Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout240311 Summary Minutes & Verbatim TranscriptTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 33 Post-Production File Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 11, 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 MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 33 GRAY: All right. Let's go ahead and call this meeting to order. If everyone would please stand for a pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. ALL: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. GRAY: Thank you. Paula, roll call, please. WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Here. WOODWARD: Vice Chairman Watts? WATTS: Here. WOODWARD: Chair Gray? GRAY: Here. Thank you, Paula. Agenda item number 3, call to the public. Paula, any open call? WOODWARD: No, Chairman. GRAY: Thank you. Number 4, consideration and action or possible action on the February 12/24 verbatim meeting minutes. Commissioners, any discussion? WATTS: No. I move to approve as submitted. COREY: Second. GRAY: Moved by Commissioner Watts. Seconded by Commissioner Corey. All in favor? ALL: Aye. WOODWARD: Susan, did we hear you? DEMPSTER: Yes. Aye. WOODWARD: Thank you. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 33 GRAY: Thank you, Susan. WATTS: And Chairman Gray, before we proceed to item number 5, I'd like to make a motion. GRAY: John, is Commissioner able to make a motion ahead of the public hearing? WESLEY: Mr. Chair, it's not a public hearing this evening. And so you can always make a motion about, but I guess we can see. GRAY: Let's hear your motion. WATTS: I'd like to move to postpone item Number 5. Any discussion related to it until commissioners are provided with information related to the consultant that was engaged and referenced throughout the document, and a postponement for 60 days. GRAY: So a continuance? WATTS: Continuance, yes. GRAY: Commissioners, is there a second to Commissioner Watt's motion? I would be open to a continuance -- DEMPSTER: Can we -- GRAY: -- but I do want to hear the -- I do want to hear the staff presentation. Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: Yeah. I mean, I'd like to discuss it because I, too, would like to see the -- I mean, we did hire a consultant, and I would like to see that report myself. GRAY: Commissioners, any objection to hearing the staff presentation before we entertain a vote on the motion? WATTS: The only objection that I've got is that I've got six pages of comments on the ordinance as it stands today, and without the consultant's document to reference, there's -- I'll give you examples. There's no reference to house bills, state or federal regulations. There's no consideration for impact on residential values, and that's across the country, anywhere from 3 to 20 percent. There's a lot of implications here, and we have not taken the steps to provide safety and protection to the public and their interest in their residences. So I want to approach it like we did community homes where we were able to manage -- not prohibit -- but manage so that we can minimize TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 33 the impact on the community. GRAY: And you feel the third-party consultant's report is integral to that process.? WATTS: The unfortunate part is that I don't know because that has been a point of contention where I've asked for it three times and have been denied three times. And I don't know the basis of being denied for it because it's referenced in the documents and in the summary. And if it's referenced there, then I should have the opportunity to look at why it was referenced and what other things were not included that should be included. GRAY: Commissioner Corey? COREY: John, I see in the agenda here it's just "review, discuss, and provide comments," though. So we're not making a motion or anything tonight. Correct? GRAY: Okay. Well, commissioners, Commissioner Watts has a motion on the table. We need a second to take that to a vote. I would still be in favor of at least hearing out the staff presentation, and maybe John can address some of the why behind the references to the third-party report. And I think maybe at that point, I would be amenable to taking a continuance poll among us. But I do want to hear the staff presentation. I don't know if we need to get into the deliberation and the feedback loop on modifications here. I think that's where I would -- I would rather we draw the line there. Let's get to -- let's hear the presentation from staff. Then let's say let's potentially park this. Have the discussion here or in executive session if we need to about the third- party consultants' report that keeps being referenced, and then we can close the loop on the whole process. COREY: And I think that's good. GRAY: Commissioner Dempster, give you the -- DEMPSTER: Sure. That works. I mean, I have many, many questions and comments as well, so the presentation may clarify some things. GRAY: Okay. So we will -- let's effectively table Commissioner Watts' motion for the time being. Let's bring John up for staff presentation on agenda 5. WESLEY: Good evening, Chairman, commissioners. I'll go through this here, and I'm TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 33 expecting a lot of comments and questions because that's where we’re in the process. As Commissioner Corey mentioned, we weren't going to take any action this evening anyway. It's looking for additional input and feedback to come back at future meetings to continue to refine this. So we'll see where we get to this evening. So just a brief recap. We've been looking at this for a couple of years based on some concerns and comments, questions that came from public initially about 5G small cell, and then other concerns have kind of grown from there. As has been mentioned, a consultant was hired to prepare an ordinance for our consideration. That was reviewed by staff and the town council. The town council did not particularly find that work what we needed and directed staff to work on a revised ordinance, pulling from that draft where it might be beneficial. And so that's what we've been working on. At your January meeting, the commission and public had the opportunity to provide staff with some early input to, again, try to focus on what the issues and concerns were. The main comments that were discussed last month were about regulating broadband service. The effort and the direction that we've had from town council is to update the current wireless facility ordinance, and so that's where the focus has been. Did point out again in there that the small cell wireless in the right-of-way is handled in a different part of the town code and not in the zoning ordinance and so it's not being looked at, at least at this time. So some of the goals we've had as we've worked on this balance the needs of providing quality service with public safety, trying to limit towers in and near residential areas, establish clear, manageable review process, provide for ongoing maintenance, and addressing esthetics. Here's an outline of the existing and proposed ordinances. So you can just kind of have that overview as we get started looking at the details of where things are and where they have been and what we're trying to -- the organization scheme thereafter, with the revised ordinance. And so particularly at this point, Chairman, as we get into the ordinance itself, my expectation is that we would stop and entertain any commission questions as we go in TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 33 each one of these sections. And I've also have the ordinance itself -- that I can pull up as we need to -- readily available, but the first one in Section 17.01, the purpose, intent, and applicability. Section A, the current ordinance, there's no change there, other than breaking out the long paragraph into the A, B, C so they're easier to read is the only change made to that particular section of the current code. Added to it "B. Intent" section that provides the four-part balancing test. One of those major goals that we had with this is trying to provide that balance between what is needed to provide good service and looking out for some of the public impact concerns that we've been hearing. And C, in this section, "Applicability." It's a current section of the code; just moved to this spot in the code to help it flow a little bit better, more consistent with other parts of the code. Most of it is current code. The first three bullets there come from the current code. Did add a reference so that it'd be easy for somebody looking here, thinking they might find information on small cell, but that's not in this section. It's over in the rest of the town code. And also added a provision for mobile or temporary towers, which isn't covered in the current code. Sometimes called COWs. You have a special event going on or a cell tower's down, they bring in a temporary one on wheels and park it for a period of time. So beginning to address that topic. Anything? WATTS: Chairman, John, in -- I think it's House Bill 2365, there was a lot of information that was excerpted from that that you've included in the ordinance, with the exception of an exclusion that specifically says towers are allowed in the right-of-way, except in single-family residence locations. I don't see a provision in there that excludes single- family residence areas. WESLEY: I guess, I'm not familiar with that in the code, and so I'll need to see that. WATTS: Okay. WESLEY: Then we can make that change as may be necessary. But what we've done in section and town code 16.2, on small cell wireless, that is anything that is exempted by state statute that can go on the right-of-way that falls there. And if it doesn't meet that, then it goes in here, and it's covered by this ordinance. WATTS: The wording gets a little bit cumbersome because it says all of these things are TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 of 33 right, except -- and it doesn't say "except," it says "not including single-family residences." So I can see where it becomes a little misleading, but the implication is certainly that it protects single-family residents from having a tower set in front of their house. And that goes back to the degradation of property values from anywhere from 3 to 20 percent if somebody has a tower in front and we won't even get into other implications and so on. But yes, that is included in there as well. WESLEY: Any other questions? Comments? Okay. Then, the next section, 17.02, "Definitions." That's the same, except added three new definitions to cover some topics that we felt needed to be addressed. GRAY: Is that an opportunity to put some more refined definition to small cell? WESLEY: So there is a possibility of that, Chairman, as needed. But we can't preempt state statute in doing so. From there, we get into more of the meat of the ordinance itself. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: So to me, this is very much like community homes where we're not here to prohibit towers, any kind of a tower. And I don't care whether it's small cell or cellular or whatever. The idea is not to prohibit but to restrict to the maximum amount so that we don't have an adverse impact on residences -- WESLEY: Correct. WATTS: -- or residents. So that's really the nature of what's going on. And I want to go back to 17.01, that second bullet point, the balancing component. WESLEY: Yes. WATTS: That's pretty vague. How are you going to balance test? Is there some methodology that the input and the output of the transmission of each of these towers? My suggestion would be -- and I know it wasn't covered here, so I'm probably going to jump ahead -- that we have a matrix, much like we do on community housing, where you have a particular type of tower, and then you have regulations that are applicable to that particular type of tower. The requirements for input and output, output on the decibel ratings, and decibel being the radio frequency component, all of those things. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 of 33 And we should be able to develop a matrix that says, here's the requirements, here's what you have to do, here's the testing process and the procedures, as well as how we're going to enforce it on a semiannual basis, so that code enforcement has a very definitive process to be able to follow. Again, to make sure that they're in compliance with what the original application is. So I would ask that we look at that and provide more detail. COREY: But I noticed that you did share the link to the standards for RF radiation safety, and it looks like there is some sort of a matrix in there that says what the limits are depending on where it's situated. Right? WESLEY: Yeah. Yes. Chairman, Commissioner Corey, there are prescriptive limits within the federal regulations, and those are referenced here in a requirement for annual review. COREY: Okay. Thank you. WESLEY: So again, we get to 17.03. Again, that's where we start getting into a little bit more of the details of the ordinance. Some things are moved around from the existing ordinance into different sections, some things deleted, but in general -- we moved a provision that requires inventory of existing sites into the application section. Added some additional details on the esthetic designs and in particular, a new section dealing with utility service antennas. You might have seen those kind of popping up around town a little bit. There's one over here on La Montana with the SRP switch boxes. It's got the little tower and the little head on it. We're already working with SRP to get those put into more stealth design. And these regulations will help enforce that into the future. Move the sections that were in 17.03 dealing with state and federal requirements and building codes and maintenance to later in the ordinance. And move the public notice requirements in the section into where we talk about applications. Deleted the reference here to building and support equipment because it's covered elsewhere. Added a section dealing with noise, and moved sections that require engineering certifications from other places in the ordinance to this location. And those provide some general guidelines and direction for any application that are then picked TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 of 33 up later with specific application on which of those that they need to actually address. And I think at this point, as we get into that next section that deals with the setbacks and separations, we moved that. And so, Commissioner Watts, this begins to address some of your comments a moment ago in terms of the matrix and separation requirements. It doesn't get into the level that you were talking about, but does provide separations from different land uses based on the height of the tower, at least. And so I do have some of that in the ordinance already. These are all current ordinance, and at this point just kept everything as it has been in the ordinance. Certainly, any of these numbers and distances are subject to modification as the Commission might deem appropriate and necessary. Any comments or questions on those? GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: John, can I get -- what's the definition of noise? Is it electronic noise? Is it audible noise? Is it RF noise? So can we include something that defines what noise is and how we're going to measure it? WESLEY: So, at this point, we've referenced the section of the town code that deals with noise, and that would be the intent at this point. We've had discussions before with the town council about trying to measure noise in terms of decibels. And our town prosecutors have pointed out all the challenges and troubles, and difficulties with using that approach. And so we've moved away from that. And so it's based more on somebody's being offended or affected by the noise and reporting that. And if it's found to be unreasonable noise, then addressed. WATTS: I'd be surprised if towers generate noise in the traditional sense being audible, but I think it warrants clarification because the decibel nomenclature is applicable not only to audible noise but also to radio frequency noise. So that's where my confusion came from. What kind of noise are we talking about? We rate RF in decibels as well, and it's slightly different. So there's a lot of different methods that I think we need some clarification there. WESLEY: I would think most of the concern would be with the equipment itself and backup generators and those kinds of things that might be generating noise and when TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 of 33 they're done. But understood. WATTS: Okay. DEMPSTER: I have a quick question. John, I may have missed it, but I see height requirements for accessory structures and for screening fences, but what's the maximum height for a tower? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Dempster, that depends upon the zoning district that it's in and what the height allowances are in that district. I still have to hunt around sometimes to remember where I moved things in here to talk about that specifics on height. DEMPSTER: Just that -- yeah. WESLEY: We have based on the height, what the separation distances are in this one table. DEMPSTER: Okay. WESLEY: As far as the equipment goes, it is again standard for what is allowed in the zoning district. DEMPSTER: I'm sorry. The visual part is delayed. What page is that on? WESLEY: So page 13. DEMPSTER: Okay. So I got confused. So the monopole can be used interchangeably with the tower. Right? WESLEY: It's a type of tower. Yes. DEMPSTER: Okay. All right. I was confused. Thank you. WESLEY: And so the next section in 17.03 is the "Buildings and other equipment." Again, that's a same as the current ordinance language, except one word that we changed, an "and" to an "or "dealing with the equipment that might be in a front yard to make sure it wasn't creating an obstruction. Then next, we move to co-locations, requirements for that. And that's again, we moved section 17.09 to this location with no changes. From there, we get into the actual types of applications that we can receive. And basically there are two types: administrative or public review applications. So the first TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 of 33 section goes through those types of applications and what they consist of. After going back and looking at this and proposing one minor modification already to some of the language in here, as shown on the bottom of the screen there, I realized I wrote it a little too narrowly in saying "antenna or tower," we really are talking about the entire facility. So changed that to say "the wireless communication facility" would be my suggestion there. And then go through some of the criteria are that are used to define what is considered administrative review. And basically, anything that's not an administrative review, if it doesn't fall in that list, it's going to be a public review. Go ahead. GRAY: I was just going to suggest that the 300-foot threshold for public review is probably a little bit low. I don't know how much -- I don't know how much more latitude or control you have. WESLEY: So Chairman, we've certainly got a lot of latitude there. We could make -- again, we could make every tower require public review if we wanted to. This current code is 300-feet, we could make it 100; we could make it 500; we could make it 1,000, depending on which way you want to go. My thought and reason that I didn't put in here zero and require everything to be public review, you remove some incentive then. If it costs me just as much to go to residential as it does to go in commercial, I might as well try the residential and see if I can get it approved. This, at least, gives you your first encouragement to not go in residential, to find a place that's 300 feet away at least, so I don't have to go through public review. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: Question. I think I agree with Chairman Gray that 300 feet is too close, and some of the lot sizes in town are acre plus; 300 feet is not a lot. So I would be more inclined to support a minimum of 1,000 feet. And I think every tower, regardless of the type, should have a review. Because -- do you have individual applications or is it check the box as to what type of tower, so you understand the impact when an applicant is submitting the application? WESLEY: Chairman, Vice-Chair, maybe I don't fully understand the question, but they'll TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 of 33 will submit drawings and information about the tower. It's not just checking a box. WATTS: I don't mean checking a box as far as approvals go, but being the type of tower. This goes back to the concept of having the type of -- whether it's community homes or towers -- what type is it going to be? A cell tower? Is it going to be a broadband tower? Is it going to be -- what type of tower is it going to be, so we understand the potential impact on neighborhoods. WESLEY: So what kind of antennas are going to be on the tower? WATTS: Right. WESLEY: Sounds like more of the question. WATTS: Yeah. The tower's benign, really. It's the components of the tower. WESLEY: So I'm not sure there's too much in here that gets at that level of detail about the antennas. WATTS: Okay. Then I would suggest that we at least look at 1,000 feet separation so that we minimize the number of towers, potentially, in town. WESLEY: So go back to this one. So this is just talking about when you need to submit a public review application versus something to be approved administratively. So you're saying here, if we switch that to 1,000 feet, that anything in a residential district or within 1,000 feet of a residential district would require public review versus being able to be approved administratively? WATTS: I'm still concerned about the residential district. Because again, in house bill 2365, there's an exemption for single-family residences where you can't put them in the right-of-way. Everywhere else you can put them in a right-of-way, and that's where the exception -- the distance would be applicable. But if I'm reading it correctly in that house bill, the single-family residence areas are not included in -- you can't put them in the right-of-way by right. GRAY: Yeah. It's really confusing language, but I think he's right on that. I keep reading it here. It effectively says -- and this is only related to small cell but it effectively says "The provider can install small cell wireless in any right-of-way they like, except for right- of-way that's zoned inside of a single-family residential use district." TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 of 33 WESLEY: Is that a current House bill? WATTS: Yes. WESLEY: Okay. So it's not adopted statute at this point? WATTS: I believe it is. We can double-check, but I think it's worth looking at anyway to make sure. WESLEY: Sure. If there's a change -- WATTS: Because if they carved that out, then -- GRAY: So I think -- that's from 2017. I don't know because I -- WATTS: I think it's worth looking at. GRAY: -- remember reading the ARS on this, and I don't remember a single-family residential carve-out. WESLEY: Right. Chairman, I've read the current statute many times, too, and I don't recall seeing that in current statute. So if that's -- GRAY: I like this version a lot better. WATTS: Well, at a minimum, it's worth looking at. GRAY: Yeah. WATTS: Do we go further on it? WESLEY: Right. So Chairman, Vice-Chair, again, coming back to your comment and question, then maybe we can't answer it for sure until we understand that particular language. GRAY: Correct. WESLEY: But if we talk about when we want to have public review, current ordinance standard has been, for many years, 300 feet. If you're in residential or within 300 feet of residential, it requires public review, and you're suggesting that ought to be a wider distance, pushing back further from the residential district. And we can certainly do that to any number that you prefer. If you'd like, to 1,000 feet, we can do that. We can look and see what that means. Again, one of my concerns is the harder we make it to put the tower where we want it to go, then you might as well just go for the residential location because it's just -- you face the same challenge. And so I'm concerned about TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 of 33 making it too stringent in that regard. WATTS: I don't disagree with that. But I also think that with the changing technologies, it's changing pretty fast. So while today is 5th generation, tomorrow could be 6th, and then we don't know what that technology is going to bring along with it. I don't think that by an administrative process, we should allow just anybody to put anything in just because it's within 1,000 feet. WESLEY: So we can look at other numbers here besides 300 feet and have those in what we come back with next time. GRAY: Okay. WESLEY: But anyway, that's the two basic types administrative or public review. And that's the main difference between the two -- is that separation from residential or being in residential. Then, from there, we get into the actual processing of an application. I have some general criteria and processes. Basically, starting off by making the application process wording similar to what we've just been doing as we've been updating chapter 2 of the zoning ordinance, electronic applications, filed with the director, and so forth. Then also we then reference back to what we -- that list of things we read in 1703 as far as the general requirements, and based on the type of application, submitting the documentation that goes with that. And then, the inventory of existing sites that was elsewhere in the code previously has been moved here, requiring that with the application for new towers and provide a requirement for the utility service antenna, which is something new that we don't have in the current ordinance. And then listing the requirements for applications for existing towers and proposed new towers. The requirements for new towers are basically the same as we have in the ordinance today but did add provision for the photo simulations that they don't specifically require now and the requirement for payment of the fee. So typical application type of things get us the information that we need in order to be able to provide the review. From there, I've added a section with regard to shot clocks and tolling. Basically, there are time frames imposed upon us from federal requirements, how quickly we have to TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 of 33 review these things or they're automatically approved. That hasn't been in the current code and so this is something we've pulled in that defines that. Basically, if it's in our hands, the clock's ticking, and we have to get it done. If we have kicked it back, for whatever reason, to the applicant to provide additional information, that type of thing, or they're delayed it, then it stops the clock and also provides for some other extensions and delay criteria. WATTS: So there's a reference to 30, 60, 90, and, I believe, 120 days. What's the different criteria for each of those? Should they be outlined in this ordinance to make sure that it's clear? Because I can't figure out what which is -- is there a federal regulation that says 30? Is it 60? Is it 90? Where do those come from? WESLEY: So the 30 day is for the completeness review, and that's fairly standard across the board for a lot of different types of applications; we're given 30 days to look at it, make sure we've got the information we need to complete the review. And then for the 90 days, that's for administrative. And the 120 is for public review. Because those do take longer to get through that process. WATTS: Does the lack of having an administrative approval increase or affect those times at all, or we still have to work within those time frames? WESLEY: We have to work within the time frames. WATTS: Okay. Thank you. WESLEY: Then, from there we get more into the actual review and processing of the applications. So provide some overall review criteria for whatever body is reviewing it. That's something that's in the current code, but we modified it quite a bit with some other information that we found in our review to provide that direction and standards for review. If it's an admin application, basically, it's the same. It's basically submitted as a building permit and reviewed in that process. If it is for public review, still working on this a little bit. But essentially, it's the same as an SUP. If it's private development private property, it would be an SUP application. If it's on town property, we'll use many of the same elements as an SUP in terms of the review criteria, the notice requirements, and so forth, but it would just go to town council because it's them TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 16 of 33 deciding if they're going to allow the use of the town property or not. And so again, still kind of working out that language a little bit. So what you have in there, I know it's going to change some. And then, I also added the ability for town council to require a drive test to verify any gaps in service. That's one of the things we've heard would be important to have with the new ordinance. So we've added that in there. And again the town can place conditions on approval. So from there, we move into, after approved, maintenance and operation of the tower. So the first piece on removal of abandoned towers and antennas, it's the same as current ordinance. Section B, we've moved here. Some of the information is previously elsewhere in the code, but initial paragraph then about maintaining FAA and FCC standards. But added several provisions here, now dealing with the RF compliance. That they give the initial certification that they are within the FCC guidelines and requirements for that RF radiation compliance. And then requirements for ongoing testing, and then penalties and fines for noncompliance. Building codes compliance. So we can move this from earlier in the code, and does require ongoing compliance with the building codes and structural integrities. GRAY: Commissioner Watts, you want to comment? WESLEY: Yes. WATTS: (Indiscernible) going to beat me to it. GRAY: Oh, Commissioner Dapaah. DAPAAH: Yeah. I just wanted to see -- to go back to the -- I think, the previous. I think you were showing on the random testing anything on the frequency of that random testing or just -- WESLEY: Well, because it's random -- let's see what's down here. DAPAAH: And is the town equipped to perform these tasks? Or will this be something that's sourced out, too? WESLEY: So on the initial -- there's the initial one. And then, if I'm remembering correctly, there's an annual update. But on the random -- so the town -- yeah, we'd retain a professional to do that. And then can charge that back under some TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 17 of 33 circumstances to the owner-operator, particularly if there are additional tests that are needed. DAPAAH: Yeah. Thank you. GRAY: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Yeah. John, is that something we're doing today? WESLEY: No. This is moved to the code. COREY: Okay. WESLEY: Yeah. Commissioner Corey, we do have the initial provision in here about them staying in compliance. The section is there today, so we have some ability to do it, but this adds a lot more teeth and clarity to the standard. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: So John, I'm going to assume that we have not had a NEPA assessment or requested an NEPA assessment from the EPA yet? WESLEY: No. WATTS: Okay. And NEPA recommends six-month intervals for testing. And they also recommend that there's a scorecard, so to speak, that the decibel rating has to be between 80 and 125 to make it passable. I think NEPA is going to be -- I'd encourage us to look at the NEPA regulations and how their involvement and ask for an assessment of our recommendations, so that we are compliant as well. If we haven't already done that. WESLEY: We can look at that. I'm about done. So then the noise in terms of ongoing maintenance operations. Now, the provision there about maintaining compliance with noise provisions and when time testing for generators, and the current provisions for nonconforming are kept the same. So that's my overview of what's in the draft ordinance and what we've tried to do to address the comments we've been hearing and adjust the ordinance to meet those. GRAY: But John, just -- I guess, ticking the box, so to speak, but on the the front end of the the staff write up, I know last month or two months ago when we met on this topic, we had talked about some third-party consultation, both both prior and potentially TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 18 of 33 forward looking. And from the write-up, it appears that council has not supported onboarding another consultant. WESLEY: Chairman, that's correct. GRAY: Okay. And then also in the write-up, the council has given us direction not to bifurcate between small cell cellular and small cell broadband in this analysis. WESLEY: That's correct. GRAY: And then the elephant question, to address where Commissioner Watts is going, I think there's obviously a lot of anxiety. Maybe that's not the right word, but the one I'll use, about the prior third-party report or the the draft. That report is underprivileged status at this time? WESLEY: That's correct. GRAY: Do we have an ability via executive session or some avenue to be briefed on that report? I think you're going to -- we're going to struggle to -- today, we're just going to talk about this. But I think in the future, we're really going to struggle to move past the why there. So is there an avenue for the commission to learn a little more about that? WESLEY: Chairman, I'd have to talk to the town attorney and see if that's possible. GRAY: Okay. Is that a question? WATTS: Yeah. No, I agree wholeheartedly. I do want to make it clear that I think the commission's responsibility is to find a way to make things work. At the same time, protect the public, protect property values, and do it to the best of our ability, much like we did with community homes. So that's my endeavor not to prohibit, but to find a way. I'd also be curious about things like indemnification. Are the providers indemnified, much like the asbestos industry or mold people, where they're not any longer indemnified because of the consequences? And we may not see those consequences today; we may see them in 5 years, 10 years, 20 -- who knows the impact on these types of installations. So an indemnification doesn't seem to be warranted. So I'd be concerned about that. And I think the property values is probably the biggest concern that I've got at this point, when it ranges anywhere from 3 percent to 20 percent, based upon the National TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 19 of 33 Realtors Association and a variety of other organizations that have demonstrated that there's a negative impact on property values. So that's my desire to make it as least intrusive as possible by minimizing the number of towers. GRAY: Can you cite those references? Maybe not right here, but feed them into -- WATTS: Sure. GRAY: -- John? WATTS: Right. I can provide those references for you as well, where I get that. Sorry, I'll just make a note. And then, things like if we come up with a process to be able to monitor, measure and we do that scorecard every six months so that we're clear on the output of towers; that they're in conformance or compliance. If they're not, what are the ramifications? What are the enforcement and penalty processes? How can we mandate that? And again, I'm going to go back to other municipalities across the country. Everything from Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Utah. There's a variety of states that have got ordinances that are more restrictive than what we're talking about, even at this point. So I think it's worthy of going further to make sure we can do as much to protect the public interest as possible. And I think we've covered a lot, but I do think it's going to warrant a lot more investigation and a lot more discussion, and I'm anxious to see the consultant's information as it's referenced in here -- in these documents. WESLEY: Chairman, Vice-Chair, just to touch on the one point here on the bottom of page 34 and 35, we do have those penalty provisions in here, which include revoking the permit, civil citations, and, I think, even removal. WATTS: I think, to some degree, I got tired of looking at all the red lines. So I missed it. So my apologies for that. WESLEY: Oh, you probably don't need this, but I'll throw it out anyway because it's bothered me ever since I did this. As I started working on the changes, initially, when I would move something, it would do it in green, and as I did something new, I'd do it in red, but it quit doing that. And so you can't rely on that. There's a lot of stuff that got moved that's not in green, it's in red. So I was hoping that was going to make that clear TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 20 of 33 about what was just moved and what was added from other sources. But if you were wondering why some are green, some are blue, or some are red -- WATTS: I appreciate the clarification. But I also think in that same vein, making sure that we've got reference to specific state and federal laws, regulations, et cetera, is going to be important to incorporate those into this document, so we've got a point of reference. Even if we're not able to ultimately get the consultants information, which I, again, think it's important that we see that, so we understand where he's coming from. GRAY: The other topic that's come up in the past is whether or not utilities could be forced all underground. Do you see any viable path? WESLEY: So chairman, we do require utilities to be underground. GRAY: Meaning? WESLEY: But how do I put antennas underground or towers underground? GRAY: That's seems like a fair statement. I guess, rephrasing -- can we define -- would we consider defining broadband as a utility and thereby require it to be underground, which would eliminate -- could that eliminate the debate? WESLEY: And I'm not prepared to answer a question like that, Mr. Chairman. GRAY: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Yes. I just wanted to give you some just general feedback, and I think we're okay to do that, right? Yeah? GRAY: Sure you are. COREY: Given that this was for towers and antennas and not 5G, just some of the things that I was looking for that I saw. Protecting residential areas from potential adverse impacts, I like that we saw encouraging the towers in nonresidential areas, minimizing the number of towers, encouraging joint use of towers. And also, that you put in there designed for -- make sure that there's room in there for future antennas to fit within existing areas. I thought that was good. Of course, ensuring the minimum visual impact and then public review is the same as an SUP if it was going to be outside of the guidelines. Also, I liked in the right-of-way, if it was over six feet, it would have that stealth cactus-looking design, and no artificial lighting. So I think those were good TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 21 of 33 points. A couple of questions. Going forward, I think there will inevitably be more technology advancements, what is the regular process to regularly look at this and see if it needs to be adjusted? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Corey, we don't have a set schedule for going back and looking at any of our ordinances. It's always based on some type of need or issue coming up that would require us to look at it. COREY: And the commission could recommend that that's reviewed? Okay. Just a couple other things. Can we regularly regulate the RF radiation? I think you addressed that safety concern with regular testing. Sharing the infrastructure to minimize the number of towers. And then, I know that we're trying to be cautious here about making sure that we have the right process, the esthetics, the safety for our residents, I agree with, but also how can we make sure that we're not too restrictive and that we do have state of the art wireless infrastructure so that we can attract businesses and residents? I think that's definitely something we need to continue to consider. And I missed the drive test to verify gaps in service. So is that where we will monitor the signal in different areas around town? WESLEY: Chairman, yes. That's basically how that works. Often today what has been required or they provide us a map that shows we've got gaps here and there, and that gives you some general idea about where there are gaps. But given topography and other things, it's not necessarily really that accurate. And a drive test is more accurate where they actually drive the streets and can verify where signals are available and where they're not. So you can see if those gaps are real that they're trying to -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- present. COREY: All right. Thank you. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: John, I want this to be presented in the spirit that I'm going to say it in, even without the smile, I get it. But this is such a highly technical issue, whether it's broadband, cellular, internet, whatever it might be. Do we have somebody on staff that TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 22 of 33 has the accreditations, the background, similar to what not only this consultant that previously was engaged but possibly another consultant who has this level of expertise integrated into the laws, state and federal laws? Or are we trying to cobble together something based upon. On what? How do we know? How are we comfortable on the commission that what is being assembled is correct, as opposed to a consultant that has a proven track record? WESLEY: Chairperson, Vice-Chair, that's an important question to consider. And while we didn't feel like we could directly use Mr. Campanelli's (ph.) ordinance that he presented, he does have that expertise and that background. And so we know a lot of material that was in there is the latest, that it is compliant with the federal guidelines and regulations and tested in the courts. So that's where we've been able to pull a lot of what is in here is from that and feel confident that it is consistent with the industry standards today. WATTS: But even if it's not Campanelli -- Campanelli is not foolproof. WESLEY: Correct. WATTS: And without knowing what he provided and what we could challenge or what we could accept, possibly another consultant that has a higher level or a comparable level of expertise and the accreditations that go along with it from both a legal standpoint and an industry standpoint, just makes a lot of sense to me, rather than allowing staff to pick and choose what's going to be included and what's not going to be included. So again, I would encourage the use of a consultant that has this level of competency to be able to do. What we need to do is protect the interests of the public. GRAY: But I think John supports -- he's vocalized, he supports that position, but he's restricted by the council's direction not to allow another consultant be brought in. So that direction needs to go to the council. WATTS: Well, and again, I don't want to make this a debate or an argument, but the public paid $8,500 for a consultant's report. We aren't privy to that. And short of I don't know what process we'd go through, I don't see how -- it's not an executive session, it's in the public domain. So I don't know how in the world we are not or we're TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 23 of 33 precluded from being able to see and understand exactly what the recommendations were. And where, in the opinion of staff, the deficiencies were? Whether it's timing, aging, whatever. Each of those deficiencies could be corrected, they could be reviewed, they could be updated. So we had the opportunity. Why aren't we utilizing it? So I'm agreeing but taking exception to it. GRAY: No. I think we all understand your point. I think -- I don't speak for John. John probably understands your point, but he's also restricted by the governances above him. WATTS: Okay. WESLEY: Any other comments questions for me, or are you ready to hear from the public? GRAY: Yeah. Let's go ahead and do public speaker cards, and then we'll -- WOODWARD: I forwarded one comment to you earlier that you received and I have two speaker cards. Larry Myers will be our first speaker. And then on deck is Lori Troller. MYERS: Chair, Commissioners. So following - this is a quote. "Following the commission discussion, staff reviewed the direction given by town council regarding how to proceed. The council's direction was specific and did not include trying to address broadband versus cellular communication or hiring any additional consultants," unquote. I went back to every single minute of every single meeting of the town council, and I didn't hear any of that. I didn't even hear it addressed. So I don't know what kind of secret underground meeting this came from, but it didn't come from a public session. Then I checked the agendas of the executive sessions, of which I'm not privy to be the fly on the wall, which I would love to be. And I didn't see it on the agenda of the executive sessions. So I object to that language right there. And I think they should go back to the council right now. And I want to hear them say that we're not going to discuss cellular versus broadband. And as for your driving test, that's cellular. That is not small wave towers. So this discussion, only a buffoon would say we're not going to address broadband versus cellular because that's what the entire discussion is about. And so further, privileged material? That's my money that was TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 24 of 33 spent. Yours, yours, yours, yours, yours, yours, and anybody else who lives in this town spent the $8,000 for the consultant to give us a read on something. It's our decision whether to use it or not or to use part of it. It's not John's decision, and it's not the council's decision to hide it from everybody when we paid for it. So with regard to the hidden material, I'm sure the hidden material has some good stuff in it because the guy's qualified. But the last part of my discussion, and we had a nice back and forth in which Commissioner Deepak (sic) paid me a well-undeserved compliment that I'm some sort of RF expert, but he wanted to hear from one and not me. I mean, a real guy who knows the stuff deep and can -- I mean, I'm pretty well- versed in it, but I'm not going to hold myself out as an expert. I think that's part of the matrix. That's part of the information that's in that matrix that goes towards the technology versus the land use and the protection of the residents. And so I find this insulting that this was even written, John. And I don't find it anywhere in the council meetings. And I encourage you all to go back and look at the videos. And that's all I have to say on the matter. And I will be trying to get that information because I don't consider it to be attorney/client privilege. Because who's the client? Thank you. TROLLER: Chair, Commissioners, Paula, Lori Troller, resident. I'm going completely off- script, so bear with me here. I'm going to -- I wrote some notes during the meeting, and I hope you guys recognize my restraint here. Number one, even having this discussion we had tonight, it went down the wrong road. We somehow went from discussing whether we could have underground and consider -- we haven't even defined what's on those antennas. He hasn't even defined what the antennas are. What they're -- what pollution that is, what it's bringing, what the service is, do we need it? Everybody here can make a phone call. Everybody's still working from home? What is the need for this? We haven't defined any of that yet. Yet, we just did a full -- what? Hour discussion on towers. And you didn't even-- we don't even know if it can go underground. The ignorance -- not the ignorance. The ignoring of if it's broadband is extremely important fact. If you think about pollution, we have pollution from an oil rig, or we have pollution from a nuclear blast, they're very different. You wouldn't put them in the same TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 25 of 33 ordinance. You would not put the emissions from SRP versus broadband in the same ordinance. It's different technology. It irradiates very differently. It's extremely important. And you would not group it together. So to say, well, we're not even going to look at what those antennas are doing; that's a big mistake. Number two, this discussion tonight, everyone, this is not -- I am not faulting anyone up there. I would fault myself if I was sitting up there and didn't have a question. This conversation, you shouldn't have been able to get through the first half hour of what he presented because you should have had a bazillion questions. You don't know. That is the importance of bringing someone in who can help educate you with what you're dealing with, what you guys have in your hands, and the effect this is going to have on this town. Once those towers are built, we can't touch them. The Federal government owns them. We're done. The federal government says you can put whatever you want on after that, there is no, hey, in a year's time when they want to put 10G on there and the emission rates and the effect that's going to have on everything and property rates, it's going to dump it even more. They get to do it. You guys have no say. You can't touch it. You got to know all this stuff, and you guys would have a bazillion questions. I'm dying to hear your questions, just where everybody comes from and what they bring to the table here. You should have a million questions. So -- GRAY: One more minute. TROLLER: Okay. Thank you. That was the only point, number two, I got eight. Let's see the the survey about the need for this. Why are we talking about in something we're installing? We don't even know if we need it. Has anybody filled out a survey; you need this. You're putting polls all over the place, and we don't even know if we need it. A ton of questions. You guys were talking about that. The different technologies, putting SRP in there with broadband, that's kind of crazy. Again, you wouldn't understand that unless you had the conversations with the specialist. You need these conversations. If you watch planning and zoning from other places -- Malibu's a really good one in California. They have some excellent discussions. There's four meetings to it. They're four hours each. Believe me, I've watched them. They're really long. It's not what TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 26 of 33 happened here. They have specialists, all that. They have lawyers there. They have the RF specialist. He mentioned shot clocks. there are so many aspects to this, I hope that each one of you can grab a topic and really drill down on it because there's it's just too much for all of you to grab. I've been doing this for two years, digging out all this stuff. I've had the time so I can speak to most of it. The shot clocks is a big deal. What? I'll stop. There's a lot. GRAY: Thank you. TROLLER: Thank you. GRAY: Lori, if you have notes you want to email them, feel free to send them in. We'll read them. TROLLER: Send you that entire -- GRAY: Yeah. Send them to the zoning commission. We'll read them. TROLLER: Okay. All right. Thank you. GRAY: Thanks. Good suggestion. All right, commissioners, thoughts or additional things to recommend to John? WESLEY: Mr. Chair, if I may real quick, before we proceed? It kind of goes back to the motion you had at the beginning. So this wasn't a public hearing item. It wasn't anything that has to be continued, it just appear on agendas. The thought was we would potentially be ready for a public hearing at your next meeting. And so we have sent an ad to the paper for your next meeting for that purpose. But if you're not ready for that, we can pull that ad and not do that. So you don't maybe have to get quite as formal as you were kind of started at the beginning about the process, is just kind of what I'm thinking or -- GRAY: Mr. Watts -- DEMPSTER: I -- WATTS: Go ahead, Susan. DEMPSTER: Oh, thank you so much. Because I have a lot of comments, too. And I'm sorry, I'm going to go back to the basics because I recognize that I have very little knowledge on this topic, and I was feeling a little bit better after our first meeting and TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 27 of 33 how we defined Title 1 and Title 2 broadband versus regular cellular. So I was really disappointed, unfortunately, when I saw all this. And there was a town council meeting where it was apparent that some of the comments made by some of the council members were also confused and kind of lumped everything together. And I thought we were building on a foundation of Title 1 and Title 2. I do have a question. I'm concerned with the timing. You know, this is going to take some time. And yes, I do think we need to pull the ad because we're definitely not ready. But in the meantime, I don't want things to happen. Applications for changes and such to get through before we get some definitions and regulations around this. And I'm going to go back, like I said, to the basics. So section 17.01, the purpose, intent, and applicability. All that writing sounds really nice. We're going to protect the residential areas. And I have to say, what is our main goal? We're trying to protect home values, but the people, too? So these adverse impacts, I just -- I don't know. I always go back to the basics when I'm trying to learn something and understand. And I don't know if we've all agreed on the adverse impacts, so we can build on that. We need to know what we're trying to avoid, I guess. And then minimize the total number of towers, my question there is, can we put a cap on the total number of towers? Is that a possibility to cap off the total number? And then how do we encourage joint use of existing tower sites? Because one company might just say, no, I want my own. And that's really not -- have we been successfully in the past doing this? And how can we really do this in the future? Because it doesn't make sense if they do the same thing. And forgive me because I don't know how -- but if they do the same thing and we don't need multiple towers, how do we kind of make them use the same tower instead of adding towers? And then number 8, says consider the public health and safety. Can we change "consider" to "protect the public health and safety"? Because "consider," Okay, I've considered it, and then what? What's the next step after consider? So I'd like to see "Protect the public health and safety." And I have lots more, but I think that's kind of going back to the basics for me, where my head is at. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 28 of 33 GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: So John, Commissioner Dempster brought up a great point. Because I think 17.01, 1 through 9, changing each of those from encourage, "minimize" to "require" or something that has a lot more strength to it would be helpful as kind of a starting point. But right now, none of those have any teeth for them. I mean, we're encouraging, we're strongly recommending, we're -- but we need to find ways to require these things to occur to protect the public as a whole. Again, I'm going to go back to the indemnification component that we need. We should have liability requirements in each of these that whatever they do, they should be responsible for, particularly if it falls outside the norms as established by the NEPA regulations or recommendations. And that's pretty straightforward. If it's supposed to be an 85-decibel output and it goes down to 80 or up to 125, you still have a range to deal with. So there's enough flexibility in those ranges to be able to. But when they fall outside, then there should be some penalties for that and there should be some liabilities as well. So I couldn't agree more with that. I'm a strong proponent of a matrix that says these are the types of towers. These are where we can put them, whether it's land use, whether it's requirements, whether it's output, all of those things similar to what we did for community homes, again. But on a positive note, I think we've accomplished a lot, but I think we've only scratched the surface here, and I do appreciate what we've done so far, your acceptance of some of the comments that we've made. But I think we're going in the right direction. And I think if we continue to go down this path, we'll end up with a product that the residents will be happy with and we should be proud of. Thank you. GRAY: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: And I'm going to follow up on Susan's comments as well, and Commissioner Gray, and to Larry and Lori out there, I wholeheartedly agree. I mean, I haven't said much because I have no clue really what's going on and what exactly we're supposed to be doing here. And as I kind of listened, I realized I'm not sure really who does. So there's a lot we don't know, and there's a lot we don't know. And I remember at the last meeting, I even mentioned to Larry, well, maybe you could be our expert. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 29 of 33 And apparently, there was an expert that was brought on, but we have no availability to that information. So we need more information. WESLEY: Mr. Chair, if I may? You made the offer to Ms. Troller to send in her comments, questions that she couldn't get to. I'd suggest the same for any of the commissioners. I know Commissioner Dempster mentioned she had a lot of questions. Vice-Chair Watts, you said you had eight pages worth of comments, that we weren't able to get to those this evening. If you could email those to me, that would sure help me to give something more concrete to be looking at. GRAY: I think, if you kind of parse this whole thing out, it's all kind of boiling down to the reservations, obviously, about there being intel brought in that we don't have access to; I think we we all know that. But then also we've bifurcated -- we've almost said, well, we have said -- this is towers, right? This is just strictly towers. But it's almost as though we then need to carve-out the whole small cell topic and the broadband topic from tower. Like, I think if we're just talking about towers and line of sight radio transmissions between a certain range of frequencies, this ordinance looks, I think, pretty good. But then you have to deal with the small cell piece and the small cell broadband component separately, potentially. But I, by and large, find myself in Scott's bucket. I don't know enough here. There's areas that I know things, and this is not one of them. So I really think -- I think we can tick the box and we can figure out how to get visibility to the -- we'll call it the Campanelli document. But I really think we need to encourage the council to allow us to bring in a third-party resource to help us with this. And until we do, I think we should probably hold fast as a commission and not push language forward. Unless we're willing to just say, this is just towers, and we're going to very quickly create something else that deals with small cell technology. WATTS: Are we? GRAY: So I can't make a motion. I tried that, you tried that, can't do that. You can make one if you want. Just go ahead. Feel better. WATTS: I'll just get shot down. I mean. WESLEY: Chair, just real quick, again, on small cell. If it's small cell in the right-of-way, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 30 of 33 that's covered in Chapter 16.2 of the town code and governed almost exclusively by state statute. So there's not much to do there. But small cell, not in the right-of-way, then it is covered by this code. And if it's small cell -- again, small cell in the right-of- way, and this question came up a little bit -- I'll look back through the state statute again. It has its parameters in there, if the towers -- if the antenna volume is under certain size and the equipment box is under certain size, and the overall antenna heights don't exceed certain things that meets that requirement, and it's governed by those regulations., and again, just like our code, it doesn't distinguish if it's voice or data or broadband or whatever. If the antenna and the boxes meet that size, it's small cell, and it's under that statute. GRAY: Go ahead. WATTS: I hear what you're saying, John, but I have to take exception. I think that the concept of if it's in the right-of-way, a small cell tower is in the right-of-way- by right, I think there are enough case law out there that would support that's not completely accurate. It is more along the lines of how we can manage it, how we can control it, how we can protect as opposed to prohibit and give carte blanche to something. And I think that's where the experience of the expert comes in to figure out how exactly to manipulate or maneuver through the legalities of this. So I do think that, again, encouraging whoever the expert is, but somebody in the field that has a recognized process that they go through and recognized successes that do protect the public. And I think there are ways to do that. I've read enough cases, and I've frankly scratched the surface of this, but I've got enough precedent that has been set. But I know there's ways to work around it. Not prohibit, not restrict it, but to manage the process. GRAY: Commissioners, any other thoughts, or shall we move on? All right. WESLEY: Yeah. At this point, in absence of any specific motions, we'll have this back to you at some point in the future -- next month, a month following, three months from now. Whenever we feel that based on the continued input we get, any further direction I get from the town manager, and so forth, when we have a next version for you to review. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 31 of 33 GRAY: But we can still initiate a motion requesting staff solicit feedback from the council on widening the breadth of scope and allowing access to resources. We can still make a motion requesting that. It doesn't mean the council is going to grant it. WATTS: I'm not quite sure how to present that motion, but I would absolutely encourage going back to town council to recommend that we retain the services of a qualified consultant to help us maneuver through the process. You talked about the physical constraints about the towers and the mechanical aspects, the electrical disconnect, and so on. Those are very benign issues. It isn't that that I think anybody has any exception to. So I think maneuvering through the process, getting into the weeds, and protecting the public. So I would like to see it go back to council, and I would move so that says, look, we need expertise. So if, in fact, the council did not support that at some previous meeting, I'd ask them to reconsider that. And also the dissemination of broadband versus cellular to make sure that we understand completely the effect of Title 1 and Title 2, and how, again, that can be integrated into an ordinance. SCHLOSSBERG: Is that a motion? WATTS: That was a motion. I said motion, to begin with, but -- GRAY: It was a motion. But I would amend it to stipulate that we would effectively table indefinitely until we had that feedback so that this doesn't show up on our next agenda item or our next agenda. WATTS: Can we actually table, or do we have to postpone? GRAY: So no public hearing, we could table. Right? WESLEY: Chair, I don't know. Sometimes, you get into the weeds of the parliamentary procedure, but since it's not a public hearing, I don't know that you need to table or because it wasn't a scheduled hearing. Just was on your agenda because it was on our list to put on your agenda, if that makes any sense. GRAY: I think what we're saying is we'd like to have that council feedback before we discuss it again. WATTS: Maybe if we simply postponed, for the sake of semantics, postponed for sixty TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 32 of 33 days until the April, May -- WOODWARD: 60 days -- excuse me? 60 days, Chair, 60 days would be May 10th. WATTS: May 10th. WOODWARD: Your next meeting would be May 13th. WATTS: Okay. Then, on May 13th. I would move that, then. 60 days should give us enough time to get input from the council, to get their direction, to get agreement or rejection, and then we can move forward. Because we can always go back and amend that May 13th and put it back in April or whenever we want to, I believe. GRAY: Okay. I'll second that. Commissioners, let's do an all in favor. All in favor? ALL: Aye. GRAY: Thank you. All right. Moving on to 6, 7, and 8. Commission discussion, commission request, and report. I think we pretty well addressed those. WESLEY: Yes, Commissioner. The only thing that I would let you know is we, for your April meeting, we will be back with the ordinance dealing with the community residences. And I believe we have one other application that will be on your April meeting. That's all I know of at this time for that meeting. GRAY: Commissioner Watts? WATTS: John, is there anything in the signed ordinance -- because I can't remember -- about colors? So we've got some -- I'll call them garish signs out there that are either extremely bright or not. And some of this comes from thinking about the community as being a desert, muted colors and that sort of thing. And we've got -- but we don't have anything in the sign ordinance to restrict that? WESLEY: Nothing having to do with content. WATTS: Oh, boy. GRAY: Supreme Court says so. WATTS: Color? No, they say content. GRAY: That's content. WATTS: Color? GRAY: Yeah. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 33 of 33 WESLEY: It's part of it. GRAY: It's expression. WATTS: Okay. It's too late. Thank you. GRAY: We've gone sign happy. WATTS: Yeah, I know. GRAY: And electronic sign happy at that. WATTS: Right. GRAY: All right. We are adjourned. Thank you.