The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About250609 PZC MM Summary and Verbatim Transcript TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 9, 2025 A Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission was convened at 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains in open and public session at 6:00 p.m. Members Present: Chairperson Dan Kovacevic; Vice Chairperson Clayton Corey Commissioner Mathew Corrigan; Commissioner Peter Gray (arrived at 6:14 p.m.); Commissioner Dan Kovacevic; Commissioner Scott Schlossberg and Commissioner Phil Sveum Staff Present: Development Services Director John Wesley, Senior Planner Farhad Tavassoli, and Executive Assistant Paula Woodward. Planning and Zoning Commission June 9, 2025 1 of 2 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 9, 2025 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Chairperson Kovacevic called the Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on June 9, 2025, to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson Dan Kovacevic; Vice Chairperson Clayton Corey; Commissioner Mathew Corrigan; Commissioner Peter Gray (arrived at 6:14 p.m.); Commission Nick Proctor; Commissioner Scott Schlossberg and Commissioner Phil Sveum Staff Present: Development Services Director John Wesley, Senior Planner Farhad Tavassoli, and Executive Assistant Paula Woodward 3. CALL TO THE PUBLIC No one from the public spoke. 4. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 21, 2025 and May 12, 2025. MOVED BY Vice Chair Corey to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 21, 2025 and May 12, 2025. SECONDED BY Commissioner Corrigan. Vote: 6/0 Unanimously 5. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance 25-02 amending the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance to add Chapter 27, Downtown Overlay District. The following resident addressed the Commission: Dori Whittrig Roger Isaacs MOVED BY Commissioner Sveum to recommend the Town Council approve the Ordinance 25-02 amending the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance to add Chapter 27, Downtown Overlay District as drafted with increasing the residential density up to fifty units per acre, remove ground floor use restrictions, modification of the Avenue boundary, and adjust “build to” language to recognize easements and building setbacks. SECONDED BY Vice Chair Corey. Vote: 6/0 Unanimously 6. REVIEW AND DISCUSS: Ordinances and requirements associated with regulating small cell wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. The following resident addressed the Commission: Lori Troller Planning and Zoning Commission June 9, 2025 2 of 2 Discussion only 7. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. Chair Kovacevic requested a retail stie analysis report for the downtown area. 8. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director. 9. REPORT from Development Services Director. Mr. Wesley said he did not see a reason for a July meeting since there are no pending applications. Next scheduled meeting is August. 10. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Kovacevic adjourned the Regular meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on June 9, 2025, at 7:23 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 37 Post-Production File Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 9, 2025 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 JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 37 KOVACEVIC: This is the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, June 9th, 2025. It's called to order. Let's all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. KOVACEVIC: All right. Paula, can we take the roll, please? WOODWARD: Chairman Kovacevic? KOVACEVIC: Here. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Corey? COREY: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Sveum? SVEUM: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's already -- WOODWARD: Oh, I beg your -- COREY: Here. WOODWARD: -- pardon. COREY: Still here. WOODWARD: Excuse me. Commissioner Corrigan? CORRIGAN: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Proctor? PROCTOR: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Gray is absent. KOVACEVIC: Okay. Call to public. Do we have any speaker cards? WOODWARD: No, Chair. KOVACEVIC: Okay. Item number 4, consideration and possible action, approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 21st and May 12th, 2025. Can I get a motion to approve? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 37 COREY: Motion to approve the minutes. CORRIGAN: Second. KOVACEVIC: Okay. All in favor? ALL: Aye. KOVACEVIC: Opposed? WOODWARD: 6-0. KOVACEVIC: -- 6-0. Okay. Item number 5, consideration and possible action in Ordinance 25-02 amending the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance to add Chapter 27, Downtown Overlay District. Director Wesley WESLEY: Commissioners, good evening. Let me get this running here. There we go. Good to see you this evening. We've been discussing this Downtown Overlay for a few meetings now and keep hearing some additional ideas and thoughts and comments. So we'll take a try at it again tonight, and hopefully, we can get a recommendation onto Town Council. So again, just a couple of background slides in case anybody hasn't been following this before. Council approved a downtown strategy last September after a period of steadied work by the staff, getting input from the public, and some of the main points that were looked for through that downtown strategy is to have a more active and vibrant Avenue, more employment opportunities in the area, more mixed use, and to find ways to better use and maintain some of the vacant properties until they can be developed. So there's several things that are being worked on by staff to help implement that strategy. One of which is to update our zoning in the area. Currently, most of the downtown area is zoned C-2. We have one small spot that's C-3 P.D. Downtown currently has two overlay districts, Entertainment, and a Planned Shopping Plaza Overlay. The two overlays -- the Entertainment Overlay primarily provides for some outdoor entertainment type of activities, allows some noise and things to occur outside, and then the Planned Shopping Plaza Overlay, its primary objective is to allow the development of the small lots, and then use the common parking field. So having those TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 37 two overlays that do similar but different things in the same area provides a little bit of a challenge. We work with people trying to develop in the area and point them to two different overlays, so one of our objectives here is just to combine those two overlays. So in the future, as people are trying to look at what they can do and can't do at the property, it's easier to understand by having just the one overlay. Otherwise -- excuse me -- we have noted that the existing Entertainment Overlay that's been in place since 2016 really hasn't led to any entertainment activities happening on the Avenue. Sofrita's is the only outdoor type of restaurant on the north side of the Avenue, and it was there prior to this ordinance going into place. Other goals within the proposed ordinance, then, is to increase the by-right residential uses so we can get that more mixed-use atmosphere, more people living downtown to work and shop in the downtown area, increase that vibrancy and activity, and then again, to increase the employment opportunities. So we have proposed a new Downtown Overlay Ordinance and divided that into three districts because the needs of the area are slightly different as we move across it, so we'll talk about each of those again this evening. First, the Avenue District, that maintains the uses permitted by right and the C-1, C-C, and C-2 zoning districts. But there's a modification to that that's been proposed in the draft ordinance that we've been talking about, and that is within 50 feet of the street fronts for ground floor uses, that there be some limitations placed there. There's still a wide list of uses that are available, as shown on the screen. We've provided to the commissioners and the public, previously, a more extensive list of what those uses would be. One of the things we keep kind of hearing some pushback on, oh, so you're only going to allow restaurants on the ground floor? Well, no. It's more than restaurants. It's more than bars. It's a lot of retail and active other uses that can happen on the ground floors through this ordinance. It's primarily the office uses that we're trying to reduce over time. And again, just to remind everyone, if this ordinance were approved and adopted as proposed, all the existing uses can stay where they are, and they can still be there many years in the future. It's when places become vacant and new leases are being filled, TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 37 somebody else is moving in, that's when the changes would happen, when the new code would apply. So nobody has to leave or move out if this gets approved. Also, then, in the Avenue District, in terms of special use permits, that would be available to allow -- excuse me. Different thought here. One of the questions or comments that's come up as we have talked about or continue to talk about the idea of the SUP for the ground floor uses is that right now, in order to get an SUP, it's a process that has a application fee, I believe, of $2,000 or something in that range, and that it requires a certain amount of notice and citizen participation. Well, maybe for this type of consideration of a SUP, those requirements are a little bit more than are necessary. You may recall, for those who have been on the commission for a while, a year or so ago, we created a front-yard patio SUP option. And with that, you only pay -- it's either 10 or 20 percent of the application fee, and you only notice the budding property owners instead of what you would with a larger SUP. So that's an option here too, if the commission would want to consider that, in order to make the SUP maybe not quite such a challenge. The Avenue District continues to allow the Entertainment Overlay as currently provided with one change, and that is that instead of having to go to the town council to get the encroachment permit, that we would have that approved by the town engineer. So it simplifies that process for that particular area. It also proposes to increase the allowable residential density by right from eight units per acre up to 30 units per acre, and as I outlined in the staff report, staff could easily support 45 units per acre. That would be similar to what Park Place is and what you approved in other SUPs already in the area. The SUPs that will allow the residential density -- or the SUP could again be used to allow residential density even more than the 45 or wherever you end up on second floors. But in the Avenue District, it does not allow residential by right or through SUP on the first floor because again, we're trying to create those active uses on the first floor. There was also some discussion previously about the boundary. And we've talked about several options, and those other options are still on the table if the commission would TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 37 want to modify these district options. But one of the things we've had some significant discussion about is this corner over here of Avenue and La Montana, and the former Washington Federal building and the way that particular property has developed over the years, being subdivided into three lots, built with some pretty large buildings and not much parking, the options for what can happen on that property is a little bit more limited than some of the other areas along the Avenue. So staff is now suggesting that we could easily amend that and is recommending that we take that corner out of the Avenue District and make it part of the Business District, but again, that's subject to your direction here at the end. So then the Business District -- and I'll go ahead and show that modified boundary here. Again, this district continues to allow the same uses, C-O through C-2. It keeps the Entertainment Overlay District as it is, with one exception, and that is it removes a by- right allowance for adding the right-of-way. When you think about and look at the Business District and the sidewalks that are available, those are narrow sidewalks out by the street versus what we have along the Avenue, and so having that by right doesn't make as much sense there. In the future, as things change, it could still happen because encroachment permits can be requested at any place, but it's not as directly allowed for in the code. But otherwise, you can still have the outdoor activities in the parking lots or in the private properties that are allowed through the Entertainment District today. And then also, the same thing with regard to residential use. We propose an increase from eight to at least 30, or maybe the 45. Here, you could get SUPs for ground floor and upper floors for residential. The Innovation District, they're in north of Palisades. While there's been no changes in this particular piece, as we've talked about it over the last couple of months, the main goal here is to increase some of the employment activities that can occur with some light manufacturing, lab space, those types of things. Currently, with the C-2 zoning that's in the area, residential uses are allowed through a special use permit. So we have included that in the overlay. We have done anything to the overlay to exclude that. There's been some discussion by commissioners that maybe we do want to exclude TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 of 37 residential uses in this particular district, and so again, we could've been the (indiscernible) to do that as directed by the commission. The overlay district also provides some opportunity for temporary uses of the vacant lots, tries to make it a little bit easier through some guidelines that I provided previously to the commissioners, developed by the zoning administrator and town engineer, to let people come in and do some fairly minimal improvements on a lot and use it on a temporary basis until the market justifies more significant development. We hope that would clean them up a little bit more. Again, we can generate more activity in the area. Another area that we've had some discussion about has been the common parking area and its allowances. At this point, the drafted ordinance proposes no changes to what's in the code and what's been there for several years. As this ordinance was developed many years ago, it allowed for all the lots of 10,800 square feet or smaller to not have to provide any on-site parking, that the large lots in Plat 208 would provide all the parking, as well as the on-street parking, but there are five larger corner lots ranging from a little over 30,000 to a little over 40,000 square feet. Those are required to provide all their own parking. Initially, when we updated this ordinance a few years ago, we did make an allowance that they could request through an SUP to get a 50-percent parking reduction and let the Plat 208 parking lot provide the rest of that parking. There's been some suggestion that we ought to remove the parking requirement for all those lots and just make that equal for everybody, and just let the Plat 208 cover all of it. Here's just a couple examples of -- we've had some time to look at that a little closer. Using the Chase Bank as an example, that lot has a little over 40,000 square feet of buildable area. If you had a -- if they weren't required to provide any of their own parking, and they can build a two-story commercial building on that lot, they would be required or need 290 parking spaces. That's about half of what's available in that block that's been used up by that building. Or if they did say a three-story mixed-use building with ground floor residential and two stories of -- or ground floor commercial and two stories of residential, they would need about 190 parking spaces. So again, that's about a third of what's available in that block. If we take all the five larger lots, add them TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 of 37 together, build one-story commercial buildings, they would need over 1,300 parking spaces. There's only around 2,500 available altogether in this area, including on-street parking. So staff sees some trouble with just totally eliminating the parking unless you're also doing something to keep the uses that could happen in line. We think that the ordinance was probably best left where it is at in this regard. Setbacks. We continue to allow the same setbacks, as stated in the ordinance, zero setbacks on most of the properties. We did include, in the draft ordinance, a recommendation for a build-to line. We're trying to create that urban street wall kind of scenario, and that helps with the pedestrian interest and viability along street. It was noted in the previous meeting that there are a few places where maybe that doesn't work, and I'm showing you one here along Parkview where there's actually a 20-foot front setback on the plat. And so if we keep this build-to line, it probably needs to be -- language needs to modified just a little bit to include an exception if there are any easements or setback requirements that conflict with that. So with that, staff again is recommending approval of the ordinance that has been submitted to you with some direction on a couple of these topics as presented, what is the maximum density we really think is appropriate for the downtown area, revised boundary, possibly, on the Avenue District, directions if you want to simplify the SUP process for somebody who wanted to use the Avenue for use that would not be permitted by right, and then also adjusting the build-to language to recognize easements or building setbacks that would push a building back. With that, I'll take any questions you have at this time. KOVACEVIC: Any questions? Commissioner Sveum? SVEUM: John, can you put up -- WESLEY: Pull it closer. SVEUM: Can you put up the Business District map again? What was the comment regarding sidewalk use on Parkview and Verde River? In the existing Entertainment Overlay District, it allows use of the public right-of-way for TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 of 37 outdoor events, activities, and have the noise and whatever that goes on. The suggestion is that because we really don't have the same types of sidewalks on Verde River and Parkview that we do along the Avenue for those types of events to occur in the public right-of-way, that we're moving that as an easy use. You could still potentially do it but coming in and requesting the encroachment permit, but it doesn't make as much sense just to make a stated use. SVEUM: Well, since those two streets are being redeveloped, would it not be part of it to consider widening the sidewalks there to allow for use of that public space? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner, to get to that level, we would need sidewalks at least 15- feet wide. And I can't remember for sure. Eight feet, ten feet? I can't remember what we've looked at, but what's being proposed at this point isn't wide enough. And plus, they're detached so much from the businesses, most places, because you got the business, a parking lot, and then the sidewalk. I think if you've got to go outside, you're probably going to go in the parking lots instead of out to the sidewalk along Parkview. SVEUM: Well, there'd be parking behind the establishment, right? WESLEY: I'm not sure that I -- SVEUM: I'm not understanding what you said about the -- WESLEY: So we -- SVEUM: -- access to those -- WESLEY: So -- SVEUM: -- sidewalks. WESLEY: Okay, Commissioner. So along Parkview -- SVEUM: Yeah. WESLEY: -- your business is back here, and then you've got a parking lot, and then we're talking about sidewalks out here. So you're less likely to go all the way out -- SVEUM: Yeah. WESLEY: -- to the sidewalk. If you're going to do something outside, you're probably going to be doing it in the parking lot. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 10 of 37 SVEUM: My apologies. I guess I was more referring to Verde River. WESLEY: Okay. That is a little bit different. By the time you get down this far from the Avenue, the sidewalks and the slopes there aren't going to be that wide. SVEUM: Go ahead. KOVACEVIC: Commissioner Corey? COREY: Thank you, Chair. I think, in that example, a visual can really help. It's hard to picture what we're looking at without actually seeing something. But just to reiterate what my colleague said, and I said this a couple times before, on Verde, we should make sure that we're prioritizing that as kind of the gateway to the Business District, so making sure that those sidewalks are wide enough for people to see that as an entrance and not just a small sidewalk along the parking lot. So my point is we can get creative with the ways that the cars park along that street, and I would say we don't need to consume all of that with parking spaces. We can make some of that more sidewalk, better walkability because we really want to make sure we connect people from the Entertainment District to the Business District, and that's the way to do that. And then I have a question, John. You were talking about setbacks earlier. Can you go back to that slide for a minute and just clarify for me the setbacks? Are we saying that we are looking for consistency with the setback of the buildings that would be in that area, the setback of the actual structure of the building? And the reason I ask that is let's say that a café or something wanted to open up in the Business District. Would they be able to have a setback that's further back so that they could have seating and a place for, like, chairs and tables to be, or is that very consistent where that building line is going to be? Does that make sense, the way I'm asking that? WESLEY: Yes, it does. COREY: Okay. WESLEY: All right. Chair, Commissioner, so the way the ordinance is being proposed, 70 percent of the building wall would need to be within five feet of their front property line. And so they would have a little bit of space on their property, potentially, for any TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 11 of 37 outdoor seating, but they would also then look at using the sidewalk that's in front of the business, between there and the parking lot, to expand out into the way this is currently drafted. So there's some options there. Maybe it needs to be more of a -- less of a build-to line, maybe it should only apply to the Avenue District and not the entire area, but we are looking for that opportunity to create that consistency here because that -- COREY: Uh-huh. WESLEY: -- leads to walkability and interest and so forth in an urban-type area. COREY: So a follow-up question, then. With that build-to line, does that mean that the actual full face of the building needs to be to that point, or could they build a patio that is to that line so that maybe more of the seating can be kind of incorporated into the structure? WESLEY: So Vice Chair -- COREY: Again, a picture would be able to tell 1,000 words here. WESLEY: Right. Sorry, I don't have one. COREY: That's okay. WESLEY: But as drafted, it's 70 percent of the frontage, so you have 30 percent that can be setback however far. So that -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- leaves you some room where there can be some room left for some outdoor activity, outdoor seating. If you think of some older main street-type settings, a lot of times, you'd have some display space, and then it angles back for more display space -- COREY: Yes. WESLEY: -- before you get to the door. And so it allows for at least some of that type of activity to occur -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- so you can create -- COREY: So if it was -- WESLEY: -- some of that frontage. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 12 of 37 COREY: -- 100 feet, 70 feet would have to be build-to, and 30 feet, they would have some flexibility? WESLEY: Correct. COREY: It's kind of limiting. I don't know if that's enough space for -- it just kind of seems kind of restrictive there if it's a small space, you know? Thank you. KOVACEVIC: Commissioner Proctor? PROCTOR: Nice work on this, John. You obviously incorporated some aspects of a form- based code in here, piecemealed it in. I'd like to, if you've had sight of the Chamber of Commerce's concerns, I'd really enjoy hearing your perspective on their concerns with restrictive rezoning. WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner, I certainly understand the concern. Any time you start limiting uses of property, you can make it more challenging into the future about what can happen there, and you have the potential that a building sits vacant because they can't find the specific uses that are allowed. At the same time, however, again, as you look back at the list of what is allowed, it's still a very wide range of things that are allowed by right, and we've left the door open for the things that aren't the preference because you can still apply for the special use permit to get the full range of uses. So if the market really doesn't support the retail-type activity, and offices are really the only that are viable, then they can apply for that. And then it can be granted, and they're still occupying their building. PROCTOR: Okay. One other question. Would you agree with my off-the-cuff assessment that the Chamber's incentives and creative strategies that they articulated in their memo today are not mutually-exclusive of the ordinance in which we're proposing, the rezoning? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner, absolutely. PROCTOR: Okay. KOVACEVIC: All right. Commissioner Corrigan? CORRIGAN: Just to amplify this question, in regard to the new plan, the overlay, Avenue of the Fountains would have a larger sidewalk, is that correct, in the new overlay TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 13 of 37 beyond the existing sidewalk area; is that correct? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner, the overlay itself does nothing to widen the sidewalk. That was a separate Public Works project to widen the sidewalk that, at least at this point, has been pushed back in time in favor of improving Verde River and Parkview. CORRIGAN: Okay. Because I did notice that the Mexican restaurant on Avenue of the Fountains, the existing remaining sidewalk is pretty narrow. I think -- WESLEY: Yes, it is. CORRIGAN: -- it's about five or six feet -- WESLEY: Four. CORRIGAN: -- where they have pushed back the patio -- WESLEY: Uh-huh. CORRIGAN: -- concept. And to Commissioner Corey's question, just to amplify that a little bit, if we do the same thing with patio in that area and extend that district, do we risk the same thing where we narrow the sidewalk where the patio is popped out or pushed out, and how do we overcome that concern? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner Corrigan, so if we were to get any additional request for use of the public right-of-way, those encroachment permits, we would, staff anyway, be looking at making sure we maintain any inaccessible sidewalk in those areas. So I'm not sure if -- town engineer would have to answer that for sure, five or six feet. And hopefully, we wouldn't end up with the same type of situation that we did with the existing restaurant. CORRIGAN: Okay. Thank you. KOVACEVIC: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Yes. John, just so I'm clear, so I'm going to use myself as an example again with the restriction on the Avenue. So assuming there's a vacancy that I want to occupy that's on the ground floor, and assuming this overlay passes and I'm going to have to apply for a special use permit, and it's going to come to Planning and Zoning first, which I show my abstain from, and then assuming it goes on to Council. So each particular unit is going to end up at Town Council to be voted on -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 14 of 37 WESLEY: Chair -- SCHLOSSBERG: -- assuming it makes it through Planning and Zoning? WESLEY: So Chair, Commissioner, yes. If this ordinance were to pass as written, for any of the spaces that are within 50 feet of the Avenue right-of-way, if they become vacant and wanted to fill with an office use or one of the ones that's not on the list, yes, they would have to apply for the special use permit or come through P and Z, and go on to Council for final action. SCHLOSSBERG: Okay. Thank you. KOVACEVIC: Commissioner Sveum? SVEUM: Thanks. John, you and I have talked about all of this, and in meetings as well, I've expressed my concern about having an exclusive retail, entertainment use on first floor. And I still feel pretty strongly about that as far as having that restriction. I think there's a rippling effect to property owners that can impact underwriting for financing, it can make it more difficult for them to fill their space in times of recession or pandemic that I don't think, at this point in time, the Avenue is -- I think I'm more of a market-driven individual that feels that if there's the market for a restaurant to go in a specific place that currently holds as service industry, that a landlord will seriously consider that when a lease expires. I understand the SUP process, but I also don't trust the political process of gaining that approval. No offense intended by president or future councils. But I think that there's a tremendous risk that property owners are taking. There's risk, then, that every one of the small business owners are taking being on the Avenue or being anywhere. Life savings -- that's their whole life, and I think providing or suggesting any type of restriction to use of first floor is wrong. At some point in time, organically, if the Avenue becomes to the point where there's more demand for a restaurant and more entertainment and other types of these types of uses, then the property owner will be very interested in having a tenant such as a restaurant or some other sales-tax-generating business. I just don't think, at this point in time, that it's right. I think part of this is cart before the horse. The Avenue should be redesigned to TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 15 of 37 the point where it's part of the program for -- and in addition to the two streets that are being redeveloped, that taking this time to redesign the Avenue, what it could take into account, all the many comments that the Chamber and the merchants have put forward. And then at that point in time, too, if it wants -- if you feel like there's a significant offering that the Avenue is providing the property owners, then it'll be easily digested by property owners at that time because there will be a demand for other uses, but I just don't believe in putting that kind of restriction on the use of first-floor space. And I think I've been consistent with all that. I just haven't seen anything to change my mind about it. So I hope that we can eliminate that part of it because I think we -- you know, you plan for the worst and hope for the best. And I think with -- the economic conditions can change, and it can put a property owner in a pretty difficult position by having restrictions on their space. So that's my opinion, and I have to follow that. I've looked at it and we've talked so much about it, and I haven't changed my opinion. WESLEY: Okay. KOVACEVIC: Thank you. I just have one quick question. And we'd go on to speaker cards, and then we would come back and have further discussion after -- WESLEY: Are you going to read -- KOVACEVIC: I was going to do that after the speaker cards. WESLEY: Okay. KOVACEVIC: But my question would be, Park Place, it was zoned for 50 units an acre, right, and then they built it to 45? WESLEY: Yes. KOVACEVIC: Is that the case? WESLEY: I believe that's correct. I think I had it in the report. KOVACEVIC: Okay. So we wouldn't be breaking new ground if we went ahead and said residential in this area could be 50 units an acre? WESLEY: That's correct. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 16 of 37 KOVACEVIC: Okay. Thank you. Paula, are there -- Well, Commissioners, any other questions for John? Paula, are there any speaker cards? WOODWARD: There are, Chair. There are two speaker cards. The first speaker is Dori Wittrig, and the second speaker is Roger Isaacs. WITTRIG: Roger is better at this. He was supposed to go before me. My name is Dori Wittrig. I own RE/MAX, some properties out here and another business or two, and I own two buildings on the Avenue of the Fountains. My square footage totals about 11,000 to 12,000 square feet. I bought them as office buildings, retail buildings. You know, I get what's trying to happen here, but let me just say a few moments -- a few things. So I'm what you would call a small-business person and a small-building owner, I guess, but my businesses have had a really big impact on our community over the years. I didn't purchase restaurant buildings. I purchased two buildings that were built without any thought of the electrical requirements, the plumbing, the specialty requirements that a restaurant requires to turn those buildings into restaurant buildings. And to do so -- I've already done some renovations in my buildings, and I can tell you that that is not an investment that can be made in those old buildings that makes sense for anybody. And I bought my buildings at a period of time when, you know, the prices were lower. So what are you trying to do to us? What is the town try to do us [sic]? In the spirit of going along with your plan -- with the plan -- not your plan, but the plan, I've created a space along the Avenue of the Fountains called ColabR8 for small businesses and retailers and services. I will tell you that in our small town, small businesses really struggle to get these businesses up and running, and their fail rate is disheartening. I think you already know that. You think you can create an area that rivals downtown Scottsdale or some other dining mecca. But at most, we will have 32,000 residents in this community, and the statistics for that population have a limit to the number of diners, drinkers, and merrymakers that will be in our downtown on any given night. So now, you're trying to force a small-building owner like me to spend TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 17 of 37 money on buildings that will be very difficult to lease and may not even lease up with what I'm going to have to lease it up with those investments. The dream of a restaurant culture is manifested when you have the people living here to make it worthwhile, to your point of the organic growth. Those restaurants will see guests when we have people downtown, and you have taken many leaps forward recently to allow for more bodies in the downtown. Let that happen. Put this off a little while. It's not necessary, and it's very harmful to business owners and building owners, like myself. Thank you. WOODWARD: Roger Isaacs? ISAACS: I've been here so many times now, I won't even introduce myself. I just wanted to take a minute and first say that, in going through this process, I think that John and his staff has done a good job trying to respond to specific adjustments that could be made. One of the adjustments made last time puts me in kind of an awkward situation because they said, okay, well, your property is different. The things you've been saying is true. Let's pull it out of the Avenue District. So I could stay seated and not say anything, but I feel obligated to say, hey, I was not here for myself. I can do a lot of different things with my lot. I'm trying to point out some of the detailed problems I have with what I consider to be the prime focus of this from my point of view, and that's, for some reason, the weaponization of planning the Zoning Overlay. I haven't seen this in other communities. In fact, I wanted to share with you that when I talked about this with one of the other owners on our property who owns property in downtown Scottsdale and downtown Fountain Hills, he said, I don't understand why Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning is taking this approach. Downtown Scottsdale does some stuff similar to this, but they did it exactly in the opposite. What they did was they told the developers and entrepreneurs that wanted to put in bars and restaurants that if you want to get a liquor license in Scottsdale, we want you to be in this area of town. By doing that, they caused people that were looking to fill vacant areas to realize, this is the easy route. So they took exactly the opposite approach. Instead of saying, you can't have these businesses in downtown Scottsdale, they said, we'd like downtown Scottsdale to be an entertainment area. That's where we think we want law TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 18 of 37 enforcement to be on Friday and Saturday nights. So if you want a liquor license, this is where you need to be. And he's got property there, he's got property here, and he's asking me, why are we doing this backwards? And I said, I don't know. In fact, if you walk the streets out here right now, I'd say, why is there a new restaurant going in down at Fountainside underneath residential owners that have got lawyers to try to fight it? Why is there -- I just saw for the first time, there's another restaurant going in on the south side Avenue. And so I believe that's what going to happen is you're not actually going to incite change with this. People aren't going to come in and put bars and restaurants on the north side in office buildings without adequate parking. So I guess it's kind of like that. In one of the movies I -- kind of formative for me, where they conclude, it just doesn't matter. And I'm going to tell you that I'd like to see a vote on this. But I'd hope that if you vote on this, you do give John the full SUP experience, and if you vote it down, then he can come back in a year and try to repropose that. Because one of the things, like, I've learned through this process is that there is a lot of pain with this process. There's a lot of delays. To get an SUP is not, well, they can ask for an SUP. An SUP costs thousands of dollars. So I think there's some goodness here, and I would encourage you to consider voting. And also, I'd consider you guys looking at changing how the SUP works. KOVACEVIC: Any other speakers? WOODWARD: No, Chair. KOVACEVIC: Okay. Commissioners, I'd like to read Commissioner Gray's comments on the Downtown Overlay into the record. This is from Peter Gray. Commissioners, as the commission deliberates on Ordinance 25-0-2 [sic] this evening on the proposed Downtown Overlay, I want to begin by addressing a key point raised by Chamber of Commerce in their letter received June 9th, '25. While I don't often find myself in alignment with the Chamber, in this case, I am in full agreement with a few of the recommendations. Public-private partnerships, joint grant applications, and structured incentive programs should and must be part of our strategy. If we are TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 19 of 37 serious about revitalizing our downtown, these tools must be deployed on a grand and coordinated scale. I also understand the reservations and burden this may place on existing businesses, and I think we need to accept that burden. To a degree, some of the reservations expressed by the Chamber will be realized. While I respect the Chamber's obligation to advocate for its members, we must also recognize that as with signage, zoning, and every other area of regulation, we cannot be all things to all stakeholders all the time and be advocates for change and improvement. Let's also be honest about the composition of the Avenue today. The current construct of the Avenue is a patchwork quilt of low-rent service entities as infill, the cumulative result of decades without a cohesive framework or vision. This overlay is our opportunity to change that, to replace randomness with intention, and stagnation with momentum, our responsibilities to the long-term vision and vitality of Fountain Hills. Towns like ours are not without options to mitigate burdens to stakeholders. We can and should pursue grant programs and partner with developers through incentive-based agreements that align with the overlay's vision. These partnerships can unlock funding, reduce risk, and accelerate reinvestment. A key part of that momentum is residential density. I would like to see the allowable density increase to 50 units an acre, aligning with what is already permitted on the south side of the street. This level of density is essential to achieving the critical mass needed to support walkability, retail, and a vibrant street life. It doesn't make much sense to me to allow it on one side of the street but not the other. We must also address the corner lots with clarity. These parcels are pivotal. If we do not act decisively, they will never be redeveloped. I don't yet appreciate the influence or veto power of Plat 208. However, I strongly advocate for the total removal of self- parking requirements on these lots except for essential back-of-house services. Requiring on-site parking on these constrained parcels is a nonstarter. It is incompatible with the form, scale, and economic feasibility of the kind of development we want to see. Instead, we must enable a full decanting of parking demand into shared resources TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 20 of 37 like Plat 208 and adjacent street parking. This is how we unlock these sites. This is how we move the first chess pieces. So that's Commissioner's Gray [sic] take on it. I'd like to hear from the other commissioners that we've heard from. Okay. Commissioner Corey? COREY: All right. I'll start. Thank you, Chair. And thank you to our speakers tonight and to the Chamber's letter earlier that provided some insight. And I think there's kind of three themes that I see here, and the first one is, I would say, tenant diversity. I tend to agree that -- you know, like Dori was saying, she bought a property and was expecting to be able to provide a certain service, and I think we are going to be doing an injustice to our business owners, our commercial property owners if we are too restrictive on what those businesses are. And I think there is also risk, if we limit it, to having more, like, long-term vacancy. We've seen vacancy over the years, and if we are restricting what can go in there, how could that impact more vacancy? I think that's definitely a risk. And then like we heard tonight, you know, some of those buildings were designed specifically for a specific service, like maybe they're office space, and they can't easily be converted into something that fits within that. And I know we have a lot of variety in the Entertainment District that we're seeing, but not all the businesses are going to fit in that kind of square hole. They were not designed for retail or entertainment, I'll say. So I think that's another risk there. So that's the first one, is the tenant diversity. I think, like my colleague here said, it will happen organically, and I think that if we proceed to the next step, which is residential density, which we heard from the other colleagues here, then it will happen organically. We are already working on building out downtown. We have the next building going in that Bart Shea is putting up. I completely agree with increasing the residential density to match the other side of the street, and I think when we bring more people in, that will organically help the businesses, you know, create a thriving downtown for our businesses. And I think we TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 21 of 37 heard this tonight, they're going to want to go where the traffic is, so you know, let them go where they want to go. They're going to pick the right place, the right spot for their business. So residential density, I would agree with increasing to 45 units per acre. And then the last kind of comment here I have is around parking. And I think -- I saw this in your presentation tonight, is I think we should relax the parking concerns for now because we know that we always have an abundance of parking unless it's one of those key, signature events that bring a lot of people down here. That's the only time that I ever see that our parking lots are full. And when that happens, cars park on the street, and it's not an issue. But we seem to always be bringing up where people are going to park, and if we put a business here, where are they going to park, and are we going to have enough spaces? And I get it, but I don't know that that should be a concern right now because we have plenty of parking. I completely agree with the recommendation to allow the corner lots to just use Plat 208, use the parking. Like I've said many times in the past, when a visitor comes into town, they don't know where the designated parking is for each of the individual businesses they're going to go to. They just find an empty spot, and they park there. So I think we should just make that a lot more flexible for them. Don't restrict the parking, allow common parking, which we know is generally underused, and let the corner lots use that parking. And I guess the last point is, you know, the SUP -- I know in the past, I spoke to -- I would be willing to say, yes, let's use an SUP for the Entertainment District to be able to provide a different type of service. And to the gentleman's point in the back, he mentioned the cost of the SUP, and I just wanted to clarify. We had discussed that the cost could be, like, ten percent of the original fee. That was one of the ideas. But I think after the discussion we've had tonight, and what we've heard from the Chamber and different folks, is I think that's just going to be a hurdle that we don't want to introduce right now. It's going to complicate things, and I think we should just let the businesses go where they want to go, trust that they're going to make the best judgment for their particular business, bring in the people, and let it happen organically. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 22 of 37 So those are my thoughts. Thank you. KOVACEVIC: Commissioner Corrigan? CORRIGAN: From what I've heard, the concerned business owners in this particular area have a good point, have a valid point. I did read the Chamber of Commerce letter and did, today, receive Peter Gray's letter and digested that, read it, and he has some very valid points. But I think the idea here would be to let free enterprise designate where growth happens. I think the idea of trying to force a certain type of development in an area that just simply doesn't allow that economically is probably not such a -- it's a little too soon to try to step in and develop something that doesn't have an otherwise designated development area. And free enterprise, again, is the best -- in my opinion, is always the best way to go because the economy, free enterprise will determine where developments happen. When those things happen, we can encourage those things and step in then, beginning with Planning and Zoning and with the help of our great staff, to redevelop those areas that have that focus or attention. And in particular, I see this with the Discovery Center, the Dark Sky Discovery Center, that's going to make something happen. When it does, I think we can act quickly to do that. And that's just kind of, in short, a summary of my thoughts on it. Thank you. KOVACEVIC: All right. My thoughts on the matter. First, residential density, I think it should -- I think if the south side of the Avenue is zoned for 50 units an acre, then the north side should be zoned for 50 units an acre. I'm okay with the Innovation District. I don't have any comments there. I don't have any comments on the Business District. I don't have any comments on temporary uses. But parking, I do have a question for you, John. The corner lots, do they currently have a 50-percent grace using the Plat 208 parking? WESLEY: Yes, Chairman. When we updated the ordinance a few years ago, we put that 50-percent reduction in the code. Nobody's used it yet -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. WESLEY: -- but that is in there. KOVACEVIC: Okay. So I would want to keep that -- at least keep that, if not, waive -- but TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 23 of 37 it does seem like it would be a burden to waive it completely when you've got -- if Chase would use 290 parking spaces in order to fully build out the project. WESLEY: Yes. Again, these are just hypothetical examples. If they were to clear that and start over where they really build two stories that fully cover the lot, maybe -- KOVACEVIC: Yeah. WESLEY: -- it's not likely, but it could happen if the code would allow it, and then you're using a path of the parking spaces in that block for the one business or that one property. KOVACEVIC: Yeah. So you know, I wouldn't -- I'm not concerned about parking. Like, I would agree with Vice Chair Corey at this point. And the build-to lines are good. The issue I have and the issue that's in the back -- that's forefront in everybody's mind is demand, and as a commission, we would be remiss in making a recommendation for this zoning if there weren't any demand. And I think it's folly to make a recommendation without a retail site assessment to know what the demand would be for retail on the Avenue and for the uses that we're saying have to go on the north side of the Avenue. So somehow or another, I'd be okay recommending everything except the Avenue Overlay until there was a retail site assessment obtained and digested. WESLEY: Chair, if you don't mind, maybe I could say that a slightly different way, is that you would be ready to recommend approval of the ordinance except for the restriction of the uses on the Avenue regarding the first floor. So the things shown here on the screen, if we took that piece out, then you'd be okay with it? KOVACEVIC: So with that, I'd like to have the commissioners -- SVEUM: (Indiscernible) moment? KOVACEVIC: Yeah. SVEUM: I think we're going to be revisiting this again. I mean, if this successful and retail is in demand and things move as everybody hopes, parking is going to be an issue. We're going to have to be looking at parking again at some point in time because I think if there's more and more restaurant uses, then it demands more parking that's closer to TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 24 of 37 the front door. There's, you know, appraisals that'll have to be done for financing that may be jeopardized because there's not easy access for their particular brand-new restaurant they want to put in. So I think we're going to be -- we're going to have to be looking at parking as to maybe the change or the evolution of the Entertainment District continues on, and hopefully, we'll have to discuss it. That'd be a good thing because there's so much demand. But we're going to be seeing this -- I think we're going to be seeing this again. So can I make a motion? KOVACEVIC: So yeah. We want to make a motion. I just want to make sure that we do this right the first time. Let's, you know, not have a quick second on the motion until we fully understand it. So John, can you summarize, again, what you just said about the ordinance? WESLEY: Chair, I'll do my piece. And Commissioner, you can see if this gets close enough to what -- SVEUM: Sure. WESLEY: -- you were going to do in your motion. So recommend approval of the ordinance as drafted with increasing the residential density up to 50 units per acre, removing the restriction for ground floor uses in the Avenue. We're advising the boundary of the Avenue so that it cuts off here and doesn't include this corner. We don't need to worry about the modified SUP process. Adjusted build-to language to recognize easements and building setbacks. And the one thing that I'm not covering here would be if you're making any change to the parking. KOVACEVIC: Okay. Do, Commissioners, we got all that? Phil, you want to make the motion? SVEUM: I'll move approval with the changes that John just explained. Is that okay? KOVACEVIC: Is that okay? WESLEY: It's fine by me. KOVACEVIC: Paula, do you -- WESLEY: Again, that doesn't -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 25 of 37 KOVACEVIC: -- have all the changes? WOODWARD: Oh, of course. KOVACEVIC: Okay. WESLEY: So Chair, again, that doesn't include any changing to the parking at this point. COREY: Correct, no change. WESLEY: So -- KOVACEVIC: Okay. Yeah. That means that they got 50-percent grace on their parking to use Plat 208, but they don't have unlimited grace. Okay. COREY: I will second my colleague's motion, but I just want to clarify. The third topic was the setbacks. Can you clarify what that modification was with the setbacks? WESLEY: So we would modify the language to recognize a place or two where there will some building setbacks and maybe some easements that's going to push a building back more than that five feet, and so it would adjust the language to recognize it. COREY: Language. Okay. WESLEY: Yeah. COREY: So yes, I second that motion. Thank you. KOVACEVIC: Are we ready to vote? Can we have a roll call vote, please? WOODWARD: Commissioner Proctor? PROCTOR: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Corrigan? CORRIGAN: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Schlossberg? SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Sveum? SVEUM: Aye. WOODWARD: Vice Chair Corey? COREY: Aye. WOODWARD: Chair Kovacevic? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 26 of 37 KOVACEVIC: Aye. WOODWARD: 6-0. KOVACEVIC: Okay. We move on -- I can't find my agenda here. Okay. Agenda item 6, review and discuss ordinances and requirements associated with regulating small cell wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. WESLEY: Okay. So Chair and Commissioners, so as you know, over the last few meetings, we've been working through the process of the instructions given by Town Council that this commission review the different ordinances and regulations dealing with wireless telecommunications and antennas. You have, over the last few meetings, reviewed the regulations in Chapter 17 of the Zoning Ordinance, which address everything on private property, and -- well, really everything but small cell wireless in the right-of-way. And so that's where we're at now in the process, going through and understanding what we have and looking at what modifications you might want to make. So I provided a report to you that provides some description of the different items that are out there for your consideration as you review this part of the project. And so the first thing is Arizona Revised Statutes. 9-591 through 600 provide the framework that towns and cities must operate in in order to address small cell wireless facilities in the right-of-way. After the state adopted those rules back in 2017 or 2018, whenever that was, the town was obligated to put in place its rules consistent with the state statute. That's when we adopted Town Code Article 16-2 for small cell in the right- of-way, as well as a number of supporting and implementing documents: the lease agreement that would be signed with the town, the standard terms and conditions, and then some zoning standards and guidelines. So again, you know, the staff report steps through some of those documents. Again, they're quite lengthy, and so I tried to pick out those things that I thought might be of most value for you to pay attention to. And I've summarized that even further here for the presentation this evening. Again, we were just starting a discussion so staff can see where the commission wants to go and how we're going to proceed with this part of the topic. So again, definitions, there is a specific definition in the state statute for what a small TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 27 of 37 wireless facility is, and then it tells that authority, basically local jurisdiction, shall establish and make available rate fees and terms for small cell wireless in the right-of- way. There's limited zoning review, and authorities shall approve an application unless it doesn't comply with some stated standards. And then also in state statutes, a jurisdiction can and cannot do, there's a list of some of those things. So shall process and take action within 150 days of completing an application, shall not base decision on customer demand, for service or quality of service, and may adopt reasonable appearance or concealment standards. So that gets into our design guidelines piece that we have. In terms of the town regulations, again, we have what's in 16-2 of the Town Code, but that's pretty nuts and bolts of the process and the required documents doesn't really get into any detail. The real detail of how we are regulating small cell in the right-of-way in Fountain Hills are contained in the terms and conditions, and it's a rather lengthy document. Town Council has sent all this to you. But as I look through it, at what's in there, to me, it seems like the places for the commission to focus their review and discussion and possible modifications are in the sections listed here. I think that's where we'll find the meat of things that relate back to what this commission does and what the community's maybe been concerned about in terms of addressing this community's needs. And then the zoning guidelines, that sets the standards for what these can and can't look like as they're placed in the right-of-way, and most of what's in there is based on them going on existing light poles and an example of one being in a Saguaro cactus, I believe, is the only other design that's in there. So maybe there are other options by now that could be looked at in terms of design guidelines. That's certainly something we'll want to get commission direction on. Also included, the Campanelli Ordinance. We reviewed that heavily with regard to other portions of the wireless communication ordinance. In terms of that draft ordinance, it really did very little with regard to small cell in the right-of-way. It said if you're going to go collocate on existing pole, then apply for a building permit. That was TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 28 of 37 the only thing you had to do. And then beyond that, there was nothing specific about small cell in the right-of-way. And I believe that is the end of my review of what I've given to you for your review and discussion. Again, this evening, we just wanted to start this discussion and see how you would like to handle moving forward in understanding what's there and what may be needed as we revise these ordinances. KOVACEVIC: Do we have any questions for John right now before we go to speaker cards? Commissioner Corrigan? CORRIGAN: Corrigan, thank you. KOVACEVIC: Commissioner Corrigan. [LAUGHTER] CORRIGAN: Thank you. KOVACEVIC: Yes. CORRIGAN: Thank you, Chair Kovacevic. [LAUGHTER] CORRIGAN: Just a clarification, John, on small cell, could you give a description of that and how FCC regulations cover that versus -- now, am I getting this confused? This is in Chapter 16, versus Chapter 17 where FCC requires certain strong requirements, versus Chapter 16, which does not; is that right? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner Corrigan, let me pull this up here. I got to wake this back up, and now I'm not getting my code right. And go into this to answer the first part of the question, I believe. So the definition for small cell in state statute, and I think you'll find it a number of places, talks about certain things in terms of the size of the antenna, the cubic feet that it covers, as well as, then, the ground equipment, a few other things like that. Anything that fits within that is small cell. So then when it comes, though, into the FCC and I think maybe going to some of the RF emissions and what those can or can't be, there's not anything in the state statute that addresses that. So as far as I would understand it, if they're still subject to those same emission limits of any other wireless facility as regulated by the FCC. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 29 of 37 CORRIGAN: So just to clarify, additionally, on that same topic, the 50-foot -- is it 40 feet or 50 feet -- foot, pardon me -- 40 foot or 50 foot that's the state limit? That's not an FCC limit. That's obviously a state limit; is that correct? WESLEY: So Commissioner, yes, that's a state limit. CORRIGAN: Okay. WESLEY: And there is a 40-foot and a 50-foot. And I'd have to go back and read them. One has to do with whether it's a new tower or a collocation and what's within certain distances of it. And I would have to read it again to say exactly what it is, but those are the two limits that are out there. CORRIGAN: From what I'm reading or understanding, it's 40-foot, but you have an allowance of ten feet additional; is that right? You could go to 50, I mean, according to what I see. I'm not sure. WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner, again, I believe there are some conditions where that is the case, but again, it's very -- I'm going to say convoluted, but I have to read it every time to remember exactly how it applies where. CORRIGAN: Okay. And in reference to that, so page 47 would be really Chapter 16 in the Campanelli part of the -- I'll call it a presentation or the documentation? And I'm referring to 16-2. WESLEY: Okay. Chapter 16-2 of the Town Code? CORRIGAN: Yeah. So in other words, on page 47, there's a reference to 16-2. That may be different than -- that's different, I think, because that's damage, right, that's the -- in the Campanelli thing, it's a damage issue, coverage for damage or indemnification for damage? WESLEY: Okay. So -- CORRIGAN: Totally different issue. WESLEY: -- I don't have mine opened up here the way you do to look at the page numbers and see exactly what you're on. But if we're talking about 16-2, then we're talking about the Town Code -- CORRIGAN: Town Code. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 30 of 37 WESLEY: -- Article 16-2, but if you're in 17-2, that would be something out of the Campanelli Ordinance. CORRIGAN: Okay. Good. Thanks for the clarification on that. WESLEY: Okay. KOVACEVIC: Anybody else? Paula, do we have any speaker cards? WOODWARD: Yes, Chair. We have one speaker, Lori Troller. TROLLER: Good evening, all. Lori Troller. Just to help you out a little bit, Matt, the 50-foot limit is a -- it is a Fountain Hills number. And I believe John has a ten-percent allowance on anything, so if we have an ordinance that gives a number, you've got another ten-percent give. I don't quite understand that. I know that. I've heard this before. So anything that's 50-foot could go 55 feet with whatever allowance -- You can explain that better than I can, so -- Anyway, I'm going to try and go over some terms that might help clarify a lot of stuff. The whole reason we're here -- and the federal government wrote a Telecommunications Act, 1996, as it relates to the construction of the infrastructure for telecoms to build cell towers, and all of this is so everybody can make a 911 phone call. It's not so your kids can stream super fast, and it's not so you don't complain that you're not getting your movies. And Corey, I know you want fast service, but it's not going to be at the detriment of my front yard and a tower because my neighbors want this service, that you really don't have the federal right to put a tower in somebody else's yard to get. We do have to put towers up for cell service. So what we're talking about right now is -- what you have to ask yourself is, what is the service being provided on the tower that's being built? So if it's going to be the broadband stuff, put it underground. It goes underground. It's underground in Anthem; it's underground in Davis, California; it's underground in Tennessee; it's underground in a lot of places. We put it underground. That's our standard in the town. It's either that TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 31 of 37 or a whole bunch of towers. Service wise, it's better service. It's uninterrupted. So we get a storm, we still have service. You put a cloud or dust in front of -- in between two broadband towers -- because that signal is much lighter in strength, so it's easier disturbed. So anything, any dust that goes in between towers, if you put it underground, you're not going to have that; floods out, you're not going to have a problem. It's better service; it's actually faster service. There's actually grants to build it underground. Somehow, people aren't looking at those, but there are grants, and our town has the ability to get those grants too. So let's see what else. The ordinance, as Campanelli wrote it and as John kept the structure for, there's really four types. What you're looking at, is it collocated, or is it not collocated? So collocated means Verizon builds a tower, and AT&T wants to put their antennas on it. That's collocation. That's all that is. So the ordinance, as we have it right now, is separated into four types: Are they collocated, are they not collocated -- am I okay to continue? Okay. And then the other question -- so now if they're collocated and not -- hey, I can do that -- or not collocated; are they new or are they -- I'm sorry -- are they SWF -- and I'll explain that in a second -- or are they not SWF? So what is SWF -- that's the question you asked -- a small wireless facility. So you got to go all the way back to what a personal wireless facility is, and that is simply a location with antennas on it for the purpose of telecommunications. That's all that is. Then an SW, that's what a personal wireless facility is. So what's a small wireless facility? A small wireless facility is a personal wireless facility that has the limits that John was talking about, whether it's the height or three cubic feet or 28 cubic feet or the whole thing and all this stuff. It can't be on tribal land. And exposure rate, you were asking, here it is. I bring this document every time, this beautiful document. Here's the FCC compliances. If those antennas are not operating in these guidelines, tower should be shut off. We don't check this stuff. Nobody checks it. Nobody checks to see if the cumulative emissions from a tower are meeting this. Nobody checks it. But here's the standards, and we will write it to these standards. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 32 of 37 Campanelli has written it to these standards. This is called Bulletin 65. That's the reference for that. So there are standards that they have to operate in, and the federal law says they have to operate in that too. So the only thing that I wanted to note that I noticed on John's version of 17 -- I want to jump back to 17 for a second -- we had a lot of side notes that there were a lot of things were taken out. I don't know if they were going to be put back in for 16, but he removed the issues around environmental impacts, historical sites, force majeure, which means if, all of a sudden, we have a massive storm that comes in, but we have an application that's due, and we can't gather to talk about it and give it due process, it automatically approves. It doesn't give you the -- it doesn't even give the town a chance, so that's force majeure. That was removed, our protection from that. Eleventh- hour submissions, it's another tactic telecoms take. They'll give a submission for an application like right at the last minute of a time frame, and we have to process it. We don't have the time to process it, so it just automatically gets approved. That was removed. So there's a whole list of things. If you look at John's 17 that he had prepared for this meeting, a lot of the things that you said weren't in there -- I'm not sure if you're going to resurrect those for 16 or what that was, but I'm concerned about all the little notes on the side. I'll let you guys look at that. There's a whole bunch more that were removed. The other thing was the state statutes that John provided. My concern here, again, and I keep saying this, is the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, which would overrule any of these, is not included. So again, when he says these are the rules we have to live by, there's other rules that supersede these that we don't see because a lot of these -- I'm not going to say a lot -- some of these have been modified by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. So I'd hate to write a law that's restricting us with our abilities to protect ourselves, and we don't have to because the Ninth Circuit overwrote them; we didn't even look it up. So again, that's another Campanelli reason to bounce this all off of Campanelli again because he would know that stuff. Oh, I'll end with a timing thing. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 33 of 37 For these meetings, John, I don't know how much time in advance you put on the public display, all this information for us to consume and digest. If it's only two or three days and you have a month worth of work, I know I can't read it and consume it, and I know this stuff. I don't know how you guys have the ability to read something that was published, maybe, four days ago, and it's that thick, consume it and know the questions to ask. You guys are laughing so I know. Can we get -- can we either write a resolution or come to an agreement that, John, you can publish your materials for these meetings at least fourteen days in advance of us being able to consume it? Honestly, we can't keep up. We can't ask and give due process because we're not given enough time to do it. I certainly don't. If I didn't have a different job, I could, but -- that's the only thing, is I just hope you guys give yourselves a little breathing room, if you can modify your process a little bit, give you guys a little more time to look over these documents. And that's it. Thanks, guys. KOVACEVIC: All right. Thanks. Okay. Commissioners, discussion? All right. I'll start. I know we have a -- it seemed like there were a lot of definitions that were missing. That's probably not, you know, part of what we're here for tonight. We were going to get started on 16, and I think the definitions fit in 16 and 17. But there were a number of definitions that were missing. And another thing, it was interesting that the speaker mentioned Bulletin 65 because I had picked that out of the (indiscernible) ordinance, and I think that if that's the document that has the standards, we shouldn't make reference for it. Use restrictions, the personal wireless facilities in the right-of-way, they're allowed by state law, I guess, so we don't even have anything to say there. And if they're not in the right-of-way; they're part of 17. And as far the indemnity goes, I mean, I'd like to see the hold harmless if we can, if it makes sense in the small cell, as we have in 17 with the towers. I'd like to incorporate the distances from the doors that are in Sedona and any TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 34 of 37 of the restrictions that were in Paradise Valley too. Can we require annual testing on -- I didn't see annual testing on the small -- no. WESLEY: Chair, I don't recall seeing that in there currently either, and I don't know why we couldn't. KOVACEVIC: Okay. And then just in general, an attorney has to review these terms and conditions. That's a legal document. I'm not an attorney. You know, I can't review it as a legal document and provide a legal review, so I strongly suggest that Council takes this back to an attorney. Those are my comments. Commissioner Corrigan? CORRIGAN: Some of things I made note of from Ms. Troller on May 12th, I'll just kind of reiterate those and see, you know, if that's been included. And one of them was the historical factor. I don't know that we -- have we seen that in here yet? If we have a historical -- if there is some significance to not mounting small cell around that area of the park, the Fountain, which is the original 1972 development area, I don't know that we need that, but that's a question. And then I think, again, as the Chair pointed out, Mr. Kovacevic, the hold harmless insurance risk factor, that's very important. So if it's not there, we should have that. The annual testing, I agree with. That's important. It should be done, regardless. And then the evidence of need concerns me. This was brought up by Ms. Troller back on May 12th. Now, when there's a gap, a professed gap, from the provider, whatever provider it is, I think that probably, as in Chapter 17, Chapter 16 more so, they should be able to -- that provider should be able to give testimonial documentation other than, you know, what's called the drive-by method and actually, the need for additional towers if that's there. And then the underground factor, which Ms. Troller brought up again today, that's very important. I think it should all go underground, fiber optic cable. And I have written -- I don't know, but I have written some, you know, scientific documents in regard to this, and they say that the strength of the signal, durability of the signal, and connectivity and so on is much superior with that type of cable underground. I call it cable. It's not a TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 35 of 37 cable. Fiber optic. Fiber optic, underground with small towers rather than tower to tower. So just again, what she brought up today. The other issue was, just agreeing with the Chair, that we need an attorney to review this because there's so much involved, and we don't want to be in a position where we put the town at risk by not having adequate legal protection. Those are my thoughts. KOVACEVIC: I want to jump back on the -- I left the underground out, but I do think that we should require broadband underground if that's at all possible. That would definitely be part of my recommendation. WESLEY: So Chair, if I may jump in on a couple of those things? And maybe I'll start right there. Certainly, you know, you can make some suggestions, recommendations to Council. It wouldn't be directly part of anything that we're doing here because the charge is to review and recommend changes to our wireless ordinances and requirements. So there are a number of things. If you look in the terms and conditions, item number 14 in the terms and conditions, it's indemnity and it talks about hold harmless a little bit in there. So maybe one thing I'm hearing at this point, in terms of how to tackle this particular part of the project, is maybe the first thing is going to be to have legal review of where we're at, in terms of the terms, and then as we do that, come back to the commission with some of the things you've talked about and what we find through that legal review and then pick it up at that point to talk about modifications that are being recommended or suggested for the commission rather than trying to plow forward in some way absent legal review through the commission. Is that -- KOVACEVIC: All right. I like that. WESLEY: So we can sort of look at that. Coming back to a couple of comments from Commissioner Corrigan and from Ms. Troller. So I did hear the discussion last month with the commission. I recognized there were some things that the commission wanted to include in from Mr. Campanelli's report that when I listened to the minutes, I didn't quite pick up on. I've gone through all that, added all those things into that chapter, I've added in all the definitions that were missed, and so forth. So hopefully, when you see TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 36 of 37 that come back, you'll see that we've addressed those things. I will point out, we're sort of willing, and in my mind, basically everything is on the table for at least review and discussion as we get attorneys involved and understand these things on a little bit deeper level. But I will point out what's on the screen there in terms of as compared to our other wireless ordinance and the ability to do some of those drive-by tests, and they have to prove a need. State statute says, shall not base decision on customer demand for service, so I'm not sure how that plays into our ability to do the same thing with a small cell. We'll have to see how all this plays out. And as Ms. Troller said, maybe there's been some Ninth Circuit rulings that will override some of these things in the state statute, and we'll have to explore those and see if that's the case. KOVACEVIC: Any other comments? We can move on. WESLEY: Okay. KOVACEVIC: Commission discussion, request for research to staff. Anybody? It's just the retail site assessment. Item 8, summary of commission requests? WESLEY: So every time we get here, I don't know if we should ever just redo this agenda because we pretty much skip 8 and always go to 9. But in terms of coming up, at this point, we have nothing that's come in for a July application. About the only thing we would have discussed would be continue discuss of the small cell wireless. Based on the discussion this evening, it sounds like that's going to hold until we get a chance to do some more legal review on the small cell before that's going to come back. So we're not seeing any reason for a July meeting, so you can mark that off your calendars. We do have several applications in for your consideration at your August meeting, so be prepared to be back for the second Monday in August ready to review some applications. July is off. You're off for July. Take a vacation, but be here in August. KOVACEVIC: Okay. Motion to adjourn? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS JUNE 9, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 37 of 37 CORRIGAN: So moved. COREY: Second. KOVACEVIC: Okay. All in favor? Aye, let's hear ayes. ALL: Aye. KOVACEVIC: All right. Opposed? Nobody's opposed. All right. We're adjourned. Having no further business, Chairperson Kovacevic adjourned the Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission held on June 9, 2025, at 7:23 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS _______________________ Dan Kovacevic, Chairperson ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: _______________________________ Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 9 day of June 2025. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 9 Day of June 2025. _______________________________ Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant