Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout240408 Summary Minutes & Verbatim TranscriptTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 53 Post-Production File Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 8, 2024 Transcription Provided By: eScribers, LLC * * * * * Transcription is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. * * * * * TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: All right. Let's call the meeting to order. If you all would rise for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. ALL: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you. All right. Roll call, Paula? WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Here. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Here. WOODWARD: Chair Gray? CHAIR GRAY: Here. Thank you. Paula. Call to the public. Paula, any speaker cards? WOODWARD: No, Chairman. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you, Paula. Agenda item 4, consideration of possible action on the March 11th meeting minutes. Commissioners, comments, or a motion, please? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Motion to approve. COREY: Second. CHAIR GRAY: Motion by Commissioner Watts for the record, seconded by Commissioner Corey. All in favor? ALL: Aye. KOVACEVIC: I'm going to abstain on that. I wasn't present last month. So just for the record I'm abstaining. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 53 WOODWARD: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you, Commissioner. WOODWARD: Six-zero. CHAIR GRAY: You didn't watch the video? KOVACEVIC: No, sir. CHAIR GRAY: It's your first offense. All right. Agenda item 5, consideration of preliminary plat for three acres at the northeast corner of Palisades and La Montana, subdividing three currently commercial zoned parcels into four lots. Case number 1. It's a new case format. TAVASSOLI: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good evening. As you said, Mr. Chairman, what you have before you is a proposal for a preliminary plat. The subject property is at the northeast corner of Palisades and La Montana -- just up the street here. Currently, there are three commercial parcels. It's zoned intermediate commercial. Currently, the home for HonorHealth, Southwest Designs, and Dutch Bros. Also the former home of the Asian Fang Restaurant, which sits vacant, and one undeveloped pad. The request, again, is to convert these three commercial lots to a four-lot commercial subdivision. This is a detail of the preliminary plat that you have in your packet. And in the following slide I kind of, quite simply, prepared a side-by-side comparison of the lot lines and how they will be adjusted assuming approval of the preliminary plat or ultimately the final plat. So what you see here again, is three lots being converted to a four-lot subdivision. The proposed lot number 3, as you can see here in these two illustrations here, the lot line is being adjusted slightly by moving to the west a little bit, and a new lot will be created for the Dutch Bros coffee shop as well. A while back, the parking lot was originally a 45-degree angle parking lot configuration, that has since been converted to a 90 degree configuration. And also, I should mention that buildings 1 and 2 here, used to be connected by a few other units. That has since been demolished and in its place some additional parking has been provided. And the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 53 parking is actually more than adequate for this center. So staff's recommendation is approval of the preliminary plat. One thing that staff will require prior to final plat approval -- which would go directly to town council -- is a shared parking agreement among the owners of the four lots. And with that, I'll conclude my presentation. I'll open up to questions. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioners? Commissioner Corey? COREY: Chair. Farhad, can you just go back to that image real quick? And just to clarify, the lot 1 and lot 4, are still -- the parking is still connected there? TAVASSOLI: Correct. COREY: Correct. So you can still drive through those without the lot? TAVASSOLI: Correct. COREY: Okay. And then -- TAVASSOLI: It's one contiguous parking lot. COREY: Okay. And then it looks like lot 3 is also extending to the south a little bit; is that true? TAVASSOLI: Lot 3? Maybe -- yeah. Actually, it looks like it's slightly extending to the south a little bit. And lot 3 is actually, I should mention, the -- where I mentioned would be the vacant pad. COREY: Yep. Okay. Thank you. TAVASSOLI: Um-hum. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: The parking -- I can tell what parking goes with lot 1, but the rest of that parking field is that with lot 2, 3, or 4? Yeah, that's where your cursor is. That parking, is that part of 4? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that is for lot 4. KOVACEVIC: And Dutch Bros is -- do they even have any seating? CHAIR GRAY: They do. A little bit. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. But I mean, not 20 spots worth? TAVASSOLI: No. Certainly not that much, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner. I think they TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 53 just have seating underneath the -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. TAVASSOLI: -- patio cover there. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. Okay. I mean, I just -- I'm curious as to why they didn't put the parking with lot 2. Because the -- I mean, there are a lot of owners, Triple Net owners that would love to have that Dutch Bros. And the center owner would want to -- I would think, want to keep the parking if they were going to sell off the Dutch Bros. I mean, that's obviously not their intent. But I just want to point out it doesn't -- I mean, I don't have a -- I don't have a problem with it. It's their property, but that's now how I would do it. TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I could only speculate. Maybe, for tax purposes, property tax. Otherwise, I don't have a good answer. CHAIR GRAY: I think there's also the opportunity cost of what if it's not Dutch Bros, then it would be really difficult to park that parcel if that went into a revitalization. The other, I guess, insider caveat that makes this interesting to me is lot 1, every space that's associated with lot 1 is tied up in the lease with lot 1. So it's not really even subjectable to a shared parking agreement. So I question whether this site balances after that. Commissioner? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Farhad, I -- it really doesn't look like there's dramatic changes being made but is it in anticipation of something in the future that you may be privy to at this point? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I have not received any inquiries about any interest in any additional businesses wanting to locate there. The only thing worth noting, as far as I'm concerned, is lot 3 and the fact that there is a vacant pad there. It certainly has potential to be developed soon. But I haven't received any inquiries about any additional businesses wanting to locate there any time soon, at least. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So these three owners got together and just decided that they're going to make it four instead of three? TAVASSOLI: Correct. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: Incorrect. It's one owner. VICE CHAIR WATTS: It is one owner now? CHAIR GRAY: One for the whole -- the whole plaza is one owner who's parceling off to flip individual pads. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: It's going the other way. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Interesting. Okay. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Dempster, any thoughts? DEMPSTER: Well, I guess with the other questions now I'm confused. Because I thought that just for the final approval, it's based upon a requirement for shared parking. So the proposed split -- those parking spots within each lot are just for that particular lot. What would be the shared parking? Why is parking an issue or whose lot it's in if it's shared parking? Can you clarify that, please? CHAIR GRAY: Put slightly -- question a different way. Which of the four lots are under- parked in isolation? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I don't believe any of the lots are under- parked. I actually might be a little concerned about under-parking for what would potentially be building 3. As you can see, there's probably -- I don't know -- about ten or so parking stalls there and depending on the use they may need more. And so that may have to bleed over into the -- at least, a couple other lots. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Yeah, Farhad. So approval now does not mean they can go ahead and proceed with development, right? They are -- we're just approving for this to be four lots but they would have to submit a future development plan if they were to proceed with developing it? TAVASSOLI: Right. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Dapaah, this doesn't establish -- the preliminary plan will not officially establish a four-lot commercial subdivision. The purpose of the preliminary plan is just to make sure that this will work from the standpoint of things such as utilities, drainage, ingress, egress. It gives staff a comfort TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 of 53 level for proceeding to a final plat subdivision which will go straight to the town council, and, if approved, be recorded. And prior to that -- prior to going to town council, we will require that that shared parking agreement, which will have to be recorded as well. DAPAAH: Right. TAVASSOLI: Yeah. DAPAAH: Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: So are those two rows of parking to the north, are those with lot 2? TAVASSOLI: Commissioner, you're talking about these two? KOVACEVIC: No. TAVASSOLI: No? KOVACEVIC: That's -- yeah, those. Right there. Is that lot 2 or lot 4? CHAIR GRAY: 2. TAVASSOLI: This is lot 2. KOVACEVIC: Okay. TAVASSOLI: And I apologize. I should have probably highlighted the proposed boundaries as well. But this is roughly the boundaries for lot 2. CHAIR GRAY: So there's two layers of parking? One layer didn't get turned off, so you're -- it's on -- you're looking at two backgrounds? KOVACEVIC: Yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I figure that's going to change. KOVACEVIC: And -- CHAIR GRAY: Go to this one. The next page. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. I was under the impression that the whole parking field was lot 4. But building 3 is definitely under-parked. Lot 3. There's not enough parking there and that's who needs the shared parking. Lot 2 may or may not be under-parked. Yeah, that's a -- what? 2,000 square foot restaurant there? TAVASSOLI: Potentially. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. So that's 20 -- that's 20 spaces, right? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. It's also under -- TAVASSOLI: Yeah. So -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. TAVASSOLI: -- Chairman, Commissioner, currently pad 2 of building 2 is vacant. So it's just the southwest design. So currently, as it stands, it may -- the parking may be adequate but if a new tenant were to move in any time soon, especially if it were to be a restaurant, then there will certainly be more parking demand. KOVACEVIC: All right. Okay. I've got the -- the only one up here, but there's only -- there's only half a dozen spot to the south, and then there's another -- there's eight spots to the east of lot 2. So they've only got 14 spots. And there's two handicap spots too. So it's 16 spots, which -- and you've got -- that building's 26,000 square feet and it's got a restaurant in it. I don't think that -- I don't think that's labeled correctly. I don't think that restaurant's 16 -- TAVASSOLI: It's not. It can't be. KOVACEVIC: But -- well, I just -- I stand by my earlier comments. If I were doing this, this isn't the way I would do it. But I would -- lots 2 and 3 would get more of the parking and because 4 is the one -- 4 and 1 are the ones that they can turn into quick cash. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: So Commissioner Gray, I guess I should ask you, so it sounds like you know. So as far -- as it stands currently, there's one owner of this plat, and he's getting ready to combine these into four and sell them off separately; is that correct? CHAIR GRAY: There was one owner. There's now two. So lot number 1 was sold off already. I don't know the fate of lot 4. It may also have been preemptively sold. I don't know. TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, if I may? I actually checked -- I happened to check the ownership this morning and as of right now, what is proposed to be -- well, the area proposed to be lot 2, 3, and 4 are under one ownership. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. And then there's egress -- ingress and egress? Two on La Montana, two on Palisades? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 of 53 TAVASSOLI: Correct. Thank you for bringing that up. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. TAVASSOLI: Two ingress/egress points here on Palisades, and one off of La Montana to the north. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Corey? COREY: And I'm just noticing on lot -- so lot 3 is actually like we talked about earlier, it's getting a little bit bigger. And we know lot 2 and lot 4 are already established there. So I think it will be significant when they give us the parking agreement of where those -- the parking agreement, to see where any overflow from lot 3 would go. It looks like there's parking but they kind of have to move over into that main area. But I think the significant thing here is that we -- we demolish that building in-between lot 1 and lot 2, right? You said that was a restaurant previously and that's been flattened, and that's now that parking lot in the top section, correct? TAVASSOLI: Actually, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Corey, the restaurant was here where building 2 currently sits. There's two units here. It was the one on the right. The building that connected, I guess, you'd say the structure that connected building 1 and building 2, I believe there was a mattress store. COREY: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: And a consignment. TAVASSOLI: And a consignment center, yeah. COREY: Yes. Okay. TAVASSOLI: So those are -- COREY: I miss that consignment store. TAVASSOLI: Yeah. COREY: So yeah, okay. So there was a building that connected them. So I think that that dynamic has kind of changed the way that this all laid out now. But I think some of the things here -- is this going to impact traffic, would be one of the things I would look at. And like Scott mentioned, there's ingress/egress on both sides. There's two on TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 of 53 either side, right? Is there two on La Montana and two on Palisades? TAVASSOLI: Actually, Mr. Chairman, there's -- COREY: Or one on La Montana? TAVASSOLI: There's two on Palisades and one on La Montana. COREY: And that's not one right there? TAVASSOLI: And that's not. COREY: Okay. TAVASSOLI: It is? Oh, I beg your pardon. I stand corrected. COREY: Okay. TAVASSOLI: There is one off of La Montana right here. I couldn't quite make out the lines there. COREY: Okay. TAVASSOLI: Yeah. COREY: Thank you for clarifying that. So it looks like it wouldn't impact traffic too much -- any congestion in that area, because they're pretty far away from that intersection. So that's good. And then, like, compatibility with the neighborhood, it seems to me like it's still compliant and compatible with the existing neighborhood, so that's not really a concern. And is there any major impact to local infrastructure? It doesn't seem like those are any issues there. So as long as it meets our land use and I think that I would recommend approval and have them move forward with -- going forward with their agreement -- their parking agreement plan. It makes sense to me. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: One more question about parking. That building 2 or pad 2, which is where that Asian Fang was originally, I believe. What's the requirement for parking for a restaurant, assuming that's going to stay a restaurant? Because that QSR, Quick Serve Restaurant (ph.) looks like it's identified to remain. Do they have sufficient parking now? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, if there were to be a restaurant back in where the Asian Fang was, at -- if we look at lot 2 alone, there may not be. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 of 53 VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's what it look like. TAVASSOLI: I believe it's -- I want to say 1 to 50 square feet. But hence the need for shared parking agreement. But no, lot 2, wouldn't be able to -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: As a standalone it wouldn't be able, right? TAVASSOLI: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: To support? It didn't look like it. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: So Farhad, I got to ask you. I'm with Commissioner Corey in the most basic sense of interpretation, but then I also find myself probably a lot more in Commissioner Kovacevic's bucket, because I wouldn't do it this way either. So my question to you is, yes, the underlying here is just a subdivision -- it's just a zoning case, but it's also our downtown corridor, right? And if we perceive there to be a better way to do this, that's more inviting, something that better serves that downtown corridor, how do recommend we weigh that here as we deliberate this? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would throw it back at you and ask what elements or what features -- CHAIR GRAY: Well, I just -- the boxes are in the wrong spot, right? There's alternate ways to lay this out to where -- if lots 2, 3, and 4 are going to coexist with a shared parking arrangement, you can shuffle them. Albeit maybe at the expense of building the building that's on lot 2 long long-term. But there's a way to shuffle them to improve the presence along Palisades and internalize that parking; to put that parking towards the back of the parcel. That is just, in my opinion, would be a significant improvement on this and you couldn't do that with the way these lots are currently laid out. So I assume Dutch Bros got built on the basis that, yeah, there was enough generalized parking across lots 2, 3, and 4 to support it. So to me that's still a fluid chess piece for the developer. But I go back to Commissioner Corey's perspective. As a zoning case it's just a lot subdivision, it's not -- it's neither here nor there, right, so. Commissioner Kovacevic? He had it on first. Your mic? KOVACEVIC: Yeah. And I'm not saying I disagree with Commissioner Corey or Chair Gray, it's just -- I mean, as -- to my way of thinking, and I've been in this business, I don't TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 of 53 understand all the parking going with lot 4 when that's the piece that can be -- that is most readily sold. And so it just -- it doesn't make sense to me. But as a zoning -- like you were saying, as a zoning case, I mean, it's their property, and it fits the zoning, it fits the plan of the town. But -- CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. But just because we -- just because an RV storage can go there too, doesn't mean we should ever let an RV storage go -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. CHAIR GRAY: -- there, right? Sometimes I think you've got to step out in the roadway a little bit and say, I don't know about this. Take another look, maybe? Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, that's exactly what I was trying to find out, was the gameplan. But I think you solve your problem for parking if you take lot 2 before you get to that diagonal, so you capture those that are on La Montana. And you take lot 3 and jag it over a little bit and pick up those that were on the side of lot 2 back over on 3. Then you've got all of these down below and those up in there for 2. You picked up some for 3, 4 stays as it is, and 1 doesn't lose any parking, it just gives up a little bit of ground. That make sense? CHAIR GRAY: Sure. That's one option. I'd go a different route. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: So if we're going to pontificate the whole thing, I'd file for a variance on lot 4. Let Dutch Bros go with six spaces as a part of a shared parking agreement with the idea that if Dutch Bros goes away in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years, that that parcel in and of itself, can be self-parked in the future. And I'd retool lots 2 and 3, and the residual parking off of 4, to be highly functional versus maybe not. KOVACEVIC: I mean, what we're doing here is de facto CC zoning, which I'm on record and my opinion on that. It's just the shared parking is -- I mean, I don't like it, but. Yeah, it's -- for what it's worth. CHAIR GRAY: Let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Paula, we have any speaker cards? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 of 53 WOODWARD: Yes, Chair, one speaker. Lori Troller. TROLLER: I'm going to plead the Fifth on intelligence on this. So as a resident, if I go in and go to 3, and all those spots are taken, and I park somewhere else, is there a chance my car is going to get towed with what we're talking about? I mean, it's not like it happens in town, right? But -- TAVASSOLI: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'll try to answer Ms. Troller's question. If there were to be a shared parking agreement validated, recorded, then no one should expect any parking tickets or towed vehicles or anything like that. And that's certainly something that we staff would make sure that we receive prior to even taking the final plat to council. TROLLER: Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Paula, any more speaker cards? WOODWARD: No, Chair. CHAIR GRAY: All right. Commissioners, I think we probably deliberated this enough. Any final thoughts or -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. I do have two questions. Do we get another look at this when -- for final? CHAIR GRAY: Only if we continue it. KOVACEVIC: Oh. TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Kovacevic, actually -- so the preliminary plat will move forward to town council meeting next month. But the final plat, as is written in the subdivision ordinance, will go directly to town council. KOVACEVIC: Okay. And next question. When you -- assuming this gets approved and petitioner comes in to build lot 3, are you going to do parking calcs to make sure that there are -- that they have enough -- that there is enough parking for -- TAVASSOLI: Yeah. KOVACEVIC: -- to build on lot 3? TAVASSOLI: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, yes. We will look at what use is being proposed and also take a look at the existing businesses that have been established TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 of 53 there, look at those collectively and make sure that there's adequate parking. KOVACEVIC: If they build lot 3 before lot 2 gets leased and they put a restaurant in lot 3, I don't know that you have enough -- that you're even close to enough parking for a restaurant -- two restaurants there. TAVASSOLI: Right. It's, for lack of a better phrase, it's basically first come, first serve. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. TAVASSOLI: If both buildings want to establish restaurants, then we want to make sure -- and I mean, a lot of it depends on the property manager or property owners making sure of that. KOVACEVIC: That's all for me. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner? VICE CHAIR WATTS: One last question about parking, I hope. When you do the calculations in your shared parking agreement, is the shared parking agreement taking into consideration the whole? All of the buildings and all of their required parking, so there's no duplicity in the parking spaces? TAVASSOLI: Correct. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. So they can never exceed the sum of what all of them are required, but they can share the existing parking spaces? TAVASSOLI: Correct. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: And that calculation would also account for any dedicated spaces that are conveyed with a lease? TAVASSOLI: Correct. Yes. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner? COREY: I would make a motion. But I want to call out that I'm glad that Lori came up and talked about that shared parking. I think one of the important things is that we make sure it's really easy for people to park around here and wherever they want to go, they think, hey, they might not know that there's different lots. They just know this is a parking lot, and there's a bunch of different places around here. We want to make it TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 of 53 easy for them to park wherever they really want to, and then they can visit the different businesses. So I think that's really important. The only time I would see, like, the dedicated signs for parking is if you're to-go food or something, or where you're right in front of that business getting a delivery or something. So I think that that's important. And I would -- I think sounds like there's some agreement here. And I would recommend approval on the preliminary plat for the three acres at NEC of Palisades Boulevard, La Montana subdividing the three commercially zoned parcels into four lots PRP22-1. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioners, a second? Paula? Oh. You're just getting ready? Ramped up. Commissioner Kovacevic? What are you guys doing with your mics on? DAPAAH: I will second. CHAIR GRAY: Are you ready, sir? DAPAAH: I will second that motion, sir. CHAIR GRAY: All right. So Commissioner Corey has made the motion to recommend approval to the town council. Commissioner Dapaah has seconded that motion. Before we take a vote, I'd like to propose one amendment to it. And that's just that we also, within that recommendation, recommend that the council use their resources available to them to evaluate this as it relates to the town-planned downtown corridor and the overall character and feel of that. Because I think, as we talked about here, several of us see maybe a different way to do this. So once this thing gets in place, it's here for the next couple generations. So that would be my proposed amendment. I think we need to take a vote on an amendment also. It's more of a comment that goes with the motion, but I want to make sure it gets in the record that way. WESLEY: Chair, if you are okay with just doing that, Paula can make sure it's in -- CHAIR GRAY: Okay. WESLEY: -- that motion. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. So it will get -- it would get to -- it would be sure to get in front of council for at least a discussion point? WESLEY: One of the -- sure. One of the staff report categories is the report from this TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 16 of 53 commission. So that we put in that, so the council will see that. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Thanks, John. Okay. Roll call vote? WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster? DEMPSTER: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Aye. WOODWARD: Chair Gray? CHAIR GRAY: Aye. WOODWARD: Seven-zero. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you, Paula. Agenda item 6, public hearing, and possible action on ordinance 2405, to amend section 5.13 community residences. Mr. Wesley? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioners, good evening. This is an item that's being brought back to you from your February meeting. At that time, we presented this text amendment in an effort to provide for additional inspections of community residences. There were some comments, suggestions for additional modifications that came from the P&Z Commission. The item wasn't noticed generally enough for that to happen. So we had to re-notice and come back this evening. So that's what we're here for this evening. The council has requested the modification to increase the ability to provide inspections of community residences that come into the town. The current ordinance was approved back in May of '22, so about two years ago. So this evening, we have the original proposed modification, which is on this slide TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 17 of 53 and the following slide. So with regard to the initial inspection, we let the applicants know that we can conduct any other inspections if we feel there's a belief -- concern that code requirements aren't being met. You see, there's some noncompliance. And then adjusting the reregistration language a little bit to then provide for a little bit more detailed inspections that can occur with reinspection. Under the revised code, any new homes that come into town are required to have an annual inspection -- or annual renewal of the registration, which then kicks in this opportunity to inspect. Are there any questions about this piece? If not, we can go on into the changes that come from the discussion at the last meeting. The direction from the commission at that time was to address the language with regard to the business licenses. And so you can see the changes made here. "Owner and/or operator", that was what Commissioner or Vice Chair Watts was wanting to add. Would be required to get the business license, taken out the "if applicable" there. And then down later, under the registration piece, taken out, "if applicable." So making it clear that the business license is required for the operation. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Can we go back one slide, John? The right to it -- maybe it's two slides. "The right to inspect" seems a bit ambiguous. What are the conditions to inspect? Would they have to -- certain thresholds? Occupancy that's excessive? Do we have anything that we can be more specific about or was it intentionally left vague? WESLEY: So Vice Chair Watts, so the things we could inspect would be against the requirements of the ordinance. So we could pull up, if we needed to, Section 5.13 and look at all the criteria that had to be followed in order to have the home be legally registered. Those would be the things we could inspect for. As far as the statement here, yes, it was left somewhat vague. The reasonable belief -- concern being if we start trying to list specific things we could inspect for, something's certain to come along that we didn't include in the list, and then we couldn't inspect for it. So anything within that list that causes a reasonable belief that there's noncompliance with that item, would allow us then to inspect. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So code enforcement has to be aware of Chapter 5 to make sure TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 18 of 53 they understand all the nuances in there. And then being vague, you've left it open if there are something that is not listed in there but is still egregious enough, you still have the opportunity to go and conduct an inspection based upon something that's valid? WESLEY: Yes. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. Thank you. WESLEY: And then the other item that came up -- I noted this at one point. It had kind of fallen off my radar, but as I went back after the last commission meeting and revisited the totality of the ordinance, I remembered that there was an error in the approval of the code back in '22. Brief history. As we brought this code to the P&Z Commission, one of the items of discussion was whether or not to allow for the waivers that are common in a lot of these codes. If these homes are -- somebody's wanting to put them closer together or have more residents, there's an opportunity -- a waiver provision. The commission took that waiver provision out and then amended the number of residents who could go in the homes. We got to council, they put the waiver provision back in, but I failed to note that in this waiver provision; it still used the old resident number. And so the proposal here is to change this so that we're consistent with the number of residents. Because the code allows six residents, including staff, for a transitional home. Eight residents, including staff, for a family home. The ordinance says ten. And because that was based, again, on the old number of ten. So this will fix that, so we don't have that conflict or confusion. CHAIR GRAY: John, just for clarity and declaration purposes. In the discussion a year and a half, two years ago, when we were going through all of this, we used the term "reasonable accommodation" because that had appeared -- I don't know if that appeared in our code or -- appeared in a lot of the research from other municipalities. Is there any difference in definition between "reasonable accommodation" and "waiver?" Because just on the surface, waiver sounds softer and more inviting to me than reasonable accommodation might. WESLEY: Chairman, the best I can recollect that series of events, in a lot of codes you probably see the full term, "waiver for reasonable accommodation" or "waiver of TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 19 of 53 reasonable accommodation." And so that caused confusion because isn't this already a waiver or creating a reasonable accommodation? We even put the code in here to allow it. And so having all that string of words caused confusion. And so the choice at that time was made just use the term "waiver." CHAIR GRAY: But we would not administer that any differently than -- WESLEY: No. CHAIR GRAY: -- than the long form definition of it? WESLEY: Correct. And so it still has -- again, the criteria that are listed out in the code and the committee that would meet to review information submitted to try to receive a waiver and the whole process is all still there. CHAIR GRAY: And then the second -- I'll call it a minor tweak to this language, and maybe this isn't appropriate because it's not really on the agenda this way -- but that last sentence where we say for the type of residence or reduce the separation for financial or therapeutic reasons, my concern is that that's almost inviting a pathway. Well, it is. It's doing that by design. With the waiver being in, it's saying you can request a waiver on these two terms. I'm not suggesting -- although I would like to -- I'm not suggesting that we take that out, given, I know we have to provide a pathway. But I would like to add to the tail of that something to the effect of, if self-governing. With the idea that when there is a case made for burden or therapy, it's typically in a self- governing model or it's almost all -- it is -- all the cases that I ever remember finding were a self-governing model. I don't want this to be interpreted in a way that says, my my pro-forma isn't working the way I want it to, and that's a financial burden, so I seek my waiver on that basis, and your your code prescribes me the pathway to do that. I worry that that could be taken maybe a little bit out of context. Not today, not tomorrow, but at some point in the future. WESLEY: Chairman, I have to think through that a little bit more. But most of the homes we currently have, and I would expect to be in the future, are for senior residents. And they're not self-governed and probably won't ever have that type of home. Being a self-governed model, like I think you're you're considering with the sober TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 20 of 53 living homes and the Oxford House model where they're self-governed, that's a -- you know, a very small percentage of what -- in fact, we don't even have any now and don't know if we ever will have any. But our full range of types of community residences, we have need to have this waiver opportunity. CHAIR GRAY: I get it. But it worries me a little bit. Let me think about it. Mr. Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: John, help me understand. We had something in our recommendation to council. Council took it out and put their own verbiage in there. And where is it in the ordinance that talks about the four and the two and the six and the four? Should we cite that here, so we have a point of reference, so there's no ambiguity? WESLEY: So that would be another option here in terms of wording. I could have said no more than allowed in the transitional residence of this, meaning no more than the community residence of that number, which is eight. But to simplify the language here because it is in the definitions when you look at them, in case they change one place, we don't have to worry about changing in another place. This seemed to be the long-term, cleaner way to do it. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I think from a -- WESLEY: That is the intent. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- from a clarity standpoint, there's an awful lot of room on this slide to add that verbiage. WESLEY: Sure. We could do that. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I would like to see that verbiage, so it was clear -- WESLEY: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- and there was no confusion because it sure had confused me. Okay. DEMPSTER: I agree with that because I was confused, too, when I read the verbiage. Thank you. COREY: Yes. Thank you, Chair. I just had a question on the license. How do we coordinate and make sure that the state and the town, that we have the licenses TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 21 of 53 accounted for on both ends? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner Corey, the state looks for the town's approval before they will issue their license. And as per the code, we can give our tentative approval for up to 90 days while they go through that state process to get their state license. And once they get that state license, they need to give us a copy. If they haven't within the 90 days -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- then we would let them know they need to give it to us, or they need to move out because they're no longer approved. COREY: Okay. Thank you. And the waiver -- so you mentioned the committee or the waiver committee that -- who's part of that committee or what business unit are they a part of? WESLEY: So as set up in the code, it consists of three individuals. The chair of the P&Z Commission -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- the chair of the Board of Adjustments and the development services director. COREY: Okay. Okay. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Public hearing. Paula, any speaker cards? WOODWARD: Yes, Chair, two. The first speaker is Larry Meyers. And then on deck is Lori Troller. MEYERS: Chair, commissioners, I don't like this waiver language because in the ordinance, we specifically called it reasonable accommodation and we used the definition of what reasonable accommodation was. And we beat it to death to get it to where it is. And the reasonable accommodation doesn't have it -- has to do with many things, none of which is a waiver. It's a reasonable accommodation based on the committee hearing what the licensee wants to change of our ordinance for their accommodation, which doesn't include anything financial and must include the care. Which is why we set the occupation -- the occupancy limits, because we lowered them TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 22 of 53 so that there would be more care and from the current -- the past levels. And the second part of this is, I don't see anything in here -- I don't see any penalties. What if you start operating without a business license and you get caught? Are you then allowed to operate? Oh, I tried to do it without a business license, and now you caught me. So I get a business license now with no ramifications? I thought that was talked about in the last meeting and I don't see anything about that. And we may even have had a house open. And as far as what might happen in the future -- Oxford House, no Oxford House? These people have already created, on the transitional side of things, they've already shown you that they will slide through any crack you provide. And we wrote a pretty good ordinance over years and much discussion amongst y'all. And then dragging the previous council like a dead horse across the finish line, to the point where they changed part of this. And thankfully, John noticed what they changed because it's a big deal what they pulled out. So I would like to see not the words "waiver" because that does -- to me, if you offer me a waiver, that gives me an invitation to get a waiver. If you tell me I have to have reasonable accommodation, then I got to go figure out what your definition is and bring it to you. Thank you very much. TROLLER: I did a lot of research -- what he said -- let's start out with that. Whatever he said, he said. I did a lot of research on this. When it comes -- I read I don't know how many cases -- the vernacular, the nomenclature typically used to make a change to a legal precedent, and you have an exception to it, in the legal world, it's always reasonable accommodation. It's never -- you'll never read in a court case that there there was a -- what do we call it? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible). TROLLER: What we're switching it to? So it's always reasonable accommodation. If you look in court cases that's the vernacular. So that's just my two cents. So. WOODWARD: Chairman, there was a written submittal from Liz Gildersleeve and her comment was that she supports -- excuse me just for a moment. I'll read this. She supports the agenda item, but she says, "However, addition of the follow-up inspections TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 23 of 53 may be conducted upon a reasonable belief of noncompliance. This seems ambiguous. What triggers a reasonable belief and who does the inspections?" CHAIR GRAY: And here I thought you were going to give us a basketball score. All right. Let's close the public hearing. Commissioners, final thoughts? I end up with two -- I do tend to agree with Lori there. I read "waiver of reasonable accommodations" so many times when we did this that I think we should extend that all the way back out, leave the word "waiver" in but "of reasonable accommodation." And then, obviously, the correction of the maximum number of residents for the type of residence but move the period there, which would eliminate the wording "a reduced" or "reduce separation for financial or therapeutic reasons." I just think that's leading a horse a little bit more than what I'm comfortable doing. But I'm fine with the rest of it as is, as long as that were to that omitted. And then, just so I can say it, I really don't see the reason to require a business license of the residences, but I'm not going to let my belief there stand in the way of the majority. So Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: John, I thought there was a penalty clause in the actual ordinance. WESLEY: Yes, sir, there is. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I thought there was. So there is something out there -- WESLEY: Yes. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- that says if you don't follow the rules, here's the penalty and it escalates. WESLEY: Yes. CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. And the irony of that is, is that the penalty for registration is far higher than the penalty for not obtaining the business license. Right? VICE CHAIR WATTS: I don't know that. I just shared that. CHAIR GRAY: I thought the -- I thought it was like 300 bucks for no registration and 50 bucks for a business license violation? WESLEY: Chair -- yeah. Yeah. In terms of the violations that are not or how those business license and so forth -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 24 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. WESLEY: -- I don't have it in front of me. I think the registration fee for community residence is 350. A business license to register, that, I believe, is 50. Penalties for not doing so, go up from there. If I may, Chair, on a couple of items? One of which has already been brought up. I just highlighted in here the specific pieces of the code that we were changing, everything else is staying the same. So I just didn't include it. It's here, we're really pretty focused. So that caused some confusion, I'm sorry. But there is a whole violation and penalty section that's in here. On the waiver of reasonable accommodation, that's no problem changing that language. That's actually what we started with before, and it got reduced for whatever reasons I don't remember now. But there are a list of five items that have to be met. B is just one of those five items that you have to go through, and you have to meet all of them in order to receive the reasonable accommodation. Chair, I would disagree with your moving of the period, at least to some degree. I think "separation" we need to keep. You could put it after "separation" if you want, if you want to take out the, "for financial or therapeutic reasons". Not to belabor this too much, but I believe that was wording you added previously when this code first came through for review. CHAIR GRAY: I'm older now. WESLEY: You're much wiser, I can see. But sure, we're glad to make any of those changes. To change the title from "waiver" to "waiver of reasonable accommodation," that's no problem. We can make that going forward. I can put the exact language in here instead of the maximum number. Put the full language in at this point, that's no problem, okay, Commission. VICE CHAIR WATTS: One more. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Oh, I thought you were going to go. I think it does bring up an interesting point, though. $300 or $500 for a fine for a organization that thumbs their nose at following the rules, seems pretty minimal. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 25 of 53 WESLEY: The fines start at 750 -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: I still think it's -- WESLEY: -- go up from there. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- pretty minimal. They get 20, $30,000 a month per. So I think at some point, not tonight, I don't want to do that. But at some point, I'd like to look at those fines and the legitimacy of saying -- making them more aggressive than they currently are. So just a thought. Thank you. COREY: Yeah. Thank you, Chair. John, just to clarify the -- so you were telling us that council asked to bring the reasonable accommodation waiver back on the ordinance. WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner, that wouldn't be quite correct. They brought us -- they asked us to insert the requirement for the inspections. As part of reviewing this -- COREY: I see. WESLEY: -- I recalled and remembered we had this little error here where that ten -- a holdover from the original code which still allowed ten -- didn't get addressed in the final version. And so this is one I brought forward in order to make this consistent with the rest of the ordinance. COREY: It was the inspection? Okay. So but you also mentioned that -- but -- I'm sorry. But as far as the waiver and the reasonable accommodation part is concerned, they asked that that get put back in here as well? Was there anything specifically part of that that they were looking for? WESLEY: So Chairman, Commissioner Corey, so when I say that, I'm talking about two years ago when P&Z made their recommendation on an ordinance to council. COREY: Yeah. WESLEY: The P&Z Commission struck all the language with regard to the reasonable accommodation. At that time, when council considered it, they determined it needed to be in there and put it back in. So that was two years ago. COREY: With no specific direction, exactly, what they were looking for? Just to bring what we had taken out back in? WESLEY: No. There were changes that they made also, based on some of the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 26 of 53 comments that had been made at the commission level, in order to satisfy some of the concerns with the language that the commission looked at, and making a final decision on what that waiver committee would be. COREY: Okay. So are we hitting what they were looking for? WESLEY: So it's all staying the same as what they recommended, what they approved two years ago. The only change in the whole waiver of reasonable accommodation being recommended, is this one change in language to get rid of the ten because that's no longer applicable because we changed it to six and eight. That's all this is changing. COREY: I see. WESLEY: Otherwise, it's the ordinance as it exists today. COREY: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Dempster, any comments before we go to a motion? DEMPSTER: No, I'm good. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Commissioners, all comments in? Looking for a motion. Commissioner Watts. VICE CHAIR WATTS: If I could remember everything that you said. I'd like to move forward and approve the motion as submitted, with the recommendations to include -- to modify the verbiage as we discussed, and to include the numerical values for each of the types. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Commissioners, a second? KOVACEVIC: I'll second. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Okay. Commissioner Watts has made a motion to approve with modifications as stipulated. Commissioner Kovacevic has seconded the motion. Paula, roll call, please? WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah? DAPAAH: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 27 of 53 DEMPSTER: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Aye. WOODWARD: Chair Gray? CHAIR GRAY: Aye. WOODWARD: Seven-zero. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you, Paula. All right. Number 7, review and discuss issues related to the provision of wireless communication facilities. This is not a public hearing, its discussion. So we'll hear any public comment cards. Other than that, it's a chance for a sounding board with John based on the materials -- all 333 pages of them -- presented. VICE CHAIR WATTS: (Indiscernible)? CHAIR GRAY: What sign part? VICE CHAIR WATTS: There was a section in there for signs. CHAIR GRAY: In the full packet? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. CHAIR GRAY: So let's go ahead. Let's do the public hearing -- or not hearing -- let's do the public comment cards first, and then we'll likely hear from Commissioner Watts. WOODWARD: Chair, there's two speakers. Lori Troller is the first speaker, and Larry Meyers will be on deck. CHAIR GRAY: Walk slow, Lori. Scott's pulling up the score real quick. TROLLER: Who's playing? Sorry. Who's playing? I'll probably get shot for asking that. CHAIR GRAY: Purdue and UConn. SCHLOSSBERG: 25. CHAIR GRAY: 25 Purdue, 30 UConn. All right. TROLLER: Does that get everybody in a good mood? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 28 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: That did not count against your three minutes. TROLLER: Okay. Good. Okay. I was really hoping to hear what John had to say first. And all 300 pages he has, believe me, that was just like nothing -- CHAIR GRAY: Hold on one second, Lori. TROLLER: -- I know all 300 pages. CHAIR GRAY: Paula, we're going to tee her up for six, right? WOODWARD: Okay. Yes. TROLLER: Okay. So I really would like to hear what John has to say before I start. But when I was getting ready for this meeting, I looked at the agenda and looked at the attachments, and I can kind of figure out where he's going to go. So based on that, I'm going to make some comments. I may need to recant them after I hear him speak. But the other thing is I did send everyone, you too, Susan, information. It was my bad. I was sending to each one of you thinking you all had individual email address, and nobody got anything because I didn't send it to the one. I will send that. You're going to be getting a lot of stuff from me. I was sending it over time it was released and that didn't work out. So when I was looking at what John listed for this, at the bottom there's towns, their name: Farragut Tennessee, Davis California, Malibu California. I know those were included because I have been speaking to those in particular unless he found another reason that they were special. And then included is: Flagstaff, Sedona, Bisbee, Paradise Valley, Peoria, and Scottsdale. I will tell you that for the ones that are here in state, I've worked with most of those cities helping them get rid of towers. They have a tower come in, it doesn't follow whatever code they have, they -- people know that this is what I do. And they say, how -- tell me where in the code, where is this wrong, let's point this out. I'm just saying that if we're going that way, if we're following the Arizona suggested ordinances, which is, I think, what John's going to be saying is, I'm already fighting those towers. And we've gotten rid of -- it's not that we've gotten rid of them, it's they're not being applied for properly. This is a huge problem. So these towns that he has listed as perhaps an example for us, they're looking for our -- everybody knows TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 29 of 53 we're going through this process, and everybody is waiting for this beautiful ordinance to come out because they want to correct theirs. And I'm telling you, I'm helping them with theirs. So the other thing I wanted to point out or mention is the map that John used in this meeting. The map before that, I think it was the February meeting, showed where Cox and Verizon already have underground fiber. I have concerns about that. I don't want to take up the time for that. But I want you to realize there's the two maps. Please look at the map, I think it's in the February one, because it shows more of the layout. I don't know why that wasn't included in this presentation, but he may have an explanation for that. So let me go with the assumption that John is continuing with a tower ordinance. And I'm just going to --- I'm going to go with this. This is going to be a little harsh. I'm sorry, but this is near and dear. I still don't see what the benefits are to require service to be underground -- built underground. I'm concerned that Mr. Wesley is not aware of the town's liability in the situation of a lawsuit from a resident. It's not to say -- it's not, or -- I'm sorry. It's not only the town's liability, but it's yours as well as individuals who may favor the construction of antennas. The town can't get insurance. It doesn't exist. Which leaves the decision-makers, you guys, vulnerable. Again, there are so many aspects to this, all of which are nonissues if the infrastructure built is underground. I continue to be confused by why the -- sorry. I continue to be confused why it's towers Mr. Wesley is pushing. It goes against our strategic plan. It devalues our properties. It pollutes our town with more emissions. It uses a tremendous amounts of energy -- people don't really speak about that. It provides slower service than what would be provided if it were underground, and it is going to be disturbed by any storm or any dust storm -- rainstorm or dust storm that we have. And the bigger fact is, is that we already exceed FCC limits in the town. So we're adding to it. We're not even thinking about it, we're just adding it. We're writing an ordinance to add to it instead of looking at what we have. So as a resident, if I get a tower in my yard, what do I do? I have to rely on the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 30 of 53 ordinance. I go to the ordinance. I take that to my lawyer, my lawyer, and I go up against the industry and say, here's the law that protects my home. So if this ordinance is not strong, it's letting down every resident who may be affected by this. So again, it's the first line of defense for residents when we -- if we wake up and we have folks in our yards building a tower. So it has to be extremely detailed. A lot of the failures of all these other towns, they say, oh, it has to meet aesthetics, and they stop at that. We need to define them. So there's other areas besides aesthetics that we need to be extremely definitive, and we can get into that with the electronics, and I'll do that at a later date. So again, our founding fathers left us with a clear vision for Fountain Hills, and why there are only -- and why, when there's two choices to install this product, we're going with towers. I don't know why it's underground. Nobody's explained that to me. So I just ask that you table or continue to table this until you get your experts in. I had a video for you guys to see an example of what you can get from experts. I'll get that to you tonight. But thank you. MEYERS: Chair, Commissioners, I'm going to stay away from the details of 5G and speak to a more broader issue, of which 5G seems to be falling into the pattern of the government of this town. So I believe that we can all agree everywhere that the overriding objective of the town government should be transparency of information -- I think we can agree on that -- careful research guided towards listening and protecting the property values, the vision of the town, and the rights of the citizens. So with that in mind, a majority of its citizens, not a vocal, loud, and mostly ignorant minority -- and some of their ignorance comes from people that sit on the dais who at the -- one of the council meetings waved around their cell phone -- because we're not talking about cell phones. When we're talking about 5G, we're talking about broadband communications. So shame on her for doing that and shame on the people who listen to her, because that was ignorant. So for transparency, the latest two examples -- and I was suspicious of this in the last great debate over the Target redevelopment -- a councilwoman directed some of the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 31 of 53 very documents requested by this commission to her personal email. I suspected those things were happening, and that came to light as the email and the documents were eventually made -- came to the light of the public. And then we have -- this is another great debate, definitely changing the shape of the town and the way it was intended by the founders. Staff is asked for documents, and -- or commissioners have asked for documents, and staff has refused to give them under the guise of privileged material. I object. I'm a taxpayer. You're a taxpayer. We paid for that material, and that material belongs to us to use in our research. I suspect that there's probably some really good information in there that we deserve to hear. And you're not hearing it because it's being hidden from us, just like the documents that were sent to the private email in the last great debate we just had. And so I suggest you get those documents. They belong to the people. And that was an expert that we hired and paid a retainer. So I think -- just give me like 30 seconds. There's more collective brainpower in the body public on this particular issue, and I'm including some of you on the dais, then there will ever be inside the walls of the Town of fountain -- Town Hall of Fountain Hills. I'm sorry. They don't have the time nor the expertise to pull this off. And so I suggest you get the information from the town attorney by hook or crook, even if you have to go to the Attorney General to do it, and then see what that consultant has to say before you move anywhere forward on this issue because it's of monumental consequence. Not just for today, we're talking about forever. So thanks for the extra time. CHAIR GRAY: Thanks. Paula, I know we had a couple come in electronically. WOODWARD: Yes. One of them -- they're both in your packet. One was a lengthy email. The other one is from Liz Gildersleeve, and her comment is, "In order to protect the town residents and neighbors, the ordinance must insist that the infrastructure goes underground. Period. If the ordinance does not contain the underground verbiage, then I am not in favor. Putting the infrastructure underground is the most important aspect of this ordinance." That's all, Chair. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioners, the other email came in this morning. Everybody get a TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 32 of 53 chance to see that? Who was the originator of the longer one this morning, Paula? WOODWARD: Ms. Lori Troller. CHAIR GRAY: No. I thought there was another one that we read? There's one at 9 or so this morning. WOODWARD: There was two from Liz Gildersleeve. One is, Liz Gildersleeve commented on agenda item 7 and agenda item 6. CHAIR GRAY: Who put the article in their email? WOODWARD: Lori Troller. CHAIR GRAY: Was it Lori? TROLLER: It's an attachment. CHAIR GRAY: Was it? I read it. TROLLER: Yeah. CHAIR GRAY: I just don't remember it was from you. All right. Let's close the public hearing -- and I keep saying that -- the public comment. Should we bring John up for a few questions? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Just a few. CHAIR GRAY: Mr. Wesley? I'm going to start because I know you're going to be long, and I don't want to be asleep by the time you're done. So John, I just had a question on House Bill 2365, and then this is just a procedural. The way my mind works versus the way legislative writing works, but it seems to me this should kind of work like a wedding cake, where the language that's in Title 11, which allows for the exclusion of towers in residential districts, is not included in Title 9, which is the area of the code that deals with cities and towns. Shouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it's in 11, and then it should then be available to the town to incorporate in their own local ordinances? WESLEY: No. CHAIR GRAY: That just seems so backwards to me. WESLEY: No. They're totally independent. Title 11 of the state statutes regulates things for the county -- unincorporated areas of counties. Title 9 are the rules and regulations TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 33 of 53 for cities and towns to follow. And while they're very similar, and in some places identical, they are totally separate. And so if what -- what's in 11 doesn't apply to cities and towns. CHAIR GRAY: So this is 9? VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's House Bill 2365. That's the one that was codified by the legislature. CHAIR GRAY: Oh, okay. And then the second question I had was on the TCA of '96, Title 1, and Title 2, can you define what a notice of proposed rulemaking? That's a public comment window, right? That's not something that becomes ratified? WESLEY: Chairman, yes. I can't go into too much detail because it's not an area I deal in too extensively. But yes, the FCC is looking at where broadband should be classified, whether it's Title 1 or Title 2. They've had enough evidence come to them to decide that they need to look at it and then possibly make a change. So they've put forth this notice of potential rulemaking, whatever that exact title is. And so sometime in the future -- and estimates are that it will be fairly near future -- they will close their comment period and make a decision on whether or not to move it. But it hasn't happened yet. CHAIR GRAY: But the comment period was opened in -- WESLEY: October. CHAIR GRAY: -- October. To the 25th? Okay. Okay. Commissioner Watts? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Hard to know where to start. Hard to know where to start, but I turn my mic on, I get help. Yeah. The NPRM goes to a vote April 25th, and they've been fighting this -- "they" being the public -- since 2004, 2005, 2008, '10, '14, '15, '16, '18, '19, '20, and '23. So the odds of it passing shouldn't preclude us from being able to create an ordinance that protects the public. So this I don't think the NPRM is a given; that it's going to pass and become law in the immediate future, so consideration. But I also wanted to make a statement about the consultant's work. And this isn't to disparage the efforts of the town staff, but I don't believe that the town staff has the level of expertise necessary to do justice to the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 34 of 53 residents. And I think that the consultant that was engaged originally has that and continues to have it and continues to write recommendations for various towns across the country. So I'm frustrated that we mention consultants in even the information that you provide again, and for some reason, we're not allowed to have that information, even though the town residents paid for it, under some privilege of information which makes no sense to me. If we pay for it, we should be able to see it, and we should be able to use it, and hopefully, that the staff is able to benefit from it as well. So that's probably my -- that's my first and second comments. And I want to -- some of the things the -- she says a -- there's a laundry list. So I'm not sure if we want to go down your list and then I can comment about those individually, or how would you would like to proceed. And let me make one more statement before you do that. I think that the ordinance that you cited and provided, provides some insight. All of them don't address all of the issues, but some of them address the underground component, some of them address compliance, some of them address output, some of them -- each of them collectively, if we could consolidate all of those components, we might end up with a pretty good ordinance. So I commend staff or you -- whoever put it together -- that those half a dozen -- dozen citations were good, but not individually. Collectively, we weave them all together and we make a solid good argument for protecting the public: public interest, public properties, and so on and so forth. So along the way, I'm going to do what you do. I'm open for comments anywhere you want to go with it, or I can keep going. CHAIR GRAY: I don't think -- you don't have a formal presentation of sorts today. WESLEY: Right. That's correct. I'll make a very brief statement here, just kind of summarizing the start of the staff report. Over the last couple of meetings comments and questions have been made, attempts made to define and clarify various points, and sometimes seem like they helped, and sometimes, maybe, I left being a little bit more confused than before. So I thought maybe it'd be helpful, I went back and listened to the two previous meetings, tried to pull out from those things different comments that TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 35 of 53 were made and tried to clarify them. Hopefully, I did. If I didn't, we can continue that discussion. That's what we're after; is trying to come to clarity here about where we're trying to go, what we can and can't do. So we can move forward in a reasonable and appropriate way for the town. I guess I will make one more comment a little bit based on Ms. Troller's comments a moment ago. If -- we have an existing ordinance for towers and antennas for the aboveground things that are here. If there isn't -- I guess, I keep getting the sense that that's fine, it is what it is and we're really wanting to regulate something else. And so if we need to leave Chapter 17 alone and not change anything there, maybe that's the direction. And maybe there's something else we should be doing besides that because if we -- because that isn't an underground broadband ordinance, it's a towers and cell -- it's towers and antennas ordinance, and that's what it's there for. So I'll just throw that out too, if we can get clarification on really what the goal is. CHAIR GRAY: Yeah. I think you're probably right to go down that path. But I don't think it's that we should walk away from the antennas section either. I think that there's probably some complementary lens that we need to take between the two, which is going to complicate it, but I don't know if you can have one discussion anymore without the other. VICE CHAIR WATTS: And I would agree with that. I think that we don't have a big argument about cellular internet and what those are comprised of, as much as it is the broadband component. So I think somehow we ought to be able to weave that into 17. I'm not sure exactly how. So I appreciate this opportunity to have the conversation about it. Continuing, though, I think I want to address a couple of the things that were in -- CHAIR GRAY: I think -- before you -- sorry. But before you get too far down your list, can you give us an update on last month's request to view that consultant's work and what the process might be to facilitate that, or I guess, where it might be in process? WESLEY: So yes, Chairman. The town manager and I believe, with the assistance of the town attorney, have provided some comments to the town council and asked them for TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 36 of 53 direction on how they want to respond and, at this point, have not been given any direction to do anything different than what we've done at this point. CHAIR GRAY: Is there a mechanism available -- I guess we made our formal request for it, right? WESLEY: Yes. CHAIR GRAY: And town council heard that, presumably in an executive session, and abstained from direction to allow us access to that? WESLEY: So Chair, they didn't hold an executive session on it. Town manager though, did communicate to the council. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. So we're, I guess, at this point, we're waiting -- WESLEY: We're waiting. CHAIR GRAY: -- for council feedback and direction? WESLEY: Yes. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. Strange. I mean, there's probably nothing in there, but it's strange. SCHLOSSBERG: It almost makes me want to believe, because it is being kept secret, that there's something was found in there that we're emitting dangerous levels of something. And that there's -- I mean, that's all I can come up with. I mean, why would it be -- CHAIR GRAY: It's strange. SCHLOSSBERG: -- held up? I just -- I don't understand. CHAIR GRAY: Doesn't make a lot of sense. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Doesn't make a lot of sense. CHAIR GRAY: We're not letting anything off of this desk go forward until we know concretely what happens there or why. If we can't see it, I need to know why. I'm sure there's nothing in there. But even I now wonder, why can't we see the document? WESLEY: Right? DAPAAH: Yeah. Chair Gray, are we -- I'm wondering, are we just to focus on land use and not get into -- is this why they're keeping that from us -- from us seeing what the consultant's reports are? Are there parameters that they want to keep us within or -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 37 of 53 WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Dapaah, we, the town council, received a work product from an attorney. And after reviewing it, for whatever reasons, determined that it didn't meet the needs of the town. And it's a work product. It's not a final product. And so they have chosen to keep it at that level. CHAIR GRAY: Makes you want to know even more, doesn't it? SCHLOSSBERG: And now it makes me want to (indiscernible). It was 20,000 bucks, right? VICE CHAIR WATTS: 8,500? SCHLOSSBERG: 8,500? (Indiscernible), okay. Maybe the 8,500 was wasted, and they don't want to -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, then, I want my tax money back. SCHLOSSBERG: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Ready? CHAIR GRAY: Go ahead. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So a couple of things that were in your presentation that isn't a presentation but, nonetheless. The NEPA requirement is only an initial requirement. It isn't a semiannual requirement. When I get to another component, there is a semiannual recommendation for confirmation of output from these towers or from whatever. And that has to be through a spectroanalysis. It has to have computers hooked up to dataloggers and so on, and it has to be calibrated. So that should be in the application process. And that should be something that the provider provides and pays for because it just validates that their output is within a certain range. We've yet to establish the exact range, so we're good there. And just as an FYI, not only is the Environmental Protection Agency by way of NEPA involved, but also the ADA has requirements. So we want to include that to make sure we're compliant with ADA. CHAIR GRAY: How is that relevant? VICE CHAIR WATTS: It's relevant to a side issue of not -- of health. So we were talking about property values initially and what it can do to a neighborhood and diminish the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 38 of 53 property values, but there's also a health component. If the proximity to some of these towers -- if, in fact, we end up with towers in lieu of putting it underground -- produce inappropriate -- or the output is too high -- much like a Faraday screen on a microwave -- the reason that that screen is there is to contain the microwave energy, and we want to make sure that we do that with towers as well. SCHLOSSBERG: I agree. After reading everything I read, I'm kind of freaked out about what I didn't really think was a big issue before, but now I'm thinking, well, maybe it is an issue. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, it's much like mold. If you think about mold, even though the earth's biomass is 25 percent mold, people have different tolerances to mold. And I think people have different tolerances to output that radio frequency -- the electromagnetic component -- that's spectro, so I think we need to be aware of it. Because if the tower's at a height emit a -- what's effectively a cloud, and it has a range. And we want to make sure that we're far enough away so that it doesn't impact people, public gathering places, schools, residences and has that kind of an impact. So I want to make sure we consider that as well. I think some of the things that you've identified is the noise standards. Some of the -- some of the good things are encouraging co-location, requiring security fencing, requiring landscaping, setting noise standards. I think we need to define noise. And I think I mentioned this last time. Noise can be electronic noise, much like fluorescent lights. If you drop a communication cable over an electric light, you can get transients. Transients hop on and then they cause effectively static. So I think noise has to be defined. The structural certification is good. The property line and the heights. I think we've referred to table 1 for that and I think that has got some decent input on it. 300 feet from a residential zone property, I think, is way too low. I think we need to consider between 1,000 and 1,500 feet. I certainly don't want a tower in front of my house and I'm, I think, at least 300 feet from the right-of-way. So I think we need to increase that. CHAIR GRAY: On that one, based on the education you've given me on this, and the way TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 39 of 53 that frequencies are emitted from these, do we also need to consider a vertical separation too, right? So if you've got a tower -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: Right. CHAIR GRAY: -- if you've got a tower here and you've got a home here. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Exactly. Yeah. So you have to have that as well. And it has to be from that point. It's like line of sight. Again, when we talk about community homes, corner-to-corner property, so this has to have a point of origin, and the point of contact has to be that distance because of that effective cloud that is generated. Okay? WESLEY: Chair, if I may? Vice Chair, on the comment you just made about the 300 feet. This isn't a finalized map yet, it's still in some process. But today, to put up a tower, it can't go in -- or in order to go in residential or to go within 300 feet of residential, requires the council to approve a special use permit. You're outside of that, then those long ones that could go in just administratively. So looking at this map, we can see -- we start up here, this commercial area up here is all within 300 feet. In the town center area, we have some area in here that would be outside of that 300-foot where a tower could go without requiring a special use permit. By the time you get down here, there is a thin band, but there're already towers. And so there's a separation distance between towers that would cause it to have to go to council. When we get down to this area of industrial and commercial, again, there's some small area here that's outside that 300 feet that could potentially go in administratively, but because of the existing towers and the separation between towers, again, it probably couldn't. This one's not really drawn correctly. It should just be the Fry's area itself. And so there may be a small point in the middle there where you could put a tower without going through council, and it'd be pretty small. And similarly, up here, this was drawn wrong, it should just go around the lodging-zoned area. So again, maybe there's a small area right there that could get a tower with administratively. So those are the only areas currently with 300 feet where towers could go in administratively without going through a public hearing process. It's not going to take much of a change to get that. So you couldn't go anyplace in town without going through a special use permit, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 40 of 53 and that's certainly an option if that's the way the commission wants to go. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Well, I -- these towers, though, if I'm not mistaken, are primarily cell towers -- cell phone towers. WESLEY: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. They're not broadband. They're not emanating broadband frequencies. So there's a difference there. And again, I, we really have no control over cellular -- where the cellular towers go. We would like to see them as far apart as possible but still as close as possible for best coverage. So we're not trying to eliminate anything, just kind of manage it. WESLEY: So if we are able to distinguish a tower or, more importantly, an antenna that is just emanating broadband, you're wanting to take that even further from residential? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yes. WESLEY: And so again, 500 to 1,000 feet? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yes. WESLEY: So again, at that point, you might as well say they all require special use permit because there really wouldn't be anything left. Maybe, a couple of very small areas. VICE CHAIR WATTS: The ideal situation, though, is to put it underground. WESLEY: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: One of these or -- I guess, there's a couple of them that -- the examples that you provided were very specific about putting all the broadband underground. That's the route they went, and apparently, they haven't been challenged on that. There is some cost, but that cost is burdened by the providers, not necessarily the town. WESLEY: Which communities were those that did that? You don't remember. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I went through them and I didn't write them down, but I know there were two or three in here that -- they specifically talked about being underground. So I think that would be the best solution if we could come up with that. WESLEY: I haven't seen that in the codes yet. So I missed it when I read that. No. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 41 of 53 VICE CHAIR WATTS: So the 300 feet, I think we should look at that with respect to broadband, to 500 or 1,000 feet, whatever. And I think there was one in here that had 1,000 feet. And I'm assuming that you gave me examples that were not challenged in court. So I assume they -- no? You don't know. WESLEY: So again, Chair, Vice Chair, the three out -- three or four outside of Arizona, as Ms. Troller mentioned, I got those because they were ones that had been mentioned at previous council meetings. And then, the ones in Arizona, were just random ones that I picked. As I said in the report, generally speaking, several of them are ones known to be a little bit more progressive in what they do. And then others just for some comparison. So no, I did not do any checking of their codes to see if they'd had any legal challenge. VICE CHAIR WATTS: The ones that I did -- the ones in Hawaii, the ones in California -- California is probably one of the most progressive states to protect their residents. For all the things that go on in California, this is a good thing that they did. And it's hard for me to say that, but it is. I think the drive-by test is flawed. I think that's where it comes back to using the spectroanalysis; when you have somebody that's certified in the operation of that to make sure that the output is recorded, then it's matched against the provider's data. The provider has specific data that says, here's my peak -- it's kind of like a bell chart. And they know when their peak times are, what their drop calls are, what their -- all of the details. They're very granular in the data. So we compare that to what their application says as far as their output range, to make sure they're within output. And if you're asking for more, is it a matter of changing hardware? Is it a matter of adding additional hardware, or what is it? But we need some -- we'll go back to that reasonable accommodation. We want to make sure we provide service, but we don't want to compromise anybody. So more to come on that. And if you need some guidance on where to acquire and which spectroanalysis machine to provide, I've got it for you. The certification is a little bit different, and the calibration is really important, much like radar guns. So that's more to talk about that. The semiannual certification, I just mentioned that and the ongoing maintenance operation. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 42 of 53 And now I'm going to have to go through all of your pages. Each one of them has some notation on it. But I still want to talk about -- what you provided, I think, is a good framework. If we can weave all of the components of each of the ordinances together, I think we can come up with a good solution. So I'm going to relinquish for a minute, and if anybody has any questions, please. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner? SCHLOSSBERG: Yeah. I want to go back to the underground and the broadband underground and the -- I guess, is the provider going to refuse service based on the cost? And is the (indiscernible) going to be a big deal here with the trying to put some of this stuff underground and the legalities of -- I mean, if we're creating the ordinance, then they have to follow it? And if they choose not to, then they just don't provide service here. Is that it? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Cox and phone company are already doing it. They're already pulling cable underground. Technology is pulling it, not trenching it. Old technology is trench, now you'll pull the cable underground. And it's probably much easier with a fiber optic cable than it is with some of these big coax cables. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I'm still waiting for me, huh? CHAIR GRAY: It's your show. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I don't want it to be my show. SCHLOSSBERG: Commissioner Corey said something. CHAIR GRAY: Commissioner Corey? COREY: I do. Just playing devil's advocate, which I usually do. Just hear me out. And I understand health and safety are a key primary focus here, and I completely agree with that. And I do wish we could see that report, so we know that there aren't any issues. But one of the things -- one of the advantages to 5G broadband, as I understand it, like we talked about a couple meetings ago, is that it is wireless. So in my home right now, I have Cox internet, and I got to get a router and I have to get a modem, and I got to plug it into the wall, and wherever that outlet is, it's stuck right there. Whereas the 5G box TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 43 of 53 that these providers can give me means I just plug it into the wall and go. If I move to another house, I keep my internet. If I want to be mobile, I can keep my internet. Maybe I'm a business that has 5G, and I'm doing something out on the Avenue of the Fountains or something, I can bring my 5G box with me. I believe you just plug it in, and it works. So when we think of like -- I don't know -- phones used to be on the wall, we had to turn the circle and call somebody and now they're all wireless. Internet seems to be like it's heading in that direction too. So I think this 5G broadband is a new technology that people are probably going to want. I think these 5G wireless internet boxes are pretty popular. I'd like to get one myself, and I can't because there's no service. But I remember in speaking with a couple of people here, we want to try to bring this as close to getting the signal as close as possible without broadcasting it just throughout the entire community. So I think it was like the last mile was the plan, right? Try to get as much underground as they can? But ultimately, having the wireless is the benefit because then you can just plug in and go. So that's kind of my devil's advocate to that system. If we are all 100 percent underground, then we got to go plug it into the cable and the modem and the router and everything. So that's just my feedback on that part. I think that people are going to look forward to having that in the town. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So -- can I going to interrupt you? CHAIR GRAY: Can we? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Is it Commissioner Dempster? CHAIR GRAY: No, it was Larry. MEYERS: Larry. CHAIR GRAY: It was Larry, but his time has expired. VICE CHAIR WATTS: It sounded like Commissioner Dempster, so. I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Cellular communication, we're not talking about that at all. So 5G cellular -- 5th generation cellular is that. It's just the newest technology and the newest box, the newest product. If you think about a spectrum -- here's a radio frequency TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 44 of 53 spectrum. And this part has 5G cellular and this part has broadband. They're uniquely different. They talk different. They communicate different. They broadcast differently. So you'll never lose your cellular. I wouldn't be an advocate for that because I love my phone. COREY: And I'm not referring to cellular. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But that's what it is. But broadband is huge amounts of data, so it requires huge amounts of energy and output and input. So you've got -- it's not the same thing. So apples and oranges, I want to be sure we don't mix those. COREY: Sure. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Because we're supporters -- I'm a supporter of 5G cellular, 5G internet. COREY: I have 5G cellular at my home, it works great. I don't have 5G broadband at my home. I'd like to get that. CHAIR GRAY: He wants to mine cryptocurrency at Fountain Hills Park. COREY: I want to get online without having to plug it into the router. VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's not going to get you online. Broadband is not going to get you online the same way. Think about something that requires an enormous amount of data, like the Waymo cars and the self-driving cars. That's huge. COREY: Yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So there are certain areas that maybe a cell tower that was managed properly, had the right output, the right validation and calibrations would be appropriate in those areas. But the residential areas where you don't need it and it can work off of the internet as it is today, 5th G, 10th G, whatever the latest generation is going to be, wouldn't be affected by it. Broadband is different and it works on a different frequency. COREY: I am aware of that, and I believe -- my point is still true. Unless Larry wants to come up and -- MEYERS: I just -- one sentence. COREY: Yeah. Can he? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 45 of 53 CHAIR GRAY: He can't. But go ahead. MEYERS: So Verizon's (indiscernible). COREY: MEYERS: Right now, off of the cell tower, it will be three times as fast as your Cox and (indiscernible) if you're (indiscernible) the middle speed. COREY: Yep. MEYERS: And it's a box. You can plug it in anywhere you want to go. And there -- that's your broadband. It's there now. It's on the big towers. And there's only two reasons to have the bandwidth and speed of higher than we have now, A, multiplayer gaming. And I made those multiplayer games. I'm talking about people all over the world. CHAIR GRAY: Larry, come up to the mic. MEYERS: I was trying to stay away from it -- COREY: We still heard you, but I think for everybody else. CHAIR GRAY: You said one sentence. Susan didn't hear you, so start over, please. MEYER: Okay? So you can get the Verizon Cube right now. COREY: Yeah. MEYERS: 300 -- the middle speed of Cox is about 100 down and 10 up for $100 a month. You can get the Verizon Cube for less than $100 a month. It's 300 down and about 30 to 50 up. That's very, very fast. SCHLOSSBERG: Not consistently. I've got it in my office. MEYERS: It's not consistent? SCHLOSSBERG: Not that consistent. MEYERS: Because I'm in a canyon and I tried that thing, it blazed every day. So I think it depends on your proximity to a tower. SCHLOSSBERG: It's good. MEYERS: But I -- COREY: I got it too, and it wouldn't work. And I called them and they said, I don't have the service. MEYERS: Okay. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 46 of 53 COREY: I don't have the wireless. MEYERS: From the tower? COREY: Yes. MEYERS: But that cube is not going to work off of these small wave towers. That's the point. That cube has nothing to do with small-wave broadband. With regard to the speed that you wish to have and what Commissioner Watts was saying about self- driving cars and the like. In your house, there's only two reasons to have speed of that nature bandwidth. Multiplayer gaming, which is players from all over the world playing a game, massive amounts of data coming in, and your massive amount of data going out, so that everybody plays the game in real-time. And maybe if you're streaming five or ten different movies to different devices in your house all at the same time, otherwise, you couldn't possibly use the bandwidth. So there's no reason to put a tower in front of your house. Stick a bunch of fiber that pads up at your street, and you'll have blazing internet without wireless. The only reason you need the wireless is if you want to play a multiplayer game sitting in the Fountain Park on your phone, you might need a small wave tower or a Waymo car, is really about it. That's it. I'm not going to -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: So I would challenge you on one thing. You could have broadband at your house by way of a fiber optic cable. You would have a point of demarcation in your house, much like you have a router today. It would be different technology, and you would have wireless anywhere in that area. So you could create the same environment -- MEYERS: Yeah. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- if you wanted to. MEYERS: Right. In your house. VICE CHAIR WATTS: In your house. Out in the environment, you might drop down to the 300 down and the 100 up. MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: So that's a possibility as well. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 47 of 53 MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But fiber optics underground gets you -- still to your house, if you want it, and it gets you that point of demarcation, and it gets you just like you have cellular today. MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But you get broadband frequency instead. MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: And I'll bet you at some point in time they'll combine some sort of a combiner, a multiplier, broadband, internet, the whole nine yards, into one device as opposed to having two different routers. But right now you could do it with two routers. MEYERS: Right. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. MEYERS: Right now I have it in my house, two routers. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. MEYERS: Broadband and cellular. In my house because I'm in a canyon. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. MEYERS: And so I bought my little wireless tower in the house. Bores a hole in the internet, private, to the tower. And that's how I make cell phone calls. Otherwise, I call you, my call drops. So -- VICE CHAIR WATTS: And I'm in something of a canyon, but I've got T-Mobile -- MEYERS: Thanks. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- instead of Verizon. And my T-Mobile is lightning fast. And I don't have any problems whatsoever. I've never had to reset the thing. COREY: Okay. Well, thank you for clarifying that. I was under the assumption that that was the 5G broadband, but it was clarified to me that that is the 5G wireless. So my last question would be then who, ultimately, is the customer of the 5G broadband, if it isn't residents? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Whoever wants to buy it. It's business that's primarily heavy data TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 48 of 53 users. SCHLOSSBERG: You said Cox and (indiscernible)? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. They'd probably be buyers of it, but I don't think it's -- I don't think it's necessary in -- I thought I was off again -- necessary in a residential environment. Residential environments, I'm concerned about property values. Somebody sticks a tower in front, and the statistics tell you that you've got a 3 to 20 percent degradation in the value of your house. I'm concerned about health, although health is much more difficult to prove or validate. Because it's -- like I said, with mold, some people are sensitive, some people are not sensitive. Asbestos is another one. So there's different levels of sensitivity when it comes to radio frequency and electromagnetics. COREY: Yeah. It's very interesting and I'm not knowledgeable enough about it. I think that it would be interesting to know who is looking for this technology right now in the town. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I'll tell you that a lot of countries in Europe have outlawed it -- the towers -- because of health hazards. And I don't want to go down that rabbit hole because that's extremely difficult to prove. We can prove value -- residential value degradation. That's the statistics that I got from the national retailers or real estate. I can't remember the acronym for it. But that's provable. The health one is a concern, although we haven't been able to validate it yet, other than the ADA saying that there is a sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, so. But other than that, I think I've covered all of my points. I hope it helps a little bit, or at least things to consider. CHAIR GRAY: We let Larry come back, we got to let Lori come back. COREY: But Larry only had three minutes. VICE CHAIR WATTS: That's true. CHAIR GRAY: True. TROLLER: It's so hard to limit it to one. You were talking about the build out and funding. There are huge programs. I mean, there's huge -- I didn't -- I was asking Dave if TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 49 of 53 the town -- Dave Pock -- if we ever took advantage of something called the Arizona Rural Broadband Development Grant. All of these -- these are all grants that the town can take advantage of to build our own underground infrastructure. So you got to look at that a little differently because then we would have the liability of owning -- I've never even introduced this thought before. But in 2019, the federal government imposed a tax on everyone for I don't know how many years. And that money came together, and I don't have the name of that. I don't like to speak without those facts. But there were funds, and it was literally to put broadband on copper wire underground in every town. It's to help bring broadband everywhere. So just like that, there's these other grants. There's the Arizona State Library Technology and Act grant, there's the Arizona broadband educational incentive, there's the broadband equity access and -- this is so small I can't read it -- and deployment band. There's $43 million in that one. All of these are hugely funded. The Arizona broadband statewide middle mile strategic plan, the Arizona Statewide broadband strategic plan. These are all multimillion-dollar funded grants that we could take advantage of and build this ourselves. So you know, Anthem, they're all underground. But they had the the ease of plowing the whole place over and then building up the community. So it was really easy to get it underground. But there is this option too. So I never pitched this before. That's a big deal, I don't know that that's something we can do, but there's that as well. And just so anybody listening and everybody here understands broadband, everybody thinks they need it, but who can define it? What is it? It's just data really fast. So every -- the last -- for the last 15 years, it was defined at 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps -- or three Mbps up. It just changed last month to 100 down, and I think, 10 up? I don't know if it's 10 up or 30 up. But it just changed. Now the FCC does that definition, but it was fine for the last 15 years. I don't know what anybody else is doing that now requires all this extra stuff. It's not me. And I work in the data industry and I move a lot of data every day -- a ton of data. So does my son. I can't say who he works for but his requirements are enormous, and he's what -- the service we have is just fine. But that's the definition of broadband, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 50 of 53 it's just data at a minimum speed. And right now, that's 100 up and 30 -- or sorry -- 100 down, 30 up. If it doesn't meet that, it's not called broadband. It's just your data service. So I just want to make that distinction for people. VICE CHAIR WATTS: But to Lori's point, in order to push that much data, it requires a different part of the bandwidth. It requires more -- TROLLER: It requires different equipment. VICE CHAIR WATTS: -- and I'll call it energy because we -- energy causes all of this data, the 1s and Os move and push at a certain rate because of the energy we apply to it and the output from those towers. TROLLER: Yeah. Think of a pitcher throwing a ball. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. Same thing. TROLLER: I mean -- SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. So you're concerned. Obviously, safety is your biggest concern, I'm guessing, from putting the broadband above ground versus below ground. TROLLER: It is a factor. There's reasons you don't typically hear me discuss that. You rarely hear me discuss that, and there's reasons for that. I will go to the hill on property values. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. TROLLER: As a whole, if we -- if every house has service and we don't have a single one of these towers, meanwhile, the rest of the Valley, there's people getting affected by this, and people are going to start looking for areas like Anthem where there's no towers. You know what we just did for Fountain Hills, by putting it underground? You just increased our property values tremendously, because we're going to be one of those few areas that's not -- doesn't have excessive emissions. But I'm telling you right now, we already do. With all of this we have going on, this little map John has, scares me. You got to understand -- so this, I guess, these are 300-foot circles. You got to understand, some of these towers are emitting 25 miles. I feel so bad for the homes that are so close to these, but -- there's so much I can get into. I don't -- it's obviously not healthy, but I'm going to argue to the hilt on property values. We can actually TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 51 of 53 increase the value of the entire town by not bringing towers in, and by bringing it in underground. So that's where I stand. Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WATTS: I got one parting comment and this is just food for thought to ponder. Has anybody -- I'm sure everybody here has read the terms and conditions of your cell phone service and your cell phone manufacturer, right? Everybody read all that? COREY: Oh, man. VICE CHAIR WATTS: Okay. CHAIR GRAY: Ten bucks says you did? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Ten bucks, you're right. So you know it has a warning in there about radio frequencies and keeping it five millimeters away from your body because of electromagnetic exposure? There's two warnings in there, and it talks -- iPhones do it, Samsung -- all the phones do it. They all have warnings. So I think it's something to consider. But I do think that even though some of these towers that have cellular information are only 300-foot or 25 miles, the frequency on the bandwidth is the problem. It's the power. And when we talk about adding power, that's the problem. And when you get into the broadband areas to push so much data, the power of the output -- it's so important to control it, to manage it, to validate it, and to control it within limits, and then minimize the amount of towers that you can have out there from residential areas. So with that, I'm done. CHAIR GRAY: Well, it is rate limiting power an option under the current state scheme? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. You can -- yes. CHAIR GRAY: It would just, in theory, mean more towers? VICE CHAIR WATTS: Yeah. Yes. And then you get back to the property values because now you're placing them everywhere. If you have more output, it has more range. If you have less output, you have more towers. So they're inversely proportional. CHAIR GRAY: Okay. All right. Let's move on to agenda items 8 and 9, commission discussion and summary of commission requests. John, anything for us? Anything for TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 52 of 53 John? DEMPSTER: Yes. Guys, I have. And I had a few comments too, but I can send them via email to John, about item 7. But I have something for John and for the commission to consider and look into. I got a call last week from an investor wanting to purchase one of my listings. And so this is a new craze, I guess. A new thing coming on with co-living. There is a new company called PadSplit, P-A-D, split. Where these investors come in and buy homes, and they modify the living space into more bedrooms. So they may take a three-bedroom, two-bath home and turn it into a five- or six-bedroom and maybe add a bathroom, and then have individual leases for each bedroom and have cohabitants in each home. I found it very interesting. And if you go on their website, you can see an actual floor plan where they do this. And some of the rooms are so tiny, it's crazy. But I didn't have a chance to look at our definitions of households. And I mean, one, I think this would -- could be an issue with parking at the property. But I just thought this was very interesting as something new that's coming this way. They said if that didn't work with the house, that they worked with insurance companies, and they would buy the house for insurance companies for families to temporarily live while work was being done in their house. And then they also worked with -- they called it co-living, which is group homes. And he said flat-out that we make so much more money because we can charge an -- have an individual lease per room. So I just wanted to bring everybody's attention to this new option of PadSplits. So John, I wanted to bring this to your attention. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. Susan, can you spell the pad? P-A-D-? Can you spell the second word, please? CHAIR GRAY: Split. DEMPSTER: Split, S-P-L-I-T. KOVACEVIC: Thank you. DEMPSTER: Like that. CHAIR GRAY: Are you in the market, Dan? DAPAAH: Yeah, Chairman, this is something that's very popular on the East Coast. New TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS APRIL 8, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 53 of 53 York is doing this all the time. I mean, it might be new here, but it's big on the East Coast. SCHLOSSBERG: Like a place where they -- crash pads? Yeah, this sounds (indiscernible). DEMPSTER: Yeah. There were several states that it seemed to be very popular. CHAIR GRAY: Great. All right. Thank you, Susan. DEMPSTER: Thank you. CHAIR GRAY: All right. Folks, we are adjourned.