DURING BUSINESS HOURS IF THERE IS ON-SITE PARKING AVAILABLE. STREET PARKING MAY ONLY BE USED WHEN ON-SITE PARKING IS FULL. Enforcement of this ordinance will be on a complaint basis because Code Officers will not generally know which properties house a home occupation. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Zoning Ordinance Section 5.14, Home Occupations Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approval. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to recommend adoption of Ordinance #24-13. Attachments Ordinance 24-13  ORDINANCE NO. 24-13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 5, GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 5.14 HOME OCCUPATIONS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR PARKING ENACTMENTS: NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 5.14 G is amended as follows G. Traffic and Parking. Customer/patron and shipping/receiving trip generation shall not exceed six (6) vehicle trips a day. No more than one (1) vehicle used for commercial purposes associated with the business may be parked on site and must comply with Section 12-3-10. During business hours, parking by customers, patrons, or employees must be on the property on an approved paving surface. THERE SHALL BE NO ON-STREET PARKING FOR ANY PURPOSE DURING BUSINESS HOURS IF THERE IS ON-SITE PARKING AVAILABLE. STREET PARKING MAY ONLY BE USED WHEN ON-SITE PARKING IS FULL. Section 2. In accordance with Article II, Sections 1 and 2, Constitution of Arizona, and the laws of the State of Arizona, the City/Town Council has considered the individual property rights and personal liberties of the residents of the City/Town and the probable impact of the proposed ordinance on the cost to construct housing for sale or rent before adopting this ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona, this 17TH day of September, 2024. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________ __________________________________ Ginny Dickey, Mayor Linda Mendenhall, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ __________________________________ Rachael, Town Manager Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney