No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ.2016.0908.Agenda OAT AIN POST ACTION MEETING AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOTICE z 3 � �'" OF THE • "rr : that Is Ac�ti PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Commission Members: Chairman Mike Archambault, Vice-Chairman Eugene Mikolajczyk Commissioners:Stan Connick,Howie Jones,Jeremy Strohan,Susan Dempster and Roger Owers Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission and to the general public that the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a regular meeting,which is open to the general public,on September 8,2016, at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers at 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains,Fountain Hills,Arizona. Commissioners of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town's Councilmembers or various Commissions or Boards may be in attendance at the Commission meeting. TIME: 6:30 P.M. —REGULAR SESSION WHEN: THURSDAY,September 8,2016 WHERE: TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16705 EAST AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS `r. ®mm. PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING THE PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION Anyone wishing to speak before the Commission must fill out a speaker's card and submit it to the Commission Recorder prior to the Commission's discussion of that Agenda item. Speaker Cards are located in the Council Chamber Lobby and near the Recorder's position on the dais. Speakers will be called in the order in which the speaker cards were received either by the Recorder or the Chairman. At that time, speakers should stand and approach the podium. Speakers are asked to state their name prior to commenting and to direct their comments to the Presiding Officer and not to individual Commission Members. Speakers' statements should not be repetitive. In order to conduct an orderly business meeting, the Presiding Officer shall keep control of the meeting and shall require the speakers and audience to refrain from abusive or profane remarks, disruptive outbursts, applause,protests or other conduct that disrupts or interferes with the orderly conduct of the business of the meeting. Personal attacks on Commissioners, Town Council members, Town staff or members of the public are not allowed. Please be respectful when making your comments. If a speaker chooses not to speak when called, the speaker will be deemed to have waived his or her opportunity to speak on the matter. Speakers may not (i) reserve a portion of their time for a later time or (ii) transfer any portion of their time to another speaker. If there is a Public Hearing, please submit the speaker card to speak to that issue prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing and the Consideration of said issue. Individual speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Commission. Time limits may be waived by (i) discretion of the Chairman upon request by the speaker not less than 24 hours prior to a Meeting, (ii) consensus of the Commission at Meeting or (iii) the Chairman either prior to or during a Meeting. If you do not comply with these rules, you will be asked to leave. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Page 1 of 3 * CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chairman Mike Archambault 6:30 PM stow * MOMENT OF REFLECTION—Chairman Mike Archambault * ROLL CALL—Chairman Mike Archambault CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431-01(G), public comment is permitted (not required)on matters not listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Commission and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place,and manner restrictions. The Commission will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during"Call to the Public"unless the matters are property noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the call to the public. individual Commission members may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter or(iii)ask that the matter be placed on a future Commission agenda. AGENDA ITEM(S) 1. CONSIDERATION of APPROVING the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes from August 11,2016. APPROVED 2. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on ORDINANCE 16-08,amending the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance,Chapter 5, Section 5.19, and Chapter 18, Section 18.06,by revising provisions related to noise violations. Case#Z2016-05 OPENED 6:32 PM CLOSED 7:01 PM 3. CONSIDERATION of ORDINANCE 16-08, amending the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 5.19,and Chapter 18, Section 18.06, by revising provisions related to noise violations. Case#Z2016-05 APPROVED 3-2 4. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on ORDINANCE 16-04, proposed amendments to the Fountain Hills Zoning Map of approximately 63 acres in size, and proposed text amendments to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance,Chapter 12—Commercial Zoning Districts and,adding a new Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District. If adopted, the amendments would create an Entertainment Overlay District which overlays portions of the downtown area. Case#Z2016-02 OPENED 6:32 PM CLOSED 7:0 1 PM 5. CONSIDERATION of ORDINANCE 16-04, proposed amendments to the Fountain Hills Zoning Map of approximately 63 acres in size, and proposed text amendments to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12 — Commercial Zoning Districts and, adding a new Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District. If adopted, the amendments would create an Entertainment Overlay District which overlays portions of the downtown area.Case#Z2016-02 APPROVED 5-0 6. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. NO ACTION TAKEN Item listed below are related only to the propriety of(i)placing such items on a future agenda for action or(ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Commission. 7. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Senior Planner. NONE 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Page 2 of 3 8. REPORT from Senior Planner and Zoning Administrator,Planning and Zoning Division of Development Services. NONE 9. ADJOURNMENT 7:32 PM Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished to the Commission with this agenda are available for review in the Planning&Zoning Division of the Development Services Dep. tme DATED this 25th day of August 2016 By: gers, Interim Development Services Manager Town Fountain Hills The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 837-2003 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request reasonable accommodations to participate in this meeting. A majority of the Council Members may be in attendance. No official action will be taken. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 , subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are audio and/or video recorded, and, as a result,proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §I-602.A.9 have been waived." 41) Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Page 3 of 3 O -- AIN I 4. 1 `l' REGULAR MEETING NOTICE o — OF THE 94fl+at is my' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Commission Members: Chairman Mike Archambault, Vice-Chairman Eugene Mikolajczyk Commissioners:Stan Connick,Howie Jones,Jeremy Strohan,Susan Dempster and Roger Owers Pursuant to A.R.S. 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission and to the general public that the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a regular meeting, which is open to the general public, on September 8,2016, at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers at 16705 E.Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills,Arizona. Commissioners of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town's Councilmembers or various Commissions or Boards may be in attendance at the Commission meeting. TIME: 6:30 P.M. —REGULAR SESSION WHEN: THURSDAY,September 8,2016 WHERE: TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS ® 16705 EAST AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS PROCEDURE FOR ADDRESSING THE PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION Anyone wishing to speak before the Commission must fill out a speaker's card and submit it to the Commission Recorder prior to the Commission's discussion of that Agenda item. Speaker Cards are located in the Council Chamber Lobby and near the Recorder's position on the dais. Speakers will be called in the order in which the speaker cards were received either by the Recorder or the Chairman. At that time, speakers should stand and approach the podium. Speakers are asked to state their name prior to commenting and to direct their comments to the Presiding Officer and not to individual Commission Members. Speakers' statements should not be repetitive. In order to conduct an orderly business meeting, the Presiding Officer shall keep control of the meeting and shall require the speakers and audience to refrain from abusive or profane remarks, disruptive outbursts, applause,protests or other conduct that disrupts or interferes with the orderly conduct of the business of the meeting. Personal attacks on Commissioners, Town Council members, Town staff or members of the public are not allowed Please be respectful when making your comments. If a speaker chooses not to speak when called, the speaker will be deemed to have waived his or her opportunity to speak on the matter. Speakers may not (i) reserve a portion of their time for a later time or (ii) transfer any portion of their time to another speaker. If there is a Public Hearing, please submit the speaker card to speak to that issue prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing and the Consideration of said issue. Individual speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Commission. Time limits may be waived by (i) discretion of the Chairman upon request by the speaker not less than 24 hours prior to a Meeting, (ii) consensus of the Si Commission at Meeting or (iii) the Chairman either prior to or during a Meeting. If you do not comply with these rules, you will be asked to leave. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Page 1 of 3 * CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chairman Mike Archambault * MOMENT OF REFLECTION—Chairman Mike Archambault *ROLL CALL—Chairman Mike Archambault CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431-01(G), public comment is permitted(not required) on matters not listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Commission and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Commission will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during"Call to the Public"unless the matters are property noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the call to the public, individual Commission members may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter or(iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Commission agenda. AGENDA ITEM(S) 1. CONSIDERATION of APPROVING the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes from August 11,2016. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on ORDINANCE 16-08, amending the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 5.19, and Chapter 18, Section 18.06,by revising provisions related to noise violations. Case#Z2016-05 C 3. CONSIDERATION of ORDINANCE 16-08, amending the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 5.19, and Chapter 18, Section 18.06, by revising provisions related to noise violations. Case#Z2016-05 4. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on ORDINANCE 16-04, proposed amendments to the Fountain Hills Zoning Map of approximately 63 acres in size, and proposed text amendments to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance,Chapter 12—Commercial Zoning Districts and,adding a new Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District. If adopted, the amendments would create an Entertainment Overlay District which overlays portions of the downtown area.Case#Z2016-02 5. CONSIDERATION of ORDINANCE 16-04, proposed amendments to the Fountain Hills Zoning Map of approximately 63 acres in size, and proposed text amendments to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12 — Commercial Zoning Districts and, adding a new Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District. If adopted, the amendments would create an Entertainment Overlay District which overlays portions of the downtown area. Case#Z2016-02 6. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. Item listed below are related only to the propriety of(i)placing such items on a future agenda for action or(ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Commission. 11116.1 7. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Senior Planner. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Page 2 of 3 8. REPORT from Senior Planner and Zoning Administrator, Planning and Zoning Division of IllDevelopment Services. 9. ADJOURNMENT Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished to the Commission with this agenda are available for review in the Planning&Zoning Division of the Development Services Dep tme DATED this 25th day of August 2016 By: e gers, Interim Development Services Manager Town Fountain Hills The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 837-2003 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request reasonable accommodations to participate in this meeting. A majority of the Council Members may be in attendance. No official action will be taken. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 , subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parentl have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a min/ child. Meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are audio and/or video recorded, and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents in order to exercise their rights may either fiki written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are no present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that iiire rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived." key Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Page 3 of 3 p� AINl lTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS - _. n X Planning and Zoning ''war Board of Adjustment that is Av" AGENDA ACTION FORM Meeting Date: September 8, 2016 Meeting Type: Regular Agenda Type: Regular Submitting Division: Development Services Staff Contact Information: N/A REQUEST TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: CONSIDERATION for approving the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES from August 11, 2016. Applicant: N/A Applicant Contact Information: N/A °roperty Location: N/A Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle: Policy or Guiding Principle: A.R.S. §38-431.01 Staff Summary (background): The intent of approving previous meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action that took place at that meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's website in compliance with state law. Risk Analysis (options or alternatives with implications): N/A Fiscal Impact (initial and ongoing costs; budget status): N/A Recommendation(s): Approval Staff Recommendation(s): Approval SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to Approve the Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting Minutes dated August 11, 2016, as presented. Attachment(s): N/A Submitted by: Approv 17CUALI 0041 08/25/2016 08/25//2016 Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant Date Ro rs, Interim Development Services Director Date Page 1 of 1 JA�N�� TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS r.. 44, 3 X Planning and Zoning ° Board of Adjustment that..._.r my' oo AGENDA ACTION FORM Meeting Date: September 8, 2016 Agenda Type: Regular Meeting Type: Regular Submitting Department: Development Services Staff Contact Information: Bob Rodgers, Senior Planner, 480-816-5138, rrodgersfh.az.gov REQUEST TO COMMISSION (Agenda Language): PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on ORDINANCE 16-08, amending the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 5.19, and Chapter 18, Section 18.06, by revising provisions related to noise violations. Case #Z2016-05 CONSIDERATION of ORDINANCE 16-08, amending the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 5.19, and Chapter 18, Section 18.06, by revising provisions related to noise I `olations. Case #Z2016-05 PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on ORDINANCE 16-04, proposed amendments to the Fountain Hills Zoning Map of approximately 63 acres in size, and proposed text amendments to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12 — Commercial Zoning Districts and, adding a new Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District. If adopted, the amendments would create an Entertainment Overlay District which overlays portions of the downtown area. Case #Z2016-02 CONSIDERATION of ORDINANCE 16-04, proposed amendments to the Fountain Hills Zoning Map of approximately 63 acres in size, and proposed text amendments to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12 — Commercial Zoning Districts and, adding a new Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District. If adopted, the amendments would create an Entertainment Overlay District which overlays portions of the downtown area. Case #Z2016-02 Applicant: The Town of Fountain Hills Applicant Contact Information: Planning & Zoning Division roperty Location: Town-Wide Page 1 of 4 Noise Ordinance Amendments& Downtown Entertainment Overlay District P&Z 9/8/2016 "elated Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle: Fountain Hills General Plan - Downtown Area Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance Section 2.01 —Amendments or Zone Changes Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5 Section 5.19.A — Noise Zoning Ordinance Chapter 12 — Commercial Zoning Districts Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18 —Town Center Commercial Zoning District Fountain Hills Town Code Chapter 11, Section 11-1-7 - Noise Fountain Hills Zoning Map Staff Summary (background): The characteristics of sound and the regulation of noise is a complex subject. In an effort to improve understanding of this matter, a Noise Subcommittee was formed by the Planning & Zoning Commission on June 10, 2010 in response to the highly publicized noise complaints generated from residents around Fountain Lake who were disturbed by the nighttime music being played by businesses in Plaza Fountainside. The subcommittee was charged with conducting an in-depth review of the noise regulations in town (specifically downtown), reviewing noise regulations from other jurisdictions, conducting independent research as necessary, and providing specific recommendations in the form of potential ordinance amendments back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Staff provided the subcommittee with copies of the town's regulations as well as selected other municipal, and model ordinances. Staff also advertised for knowledgeable volunteers and two well- .Jalified community residents stepped forward to offer their assistance and insight. This committee forwarded a report containing recommendations for noise ordinance revisions in essentially the form that is attached to this report. The Planning & Zoning Commission accepted the report and initiated the ordinance amendments. However, due to other circumstances, the ordinance amendments were never adopted. On February 11, 2016 the Planning & Zoning Commission established a sub-committee in order to study the possibilities of providing consistent noise regulations in all the zoning districts in the downtown area. It was noted that the downtown area contained at least three commercial zoning districts and there were at least two different criteria for outdoor entertainment (noise). The subcommittee returned their report on April 14, 2016. The subcommittee's report recommended some ordinance revisions as well as the creation of a Downtown Entertainment Overlay District that would allow for outdoor entertainment activities in the downtown area under a set of uniform noise regulations regardless of the zoning district. The Planning & Zoning Commission accepted the committee report and directed staff to initiate the ordinance and map revisions. Both the Noise ordinance revision, and the Downtown Entertainment Overlay District revision were forwarded to the Town Attorney's office for review and to be put into proper form for adoption. uring the review, it became apparent that there could be some confusion and/or inconsistencies between the noise regulations in Chapters 5 and 18 of the Zoning Ordinance and those in Chapter 11 of the Town Code. In order to eliminate these issues, the proposal has been modified so as to Page 2of4 Noise Ordinance Amendments& Downtown Entertainment Overlay District P&Z 9/8/2016 remove the noise ordinance provisions from the Zoning Ordinance completely and place them entirely 'iithin the Town Code. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (ORD #16-08) 1. Section 5.19 of the Zoning Ordinance is deleted and replaced with a referral to Section 11-1-7 of the Town Code. 2. Section 18.06 of the Zoning Ordinance is deleted and replaced with a referral to Section 11-1-7 of the Town Code. 3. Section 11-1-7 of the Town Code is deleted and replaced with the new Section 11-1-7 Town of Fountain Hills Noise Regulations. 4. Town Code Section 11-1-7 accomplishes the following: - Consolidates all noise regulations into a single location for easier reference and understanding. - Establishes a fair, 2-part test for determining if/when a violation occurs. - Establishes specific maximum decibel levels allowed during specific times, during specific months. - Clearly outlines enforcement procedures - Lists specific exemptions. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN ENTERTAINMENT OVERLAY (ORD #16-04) 1. Chapter 12, Section 12.02.C. 3 and Section 12.02.C.18 of the Zoning Ordinance are amended Ito reference the new Chapter 25 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Chapter 25 — Entertainment Overlay District, is added to the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The parameters for businesses within the overlay district to provide outdoor seating, dining, entertainment, and similar activities is provided by uniform regulations to be applied throughout the overlay district regardless of underlying commercial zoning district. 4. The Downtown Entertainment Overlay boundaries are clearly defined and amended to the official Zoning Map as an overlay district. While different in nature, Ordinance #16-08 (Noise) and Ordinance #16-04 (Downtown Overlay) are included together within this staff report because they are very closely related and should be considered as mutually affecting one another when/if they are enacted. It is important to note that the Planning & Zoning Commission is only reviewing and making recommendations on the proposed zoning ordinance amendments (ORD 16-04 and ORD 16-08). Ordinance #16-10 and Resolution #2016-17 are provided for informational purposes only. The Town Code amendment will not be included in your recommendations. However, the Town Code regulations are included in this packet for the Commission's reference since they will be replacing the deleted zoning provisions and provide the Commission with the information necessary for an formed recommendation. Fiscal Impact (initial and ongoing costs; budget status): NA Page 3 of 4 Noise Ordinance Amendments& Downtown Entertainment Overlay District P&Z 9/8/2016 staff Recommendation(s): Aaff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve Ordinance #16-08, the Noise related Zoning Ordinance amendments to Chapters 5 and 18 as presented. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve Ordinance #16-04, amending the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 12, adding a new Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25, and amending the Zoning Map by adding the Downtown Entertainment Overlay Zoning District, as presented. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Move to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve Ordinance #16-08, related to the noise regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5 and Chapter 18, as presented. Move to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve Ordinance #16-04, related to the Downtown Entertainment Overlay Zoning District regulations and Zoning Map amendments, as presented. Attachment(s): Ordinance #16-04 (6 pgs) Ordinance #16-08 (2 pgs) I ( Ordinance #16-10 (2 pgs) Resolution #2016-17 (1 pg) Town of Fountain Hills Noise Regulations (5 pgs) Correspondence Received Submitted by: IRo6ert Rodgers August 25, 2016 Interim Development Services Director Date Page 4 of 4 • ORDINANCE 16-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING ORDNANCE, CHAPTER 12, COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, RELATED TO OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 25, ENTERTAINMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills (the "Town Council") approved Ordinance No. 93-22 which adopted the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Fountain Hills (the"Zoning Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend the Zoning Ordinance to revise (Additional Uses Permitted in (Commercial Zoning12.02(C) Chapter 12 Districts), Subsection C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts), to allow outdoor entertainment, and to add a new Chapter 25 (Entertainment Overlay District) to create an overlay zoning district for downtown to allow for outdoor entertainment; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend the Town of Fountain Hills Official Zoning District Map (the "Zoning Map")pursuant to ARIz.REV. STAT. § 9-462.04,to modify the zoning designation for an approximately 63 acre area of real property to include the Entertainment Overlay District(the"Zoning Map Amendment"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to ARIz. REV. STAT. § 9-462.04, public hearings regarding this Ordinance were advertised in the August 24, 2016 and August 31,2016 editions of the Fountain Hills Times; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission on September 8, 2016, and by the Town Council on October 6, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 12 (Commercial Zoning Districts), Subsection 12.02(C) (Additional Uses Permitted in C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts) is hereby amended as follows: 3. Bars, including retail sales of package goods for off-site consumptions, provided that there is no entertainment or music audible off-site UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 25 OF THIS ORDINANCE. Ne L 2754930.3 18. Restaurants and cafes, including outdoor patios with or without cocktail lounges, provided that there is no entertainment or music audible off-site UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 25 OF THIS ORDINANCE. and rued Aany outdoor patio with alcoholic beverage service must be enclosed as required by Arizona Revised Statutes § 4-207.01, as amended, except for the time during which a current and applicable barrier exemption, as granted by the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, is in place for the outdoor patio. SECTION 3. The Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 25 (Entertainment Overlay District)as follows: Sections: 25.01 Purpose and Intent 25.02 Provisions Applicable to all Uses Section 25.01 Purpose and Intent The Entertainment Overlay District is an overlay zoning district covering portions of downtown within the Downtown Area Specific Plan area, as shown in Figure 25-1 below; any property located either partially or wholly within the district is allowed the uses in this Chapter. The overlay district is intended to allow for outdoor entertainment and uses to establish a more vibrant and active downtown area. The Entertainment Overlay District modifies the underlying zoning district regulations only to the extent specifically set forth in this Chapter. If not specifically modified in this Chapter, all of the regulations in effect in the underlying zoning districts will remain in full force and effect. [Figure 25-1 on following page] C 2754930.3 2 • TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ENTERTAINMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT Figure 25-1 tik % doiliii ail, 111161 IS '.% 7" 41111111111$114111111 am ook ttizier• 0 "41 '''' a _ .81 ik ' -7 a A lb& .eali, :' 'A,1 wgir 4 VW. i .....-- tA VC1061 14 ti I. aim tilt to A ' 4 iffrifts , ti'.- 1 ilit ir... it ilk 4„ ..:,..4,lid ,,.,:, ..„. i.,,,„ i►a, !!!! i 41 , — e;N 1 ID < 7:ftv„, o ii• 4 i„,, e :,"w r !aWillir_qw...../411:41:4174;::::::;141/44* I If' °P4....::°.:t ' 41r,,,, 4' ` totr ♦,��r !,� � It JO `----ist ,,,,/..i'.?'`[. .,... - iLle- _,:e"' -- ---...„-1*-144•4'....zotagoii,i It .iftle5.51 .o i -----., ."1111" iiiiO' C'Pal:n-1 04111‘41%.14,,, 1-f T`r, ""� a 0 114: t as r.4or id x' 0 � 7 SCALE: 1'- 800' _._. pgZ cc. DATE: 8-15-18 w f i ) ?? ~ 2754930.3 3 Section 25.02 Provisions Applicable to all Uses A. Outdoor Entertainment is permitted at any establishment with dedicated outdoor seating areas for food and beverage service. B. Any recorded or live music or sound that is electronically amplified and played outside an establishment shall only be permitted at establishments with dedicated outdoor seating areas for food and beverage service. C. Establishments with dedicated outdoor seating areas for food and beverage service shall comply with the sound level requirements set forth in the Fountain Hills Town Code Section 11-1-7, as amended. D. Outdoor seating areas for food and beverage service shall comply with any applicable barrier requirements from the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control. E. Outdoor seating areas for food and beverage service are allowed within the sidewalk areas, provided an encroachment permit is approved by the Town Council, in its sole discretion. SECTION 4. The Zoning Map Amendment applicable to the approximately 63 acre area of real property generally bounded by Palisades Boulevard to the north, Saguaro Boulevard to the east, La Montana Boulevard to the west and Avenue of the Fountains to the South, as more particularly depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps and execute all documents necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, October 6, 2016. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: Linda M. Kavanagh, Mayor Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Andrew J. McGuire, Town Attorney 2754930.3 4 • EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 16-04 (Map of Property) See following page. • 2754930.3 5 �-t TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS • ENTERTAINMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT , NM 14. 411 I littitilt _ *$4111rt•IIN t!.. 14 411WO vim 04,010 Am 4111111 Ili tlerbiy w--ibi , ,›.... _ e .. _ .1•.... -; .,. .t.37.r., '` i P , LA I+IONfANA DRIVE * eit It 411! 'de. - i P4- r, .„ , ,,,,330 :*likii, w I WO/ i 4.41*. . * 4. gi. ** 'WWII • et-,,e P0047 A„, - 4' Ctajf0A41419P itilliribl' 11111r• 14 ifigl ,„0. .c40 , NJ'.._ 4/- Lir _ilia .. , 4,),„_:.-iv , 40.i. �r. r A if 41",*-4N4 iNte t Stf I. 411...,,i,.....*::%14, i la 01 Nief _I. 111111:41111111"41111° ii4,7r;41.1;i:4"4:411:415".. wrter♦ Cilli ` i '• ' r , ' a, ‘10 iiiii:jr:24 i:::7 0 044 tot*Now 1 1- 1 I u r DCu0 a�u�a` N oco4 :. 0 00 0 Q. W ���►� Eillt i ''.�'�, ate° t�s+s v. 6%.% li, t 4,4.#.0 0 0 300' 600' cPZ 1 %Ntz,L NA % ON SCALE: 1" = 600' / M 0 DATE: 8-15-16 0 1 I 1 1 :3, 4 ORDINANCE 16-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.19, AND CHAPTER 18, SECTION 18.06, BY REVISING PROVISIONS RELATED TO NOISE VIOLATIONS. WHEREAS, the Town of Fountain Hills Town Code and the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance") each contain provisions pertaining to noise violations; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of the Town of Fountain Hills (the "Town") to have a uniform set of standards by which authorized individuals may objectively determine whether a noise violation has occurred; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to clarify the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relating to noise violations to provide its citizens with a clear statement of the noise violation provisions applicable to activities in the corporate limits of the Town. WHEREAS, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9-462.04, public hearings regarding this Ordinance were advertised in the ® August 24,2016 and August 31, 2016 editions of the Fountain Hills Times; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission on September 8, 2016, and by the Town Council on October 6, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5 (General Provisions), Section 5.19 (Performance Standards) is hereby amended by deleting Subsection A thereof(Noise)and replacing it with the following: A. Noise. The sound pressure level of any individual operation shall not exceed the maximum decibel levels set forth in the Fountain Hills Town Code Section 11-1- 7, Table 2, with each individual operation being considered a sound source, as such term is defined in the Fountain Hills Town Code Subsection 11-1-7(B)(8), as amended. For purposes of this Subsection 5.19(A), decibel levels shall be measured according to the measurement standards set forth in the Fountain Hills Town Code Section 11-1-7, as amended; provided, however, that for purposes of this Subsection 5.19(A), the registering of a noise complaint shall not be necessary. �w. 2730195.3 SECTION 3. The Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18 (Town Center Commercial Zoning District), Section 18.06 (Additional regulations) is hereby amended by deleting Subsection B thereof and replacing it with the following new Subsection B, to read as follows: B. Any recorded or live music or sound that is electronically amplified and played outside an establishment shall only be permitted at establishments with dedicated outdoor seating areas for food and beverage service. Such establishments shall comply with the sound level requirements set forth in the Fountain Hills Town Code Section 11-1-7, as amended. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps and execute all documents necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, October 6,2016. 111 FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: Linda M. Kavanagh, Mayor Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Andrew J. McGuire, Town Attorney • 2730195.3 2 ORDINANCE 16-10 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, ADOPTING THE "TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS NOISE REGULATIONS" BY REFERENCE AND AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11-1-7, BY REVISING PROVISIONS RELATED TO NOISE VIOLATIONS. WHEREAS, the Town of Fountain Hills Town Code (the "Town Code") contains provisions pertaining to noise violations; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of the Town of Fountain Hills (the "Town")to have standards by which authorized individuals may objectively determine whether a noise violation has occurred; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to clarify the provisions relating to noise violations to provide its citizens with a clear statement of the noise violation provisions applicable to activities in the corporate limits of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The document known as the "Town of Fountain Hills Noise Regulations" (the "Noise Regulations"), of which one paper copy and one electronic copy maintained in compliance with ARIz. REV. STAT. § 44-7041 are on file in the office of the Town Clerk, which document was made a public record by Resolution 2016-17 of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, is hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Ordinance. SECTION 3. The Fountain Hills Town Code, Chapter 11 (Offenses), Article 11-1 (Offenses), is hereby amended by deleting Section 11-1-7 (Noise), in its entirety and replacing it with the Noise Regulations. SECTION 4. Any person who fails to comply with any provision of the Noise Regulations shall be subject to civil and criminal penalties as set forth in Section 1-8-1 of the Fountain Hills Town Code, including civil penalties of not more than $250 base fine. Criminal penalties shall constitute a class one misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,500.00 or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues shall be a separate offense. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. 2730204.2 the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney SECTION 6. The Mayor, g , are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps and execute all documents necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, September 15, 2016. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: Linda M. Kavanagh, Mayor Bevelyn J. Bender,Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grady E. Miller,Town Manager Andrew J. McGuire,Town Attorney 2730204.2 2 RESOLUTION 2016-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, DECLARING AS A PUBLIC RECORD THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK AND ENTITLED THE"TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS NOISE REGULATIONS." BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: SECTION 1. That certain document entitled the "Town of Fountain Hills Noise Regulations," of which one paper copy and one electronic copy maintained in compliance with ARIz. REV. STAT. § 44-7041 are on file in the office of the Town Clerk and open for public inspection during normal business hours, is hereby declared to be a public record, and said copies are ordered to remain on file with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, September 15, 2016. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: Linda M. Kavanagh, Mayor Bevelyn J. Bender, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Andrew J. McGuire, Town Attorney 2730178.1 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS NOISE REGULATIONS too 2730238.2 Section 11-1-7 Noise. A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to promote the health and general welfare of the citizens and businesses of the Town by balancing the need to protect the community against unreasonable noise with the legitimate goal of promoting and encouraging commercial and business growth in the community. B. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 1. "'A' band level" means the total sound level of all noise as measured with a sound level meter using an A-weighting network. The unit is the dB(A). 2. "Complainant"means a person who files a noise complaint. 3. "Decibel" means a sound pressure that is 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of sound to the reference pressure, 2 x 10 -5 newton/meter2. 4. "Emergency work" means any (a) work performed to prevent or alleviate physical trauma or property damage threatened or caused by an emergency that has or may result in a disruption of service and that is necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, (b) work required to protect the health, safety or welfare of persons or property or (c)work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service. 5. "Noise violation" means any noise created that exceeds the maximum limits as specified in this Section. 6. "Sound level (noise level)" means the sound measured with the A- weighting and slow response by a sound level meter. 7. "Sound level meter" means an instrument including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter and frequency weighting networks for the measurement of sound levels that satisfies the pertinent requirements for Type 1 sound level meters as set forth in the most recent version of American Standard Specifications for Sound Level Meters ANSI S 1.4- 1983. 8. "Sound Source"means the cause and location of the noise. C. Measurement Standard. Sound level shall be measured with a sound level meter operated in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines and instructions. 2730238.2 Table 1 Measurement Standards: COMPLAINANTS SOURCE + = LOCATION 30I W�., . sli�►�i •__ �,_,—..:,Li�N.c...,.,;.:,..;,a.tx.,isl.ua.1+i +� WALL OF STRUCTURE D. Noise Violations Prohibited. Subject to the complaint processing provisions in Subsection 11-1-7(E) below, it shall be a violation of this Section to emit or allow to be emitted noise in excess of the permissible noise levels set forth in Table 2 below. Table 2 Permissible Noise Levels: Monday—Thursday,May 15th to September 15th Decibel Measurement Location Time dB(A) Wall of structure proximate to 55 complainant's location 5:30 am to 11:00 pm 4166. Approximately 30 feet from the sound 85 source Wall of structure proximate to 45 complainant's location 11:00 pm to 5:30 am Approximately 30 feet from the sound 75 source Monday—Thursday, September 16th to May 14th Decibel dB Measurement Location Time (A) Wall of structure proximate to 55 complainant's location 6:00 am to 11:00 pm Approximately 30 feet from the sound 85 source Wall of structure proximate to 45 complainant's location 11:00 pm to 6:00 am Approximately 30 feet from the sound 75 source L 2730238.2 2 Stow Friday—Sunday,year long Decibel Measurement Location Time dB(A) Wall of structure proximate to 55 complainant's location 7:00 am to 11:00 pm Approximately 30 feet from the sound 85 source Wall of structure proximate to 45 complainant's location 11:00 pm to 7:00 am Approximately 30 feet from the sound 75 source E. Complaint Processing. After receiving a noise complaint from a complainant, an individual authorized under Subsection G of this Section shall measure the noise level with such measurements being made both at the wall of the complainant's location and approximately 30 feet from the sound source, as illustrated in Table 1 above. The authorized individual shall determine a noise violation has occurred when the decibel levels at both the complainant's location and at approximately 30 feet from the sound source exceed the maximum decibel levels set forth in Table 2 above. F. Sound Truck. It is unlawful to play, operate, or use any device known as a sound truck, loud speaker or sound amplifier, radio or phonograph with loud speaker or sound amplifier or any instrument of any kind or character that emits loud and raucous noises and is attached to and upon any vehicle unless such person in charge of such vehicle. G. Violations. The Town Manager or designee, code official or Town law enforcement officer may issue civil citations pursuant to Subsection 1-8-3(D) of this Code to enforce violations of this Section. After civil enforcement as set forth in Subsection 1-8-3(D) of this Code, any POST-certified law enforcement officer or the Town Prosecutor may issue criminal complaints pursuant to Subsection 1-8-2(A)to enforce this Section. H. Exemptions. The following uses and activities shall be exempt from Town noise level regulations: 1. Noises resulting from air-conditioning equipment when such equipment is in proper operating condition. 2. Noises resulting from lawn maintenance equipment operated during daylight hours when such equipment is functioning with all mufflers and standard noise-reducing equipment in use and in proper operating condition. L 2730238.2 3 3. Noises of safety signals, warning devices and emergency pressure relief valves. 4. Noises resulting from an authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency call or acting in time of emergency. 5. Noises resulting from emergency work. 6. Church chimes or bells. 7. Any noise created by any Town or Town contractor vehicles, equipment or facilities while being operated or utilized for official business. 8. Noises resulting from a special event being held pursuant to a Town- issued special event permit. 9. An un-amplified human voice. C 2730238.2 4 f i A r , b,r.4\ ,. c,I,A.b . i. 1RIZONA REPUBLIC From the Front Page II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllllllllllllllliflflillillllilllllilliilillllllllilllllilillllllllllllllllllillllllillllillllllllilllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllll 111 11 llllllllilllllllll lllllllllllilllllilllllll 11 r year from their rentals.Almost half playing field for the hotel and bed-and- write the bill. Airbnb hosts nationwide use that mon- breakfast industry. Most people who Local control is often good, she said, to pay for necessities like groceries rent their houses on Airbnb do not pay because city government usually under- d rent,the company's report said. for improvements to abide by health stands a community better than the The new law helps Arizonans earn ex- codes,he said,so they have an unfair ad- state. But local regulations are not best a income by renting out their property, vantage over businesses that are re- in all situations,she said.It's the state's id Daniel Scarpinato,a spokesman for quired to meet such safety standards. job to step in when local governments )v.Doug Ducey. Mauk added that popular vacation overstep their bounds and violate pea But cities here and elsewhere have spots, such as Prescott and Sedona, al- ple's property rights,Sandefur said. .uggled with how to regulate such ready draw heavy tourist traffic so these In this case,people should be able to ntals. cities have little to gain from opening use their property as they choose as long New York City has been especially more places to stay. Instead, forcing as their guests aren't disturbing others. stile to Airbnb—allocating$10 million them to allow potentially disruptive Rather than ban short-term rentals track down and punish hosts operating Airbnb guests only detracts from the outright, she said, it's better for local egally.The New York state legislature peaceful neighborhoods residents want, government only to step in if they be- ssed a bill in June threatening hosts Mauk said. come a nuisance. th fines up to $7,500 if Gov. Andrew Kevin Burke,town manager of Para- She compared the issue to a backyard Como signs it. dise Valley,said most short-term rentals barbecue.Some gatherings get loud and San Diego fined one Airbnb host don't cause problems.And other city of- out of hand,but cities don't ban them al- 5,000 last year. In February, the city ficials agreed the majority of Airbnb together. Instead, they enforce ordi- acked down on more than 200 hosts, hosts and guests are not problematic,but nances that address issues like noise and tifying them that they owed taxes on those that are can stir a lot of controver- parking. eir rentals. San Diego is working on sy. Lines,the law student who studied the irifying their guidelines. Arizona cities have handled vacation impact of Airbnb regulations, pointed Scarninato said Arizona instead rentals very differently—from not reg- out even cities that banned vacation ants tay "out of the way" so resi- ulating them at all to banning them. rentals still had listings on Airbnb,so the nts �_ . fully participate in the latest Airbnb began operating in Arizona in state action addresses the inevitable. rhnologies. 2009.The state law arrived as some cit- "The fact is:Short-term rentals were "Many states are tripping over them- ies were beginning to regulate them. already here even if you try to weed Ives trying to figure out how to handle Most cities' zoning ordinances don't them out," Lines said. "They can still w technology," Scarpinato said. "We touch on vacation rentals, noted Greg- happen regardless of bans,so the under- tnt to be recognized nationally as being gary Lines,a recent law school graduate lying factor is that they're here. Let's eader of the sharing economy." who researched potential regulations take advantage of them." Airbnb is lobbying for more states to for Airbnb in Arizona. Many city officials acknowledged the llow Arizona's lead, but how the law "Some cities had no idea what I was law does provide a few tools to regulate irks here may help determine what talking about when I called them about them. ..y choose to do. their regulations for Airbnb,"Lines said. Hosts must provide an emergency Many Airbnb hosts may use money "It would kill all Airbnbs if they followed contact so they can address problems. y make from renting their homes to all the rules on the books right now." Cities can also limit rentals for reasons y for necessities, but popular tourist Paradise Valley had assembled a com- such as traffic,health and sanitation,and stinations are seeing something dif- mittee to discuss the problems short- sex offenders. rent. Investors are buying properties term rentals bring up.It halted those ef- "The final bill doesn't prohibit our d renting them out like hotels,said Ste- forts when the Legislature began work- ability to crack down on complaints," n Mauk,director of development ser- ing on the new law.The same happened said Scott Butler, Mesa's deputy city :es for Yavapai County. in'Meson. manager. "We saw whole neighborhoods turn "It was a few bad apples driving the Prescott Deputy City Manager Alison o 90 percent short-term rentals," need for new policies,"Burke said. Zelms is pleased cities have some lati- auk said. The new law's supporters said the tude to regulate the rentals, but said it That was the reason Sedona banned state needed to pre-empt complications turns local governments into"hotel man- mm more than 20 years ago,he said. caused by the"patchwork"local regula- agers" instead of allowing them to ban A high concentration of short-term tions that were being adopted. rentals entirely if they choose. atals can cause neighbors to lose a In the Valley, it's difficult to know "Now problems are being dealt with nse of ownership of their area. where one city ends and another begins, on a complaint basis vs. preventing They can also become"party houses" Scarpinato said.So allowing every city to them,"she said. at prompt ongoing neighborhood corn- make its own regulations is confusing Most city officials are discussing how lints. for hosts and visitors. they will move forward.Their plans in- Am' y allow homeowners to corn- People who say the state is being hyp- elude figuring out how to track com- te w_ _iotels. ocritical with this law are wrong, said plaints about rental properties and mak- Kozachik, the 'Meson councilman, Christina Sandefur,Goldwater Institute ing residents aware of who to contact if id the new state law creates an uneven executive vice president who helped they have problems. Paula Woodward —rom: Gene Mikolajczyk [genemik@hotmail.com] ant: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 3:19 AM To: Robert'Bob' Rodgers Cc: Paula Woodward; stanconnickarch@cox.net; Howie Jones (P&Z); Susan Dempster(P&Z); Roger Owers (P&Z); Michael Archambault(P&Z);jstrohanl3@cox.net Subject: September 8, 2016 P&Z hearing --comments on proposed Town noise ordinance Attachments: 2016_9_8 Ordinance 16-08 Report to TC.FINAL.docx Mr. Rogers: Attached please find a memorandum from the Planning & Zoning Commission prepared by the Commissioners who participated in the September 8, 2016 hearing on the proposed Town noise ordinance regulations. We believe the memorandum accurately reflects the comments and concerns from the citizens who spoke at the hearing, as well as the views and concerns of the Commissioners. The memorandum is being presented at the request of Town staff to assist Town Council in its consideration of the noise ordinance provisions. Should you have any questions, comments or want any clarification, we are available to assist in any way possible. Gene Mikolajczyk MEMORANDUM FROM: Fountain Hills Planning&Zoning Commission. Stan Connick, Susan Dempster, Howie Jones, Gene Mikolajczyk, Roger Owers TO: Fountain Hills Town Council DATE: September 8, 2016 RE: [PROPOSED] Ordinance 16-08 and [PROPOSED] Ordinance 16-04 On September 8, 2016,the Fountain Hills Planning &Zoning Commission(P&Z) considered Ordinance 16-08 that eliminates duplicative provisions in Section 5.19.A of the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance regulating noise. Related to Ordinance 16-08 is Ordinance 16-10 that will be considered by Town Council. Ordinance 16-10 will change the standards for measuring and defining noise disturbance in Town Code Section 11-1-7. While the noise Ordinance 16-10 was not directly considered during the September 8, 2016 P&Z hearing, it was intertwined with the issues that were under consideration. Two excellent presentations were made by the public at the September 8, 2016 P&Z hearing; one for and one against the new noise regulations. The proposed Section 11-1-7 noise standards were also discussed during the P&Z deliberations as those new standards related to Ordinance 16-08. The Minutes from the P&Z September 8 hearing will not be finalized and approved for several weeks. On the issue of Ordinance 16-08,the vote was 3 to 2 to eliminate the noise regulations in Section 5.19.A of the Zoning Ordinance and to consolidate all rules and standards on noise disturbance in Town Code Section 11-1-7. Town staff requested that the P&Z prepare a written report on the arguments from the public and the views of the P&Z Commissioners on the proposed new noise standards. The purpose is to afford Town Council a basis for understanding the public's views and to provide input from the P&Z on the new noise standards in Ordinance 16-10 and amended Town Code 11-1-7 when they are considered by Town Council on October 6, 2016. 1 Arguments in support of the new noise regulations in Section 11-1-7 of the Town Code-- [Proposed] Ordinance 16-04 and [Proposed] Ordinance 16-08: • The current noise standards in Zoning Ordinance Section 5.19.A are difficult to understand, virtually impossible to measure and unquestionably impossible to enforce; • The proposed noise regulations for Town Code Section 11-1-7 establish a 2-tiered method for measuring excessive noise. The 2-tiered process: (1) avoids the single point of measurement test utilized in the existing Zoning Ordinance Section 5.19.A and in some of the surrounding communities (Scottsdale, Paradise Valley) which measures the noise at the property line of the property that is the source of the noise; and (2) focuses on what is important—measuring the impact of the noise at the source of the complaint (the outside wall of the structure of the complainant). Fountain Hills is in—or wants to be in—a transition phase to attract new residents. We want younger residents. Recent development projects have been promoted and approved with the goal that these projects will attract younger residents; that the downtown area(in particular) will become a vibrant, active environment-- a must-go-see type of place. We want new retail, including greater dining options and, when available, more entertainment for patrons of these establishments. We will not achieve these desired goals if everyone insists that their right to have nothing disturb their peace and quiet is paramount to the rights of others to enjoy music, to have a backyard C party with entertainment, or for businesses to offer entertainment options for its patrons. Fountain Hills will not become more vibrant and more attractive to younger residents if every citizen wants to encase himself/herself in a bubble of silence—silence that can be achieved ONLY by denying their neighbors the right to enjoy their lives as they want to enjoy them, with music and the ordinary sounds of life. What is the proper standard? There is room for debate and perhaps compromise. The proposed 2-tiered measuring system sets a maximum limit of either 85 or 75 decibels (dB) measured 30 feet from the source depending on the time of the day, and the sound must also impact where the complainant lives at a maximum of either 55 or 45 dB (also depending on the time of day.) What are these measures? Here are a few examples: 35-45 dB average ambient noise in a house. 60-65 dB normal conversation at 3 feet. 60-70 dB normal piano practice. 75-85 dB chamber music in a small auditorium. 82-92 dB violin. 84-103 dB loud piano practice. 85-114 dB clarinet. 2 106 dB tympani and bass drum. 120 dB amplified rock music at distance of 4-6 feet. 120-137 dB symphonic music peak. 150 dB rock music peak. Source: http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html The standards in amended Town Code Section 11-1-7 will limit the volume to 85 or 75 dB as measured 30 feet from the source, and it must be no more than 55 or 45 dB at the end point where it impacts the residential structure of the person lodging the complaint. The above list of standard volumes for some of the entertainment and other events that we encounter on a daily basis supports a conclusion that these new standards are not excessive. There are some unknowns, there is room for additional research and perhaps room for compromise. Below are two ideas, questions and comments: • What is the distance between an 85 or 75 dB sound measurement and a structure that would experience the same sound at a 55 or 45 dB level? In other words: if a noise is measured at 85 or 75 dB 30 feet away from the source, how far away will a residence have to be for that same sound to register either 55 dB or 45 dB at the outer wall of that residence? There are formulas to determine these standards. • How will these regulations affect dwellings that are close together? Since both standards have to be violated, what is the impact if only one is violated but still the recipient of the unwanted sound views it as a disturbance and a noise nuisance? Example: houses 50 feet apart. It is 11:05 pm and the sound as measured 30 feet from the source is 75 dB and thus complies with the first leg of the two-tier test. But at the outer wall of the other house the sound registers 50 dB, a level that the resident of that dwelling might consider to be excessive. Under the new Section 11-1-7 standards there is no violation of the noise ordinance. Can the person generating the noise still be cited for disturbing the peace? Since the Sheriff's Department will probably be asked to respond to any complaints, Town Council might request input from the Sheriff's Department's on its experience enforcing noise regulations and/or disturbing the peace enforcement standards in other communities. Conclusion: The proposed Town Code Section 11-1-7 noise standards might require some tinkering and fine tuning. The proposed standards are unquestionably an improvement over those in the current Zoning Ordinance Section 5.19.A, and Town staff should be commended for their hard work. Particularly attractive is the second part of the two-tiered standard which focuses on the important aspect of any noise ordinance—how does the sound impact residents in the surrounding dwellings. This is a preferable measuring standard than the single standard in the current code, which measures the sound at the property line of the source with no consideration how it ultimately impacts others. (b. Arguments against the new noise regulations in Section 11-1-7 of the Town Code-- [Proposed] Ordinance 16-04 and [Proposed] Ordinance 16-08: There is some common ground of agreement with those who favor approving the proposed new noise regulations: We agree that the exiting noise standards in Zoning Ordinance 5.19.A are unenforceable and must be replaced. The points of disagreement are two-fold: • How were the proposed new standards developed and is it appropriate to table the matter pending further study by town staff and any audio or other experts? • Are the new standards the best for our community? A related question is should there be different noise standards applicable to areas of town where there is ongoing and anticipated entertainment such as the downtown business district and areas surrounding entertainment centers, and a different noise standard for residential communities? History of the new standards The staff report prepared for the September 8, 2016 P&Z hearing recounted the efforts to formulate a new town noise ordinance. The P&Z created a subcommittee in 2010 to analyze the existing noise ordinance and to recommend any changes. Unfortunately no one on the current town staff was part of that 2010 effort. The best that memories could recall is the subcommittee included two audio specialists with extensive commercial and academic experience. From that subcommittee came the two-tiered test for determining what is a noise violation: (1) measure the sound at a specified distance from the source; and (2) measure its impact at the point where the violation is alleged to be occurring. The sub-committee apparently rejected the single point of measurement in the existing Zoning Ordinance Section 5.19.A (measure the sound at the nearest property line of the person generating the sound) since that measurement might be impractical at a resort or a golf clubhouse where the property boundaries are unusual and measuring the sound at the property line might have little or no bearing on how the sound impacts the nearest resident. But the records of the 2010 subcommittee are all that we have to go on in determining what should be the new standards. At a minimum, the matter should be returned to town staff for further study. Among the issues for further study: (1) how does the proposed ordinance compare to other communities; and (2) should there be different noise ordinance standards for areas of town that offer ongoing entertainment(particularly outdoor entertainment), and different standards for residential districts? (a. Problems with the proposed standards The proposal is to eliminate the existing noise standards in Zoning Ordinance Section 5.19.A and replace them with new standards in Town Code Section 11-1-7. There is a serious flaw in the current proposed standards and in its enforcement. As identified in the statement by those supporting the changes, the new standards establish a 2- step method for measuring sound, and BOTH sound measuring steps must be violated. While this might work for residences spaced far enough apart, it is not practical for residences close together. It is also not practical for residences situated where sound might carry and even be amplified along a canyon or a wash or other topographic formation. For example, sound that complies with the 75 or 85 dB rule measured 30 feet from the source might not be acceptable to the ultimate recipients if it reaches their home at a level of 60 or 70 dB. The position statement by those in favor of the new standards glosses over this serious flaw by arguing that the issue will be pushed off to the Sheriff's Department, which can resolve any dispute by citing the sound generator with a disturbing the peace citation. Any noise ordinance that deems this a"solution" is one that is flawed and should not be approved. Conclusion. A new noise ordinance is needed. Before Town Council moves forward, further research is needed. We are proceeding on a course laid out in 2010 by a subcommittee of the P&Z whose work is not fully understood. The proposed noise standards might be on the right path by focusing on how the sound effects those neighbors closest to the sound source. But it may be flawed in requiring that both steps of the 2-step decibel test must be exceeded for a violation to occur; further explanation is needed. A second concern is whether the proposed decibel standards (e.g., 85/75 and 55/45) are appropriate. A third concern is whether the Town should consider adopting different noise standards for resorts. Finally, pushing enforcement alternatives to the Sheriff's Department is not a solution to the problems that will be created by the proposed noise ordinance. The dissenting Commissioners recommend further study to address these concerns before recommending adoption of the ordinance. 5 Robert 'Bob' Rodgers From: John Kirkeide [jkirkeide©atgaudits.com] torent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:18 AM o: PZC (Commission); Linda Kavanagh; Dennis Brown; Nick DePorter; Cassie Hansen; Henry Leger; Alan Magazine; Cecil Yates Cc: Robert'Bob' Rodgers; Grady Miller Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance Planning &Zoning Commission, Mayor and Council Members, I understand there is a proposed noise ordinance working its way thru Fountain Hills review process and scheduled for review by the planning and zoning commission. The proposed ordinance describes as a violation noise measured in excess of 85 decibels 30 feet from the sound source AND 55 decibels at the wall of the structure proximate to the complainant's location. The "and" in the previous sentence is critical since it would not be a violation unless both criteria are met. This means a resident or business could play music that is hitting the wall of their neighbor at 85 decibels and still not be in violation of the proposed ordinance! In fact the way the ordinance is written sounds could be at 100+decibels and still not be in violation if the complainant does not have a wall—as an example a public park. 85 decibels is very loud, in fact the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends controlling noise levels to below 85 decibels in order to minimize noise induced hearing loss. That is a ridiculous noise level for any noise ordinance. Scottsdale limits noise to 68 decibels at the property line of the party generating the sound. Paradise Valley limits noise 46 56 again at the property line. Since decibels are measured on logarithmic scale 68 decibels is about 70% lower noise volume than 85 decibels and 56 is about 85% lower than 85. Said another way 85 decibels is four times as loud as 65 decibels. If Fountain Hills establishes a noise ordinance with levels substantially higher than those neighboring communities you run the risk of attracting loud businesses and residents to our Town! Both Scottsdale and Paradise Valley have a single source test that makes far more sense than a two part test and also provides much more protection against excessive noise. The ordinance as proposed is poorly thought out, at its best provides Fountain Hill's residents with far less protection than neighboring communities and at its worst is unenforceable. Why should the residents of Fountain Hills accept anything less than their neighbors? Until you experience it decibels are just numbers; numbers that can be hard to relate to. I encourage you to use a decibel meter and play some music until it reaches 85 decibels. Then tell us would you like your neighbor playing music in their back yard until 11:00 PM at that level? I urge you to vote NO against this proposed ordinance. If you feel Fountain Hills noise ordinance needs to be revised please consider looking at something along the lines of what Scottsdale and Paradise Valley already have in place. Sincerely, Inhn Kirkeide 7-615-8104 jkirkeide@atgaudits.com August 30, 2016 Michael Archambault, Chairman Eugene Mikolajczyk, Vice Chairman 0 8-3 0-1 6 A 1 1 : 12 R C V D Stan Connick, Commissioner Susan Dempster, Commissioner Howie Jones, Commissioner Roger Owens, Commissioner Jeremy Strohan, Commissioner Re: Proposed Noise Regulations Dear Sirs/Madam: The citizens and staff that contributed many hours of their time to develop the proposed noise regulations are to be thanked. When a community works together on an issue, the result is usually the right policy. However, consideration of the proposed noise regulations raises the following question: Why allow outdoor amplified music for any commercial activity? Sound travels great distances in the desert. Any residence during anytime of the day should not be bombarded with unwanted noise. If a commercial enterprise wants to have live entertainment or amplified music then they should do it within the confines of a building. If the Town wants to work with the businesses regarding outdoor events, then the business could submit an application to the Town through a Temporary Use Permit type process. The Town then could control the hours, the amount of amplification, and any other issues with conditions. If the conditions are violated, then they could be shut down or not given a Permit in the future. Without having to wrestle with outdoor amplified music, a more concise, easier to understand, and easier to enforce noise ordinance could be adopted. An example would be Paradise Valley. Their ordinance has a maximum dB level of 56 from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and a maximum dB level of 45 from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am and on all Sundays and specified legal holidays. The noise levels are taken at the property line. The ordinance, of course, allows for exemptions. Understanding that the two Towns are different, the residents of Fountain Hills, however, should have at least the same protection of its quality of life as the residents of Paradise Valley or any other community. If the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to recommend approval of the proposed noise regulations then they may want to add a reasonableness clause. Such a clause should be in any noise ordinance and would be another tool for the code official or law enforcement officer to use to control unlawful noise and to help protect the 10,000+ households in Fountain Hills. Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. Sincerely, Jonathan H. Pearson Fountain Hills, Arizona cc: Robert Rodgers, Interim Development Services Director Grady Miller, Town Manager eY741/41/- oft P 09-08-16PO4 : 19 RCVD ,� W25 S/7. -- 6-5 Exposure to high levels of noise can cause permanent hearing loss. Neither surgery nor a hearing aid can help correct this type of hearing loss. Short term exposure to loud noise can also cause a temporary change in hearing (your ears may feel stuffed up) or a ringing in your ears (tinnitus). Safety and Health Topics I Occupational Noise Exposure https:f/www.osha gov/...lnoisohearingcon Search for: What is noise exposure? When hearing protection is required? 85 Decibels (dB) - the "Action Level" where hearing protection is required. 90 dB - the OSHA, 8 hour average exposure limit. 100 dB - exposures longer than 15 Lnutes are not recommended. 110 dB - regular exposure of more than 1 minute risks permanent hearing loss. Hearing Protection https:llwww.creighton.edu/ieadminfuserfAdminFinance/,,.IHearing_protection.pdf Search for: When hearing protection is required? What is a safe decibel level? Noise-induced hearing loss can result from a one-time exposure to a very loud sound (at or above 120 decibels), blast, impulse, or by listening to loud sounds (at or above 85 decibels) over an extended period. The louder the sound, the shorter the time period before hearing damage occurs. Paula Woodward '7rom: Andi Bell [andibell2@gmail.com] ant: Friday, September 9, 2016 2:05 PM To: Linda Kavanagh; Dennis Brown; Nick DePorter; Cassie Hansen; Henry Leger; Alan Magazine; Cecil Yates; PZC (Commission) Subject: Please do NOT increase Town Decibels Dear Council and Planning & Zoning Commission: As a resident of Fountain Hills since 1982 I appreciate the quietness of this Town. I live close to the Avenue of the Fountains and do not want the the proposed ordinance to allow music to 85 decibels until 11 :00 PM and to 75 decibels after that! Presently were are at approximately 69 dB(A) As it is now I can hear the music from around the fountain....and the music park has not even opened yet. As a Realtor, I have assisted people to buy homes in this Town since 1985. People like and appreciate this Town's quietness AND the Low Light policy. Thank-you! Andi Bell I 1 Page 1 of 2 September 1, 2016 �r Council Members Planning and Zoning Commission Members Town of Fountain Hills Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance Section 11-1-7 • 09-01 -16A08 : 38 RC VD Dear Members: I am a resident of Fountain Hills living at Villas at Copperwynd. My personal opinion of the new proposed Noise Ordinance is that it will be good, protecting the residents of Fountain Hills for excess noise as well as establishing clear limits for the creators of the noise. A few changes, however, not affecting the limits set, should, in my opinion be made. The changes are as follows: 1. The measurement location "Wall of structure proximate to complainant's location" should be replaced with "A point on the property line where the sound level is the highest". 2. The measurement location "Approximately 30 feet from the sound source" should be eliminated. 3. Complaint Processing, Paragraph E. This paragraph should read as follows: "Complaint Processing. After receiving a noise complaint from a complainant, an individual authorized under Subsection G of this Section shall measure the noise level with such instruments being made at the property line closest to the source of the noise. The authorized individual shall determine a noise violation has occurred when the decibel level exceeds the maximum decibel levels set forth in Table 2.' 4. Paragraph H.8 Noises resulting from special events being held pursuant to a Town-issued special event permit can be removed from the proposed new ordinance because the new ordinance sets the sound levels for any time of the day and night. 5. Table 1 Measurement Standards can be eliminated as only one measurement location is used and defined in #1 above. 6. Table 2 can be simplified as"Wall of structure proximate to complainant's location"is removed from six (6) locations in the table. See Exhibit A on page 2. Additional explanations for some of the proposed changes: 1. The measurement location "Wall of structure proximate to complainant's location"would require the noise creator to enter the complainant's property in order to verify that he or she complies with the noise ordinance. In addition,the complainant may like to enjoy a quite evening in his garden near the property line where the noise comes from.The noise level at a point near the property line could be considerable higher than what is allowed by the ordinance.The measurement at the property line will eliminate the above-mentioned problems. Some communities define the noise measuring location as"The property line closest to the source of the noise".This definition, however, is not as universal as the one proposed because in a situation where the source is only a few feet from the middle of the property a building could be between the source and the closest property line. The sound level at the property line in the opposite direction could therefore exceed the limit set by the ordinance. 2. The measurement location "Approximately 30 feet from the sound source". The purpose with this ordinance is to regulate and limit the noise for the people living outside the property where the noise is created.The measurement at the property line will meet this requirement and therefore the measuring point 30 feet from the sound source is unnecessary and should be removed from the proposed new ordinance. Should the creator of the noise want to have a 30 feet from the source reference (for monitoring the maximum level), he or she can of course create one by first checking the level at the property line and then again at 30 feet from the sound source. Respectfully Submitted, Anders Hellstrom 14850 E Grandview Drive, Unit 110 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 480-836-7330 qutebo@lmsn.com 2016-09-01 Letter to FH Council and Plan Comm-revl.doc Page 2 of 2 tily Exhibit A Table 2 Permissible Noise Levels: Measurement location: A point on the property line where the sound level is the highest Time Decibel db(A) Monday—Thursday 5:30 am to 11:00 pm 55 May 15 to September 15 11:00 pm to 5:30 am 45 Monday—Thursday 6:00 am to 11:00 pm 55 September 16 to May 14 11:00 pm to 6:00 am 45 Friday— Sunday 7:00 am to 11:00 pm 55 All Year 11:00 pm to 7:00 am 45 0 2016-09-01 Letter to FH Council and Plan Comm-revl.doc August 31, 2016 Michael Archambault, Chairman Eugene Mikolajczyk, Vice Chairman Stan Connick, Commissioner 5r1 RCV\-) Susan Dempster, Commissioner 16?'\ Howie Jones, Commissioner Roger Owens, Commissioner Jeremy Strohan, Commissioner Re: Proposed Noise Ordinance Dear Sirs/ Madam: The Town of Fountain Hills is considering a change to the Town's Noise Ordinance. Our existing Noise Ordinance measures noise at the "property line" and limits noise volume to 69 dB(A) (based on the octave band levels outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 5.19.A Noise). The Proposed Noise Ordinance measures noise "30 feet from the sound source" and "at the complainant's wall of structure" and effectively limits noise volume to 85 dB(A) (of note, the 55 dB(A) limit is entirely negated by Section 11-1-7-E, "Complaint Processing".). Implementing the Proposed Noise Ordinance, as written, would result in a noise limit nearly three times louder than the current limit. The Proposed Noise Ordinance would also be difficult to enforce. To add perspective, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") requires employers to provide hearing protection to employees exposed to 85 dB(A) levels of noise. Residents of Fountain Hills should not be subjected to noise at such high decibel levels. The proposed Noise Ordinance favors those generating noise (e.g., neighbors or businesses) over the health and general welfare of the Town's residents. Surrounding communities measure noise levels at the "property line" of the sound source. Paradise Valley limits noise levels to 56 dB(A) and Scottsdale limits noise to 68 dB(A). Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale. Every 10-decibel increase (e.g. increasing from 56 dB(A) to 66 dB(A)) results in a sound level twice as loud. Implementing the Proposed Noise Ordinance, as written, would result in a Fountain Hills noise limit that is nearly eight times louder than Paradise Valley's limit and nearly four times louder than Scottsdale's noise limit. Fountain Hills' residents deserve a noise ordinance that is easy to understand, enforceable, and comparable to ordinances in neighboring communities. The Proposed Noise Ordinance does not meet these criteria and therefore should not be accepted. Respectfully, Kimberly M. Anderson Fountain Hills, Arizona cc: Robert Rodgers, Interim Development Services Director Grady Miller, Town Manager I • August 30, 2016 Council Members Planning and Zoning Commission Members Town of Fountain Hills Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 08_30_1 6A1 1 1'1 RCVD Subject: Proposed Noise Ordinance Section 11-1-7 Dear Members: I am a resident of Fountain Hills living at Villas at Copperwynd. My personal opinion of the new proposed Noise Ordinance is that it will be good, protecting the residents of Fountain Hills for excess noise as well as establishing clear limits for the creators of the noise. A few changes, however, not affecting the limits set, should, in my opinion be made. The changes are as follows: 1. The measurement location "Wall of structure proximate to complainant's location" should be replaced with "A point on the property line where the sound level is the highest". 2. The measurement location "Approximately 30 feet from the sound source" should be eliminated. 3. Complaint Processing, Paragraph E. This paragraph should read as follows: "Complaint Processing. After receiving a noise complaint from a complainant, an individual authorized under Subsection G of this Section shall measure the noise level with such instruments being made at the property line closest to the source of the noise. The authorized individual shall determine a noise violation has occurred when the decibel level exceeds the maximum decibel levels set forth in Table 2.' 4. Paragraph H.8 Noises resulting from special events being held pursuant to a Town-issued special event permit can be removed from the proposed new ordinance because the new ordinance sets the sound levels for any time of the day and night. 5. Table 1 Measurement Standards can be eliminated as only one measurement location is used and defined in #1 above. 6. Table 2 can be simplified as"Wall of structure proximate to complainant's location" is removed from six (6) locations in the table. Additional explanations for some of the proposed changes: 1. The measurement location "Wall of structure proximate to complainant's location"would require the noise creator to enter the complainant's property in order to verify that he or she complies with the noise ordinance. In addition, the complainant may like to enjoy a quite evening in his garden near the property line where the noise comes from. The noise level at a point near the property line could be considerable higher than what is allowed by the ordinance. The measurement at the property line will eliminate the above-mentioned problems. Some communities define the noise measuring location as"The property line closest to the source of the noise". This definition, however, is not as universal as the one proposed because in a situation where the source is only a few feet from the middle of the property a building could be between the source and the closest property line. The sound level at the property line in the opposite direction could therefore exceed the limit set by the ordinance. 2. The measurement location "Approximately 30 feet from the sound source". The purpose with this ordinance is to regulate and limit the noise for the people living outside the property where the noise is created. The measurement at the property line will meet this requirement and therefore the measuring point 30 feet from the sound source is unnecessary and should be removed from the proposed new ordinance. Should the creator of the noise want to have a 30 feet from the source reference (for monitoring the maximum level), he or she can of course create one by first checking the level at the property line and then again at 30 feet from the sound source. Respectfully Submitted, Anders Hellstrom 14850 E Grandview Drive, Unit 110 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 480-836-7330 gutebo@msn.com Eli ® CARPENTER NAZLEWOOD Carpenter, Hazlewood, Delgado & Bolen,PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW PHOENIX Jonathan D. Ebertshauser, Esq. 1400 East Southern Avenue, Suite 400 Licensed in Arizona Tempe,Arizona85282-5691 T 480-427-2800 � @p e-mail: onathane Car enterhazlewood.com F 480-427-2801 direct: 480-427-2863 August 23, 2016 SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, FIRST CLASS MAIL, AND EMAIL (lkavanagh@fh.az.gov; dbrown@h.az.gov; ndeporter@fh.az.gov; chansen@fh.az.gov; hleger@fh.az.gov; amagazine@fh.az.gov; cyates@fh.az.gov) Town Council Members Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 Re: Proposed Noise Ordinance- Opposition Dear Members of the Town Council: Our firm represents the Villas at Copperwynd Association ("Association"). The Association recently became aware of a proposed ordinance that would amend the current noise restrictions in place within the Town of Fountain Hills. As a result, the Association has asked our office to articulate the community's opposition to the proposed ordinance. Throughout this year, the Villas at Copperwynd Association has come to the Town Council with concerns related to the noise issues that plague its homeowners. The Association has actively defended the homeowners from the possibility of increased disturbance and annoyance from the surrounding uses. The proposed amendment goes entirely against the Association's efforts that have been presented to the Town Council on multiple occasions. As each of you are likely aware, this Association is neighbored by the Copperwynd Resort & Club ("Club Property"). As we have previously explained, events held at the Club Property are historically loud and last late into the evenings, negatively impacting the neighboring homeowners and the Association. The Association has thus I ALBUQUERQUE • PHOENIX • PRESCOTT• SALT LAKE CITY • SANTA FE • TUCSON CARPENTERHAZLEWOOD.COM NATIONWIDE T 800-743-9324 • F 800-743-0494 CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, PLC VILCOPPER.0001 August 23, 2016 Page 2 Loy relied on the noise ordinance in the Town of Fountain Hills to mitigate the negative impact the noise emanating from the Club Property has on this community. However, as evidenced by our repeated attempts to curtail the noise issues that persist within the Association, even the current noise ordinances are insufficient to protect the harmony and welfare of the homeowners within the Association. Rather than addressing the multiple concerns raised this year, this proposed ordinance would instead raise the permissible sound level exponentially and increase the negative impact on the Association's residents and the neighboring communities. The proposed Noise Ordinance requires that noise levels be measured in two separate locations in order to determine whether a noise violation exists. Section 11-1- 7(E) of the proposed ordinance provides in relevant part as follows: [A] noise violation has occurred when the decibel levels at both the complainant's location and at approximately thirty (30) feet from the sound source exceed the maximum decibel levels set forth in Table 2 above. During a weekday evening (Monday through Thursday from 11:00 pm to 5:30 am), the proposed ordinance permits sounds up to 75 dB(A) within 30 feet of the "sound source." It seems that the ordinance attempts to curtail the impact of the noise on neighboring properties by setting lower decibel requirements when measuring from the wall of the structure proximate to the complainant's location, which during this same time period would be 45dB(A). However, the proposed ordinance completely fails in its objective and would instead exacerbate the noise issues that persist within the Association. The intent to measure the noise levels at the wall of the structure proximate to the complainant's location is inherently flawed. Owners have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their entire property, not merely the quiet enjoyment within the structure on their property. The majority of cities have recognized this and instead measure noise levels at the property line closest to the source of the noise, which is the more appropriate location for measurement in this case. Additionally, multiple Units within the Association are approximately 30 feet away from Club Property. Accordingly, the subsequent sound measurements from the complainant's wall would be superfluous. This ordinance would effectively permit the Club Property to emit noises up to at least 75 dB(A) during the weekday evening hours alone, which is drastically higher than the limit currently in place that is already insufficient in protecting the comfort of the residents. The extent of this impact only increases during the weekends and as the seasons change. On a weekday until 11:00 pm, multiple residents of the Association who live approximately 30 ft. from the Club Property would likely be subjected to noises up to 85 dB(A). CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, PLC VILCOPPER.0001 August 23, 2016 Page 3 tar Additionally, many homes throughout Fountain Hills are located within 30 ft. of their neighboring property. This is particularly true in the Association as the Units compose a Condominium Association and neighbors share walls and live directly on top of one another. The proposed ordinance would expressly allow noisy neighbors and loud, late night parties. The neighboring owner would have no recourse against the noisy neighbor unless the noise exceeded the 75-85 dB(A) limitations set forth in the proposed ordinance, which is drastically higher than the current noise standards. Such a policy favors those generating noise (e.g. the partying neighbor or business) over the health and general welfare of the law abiding citizens of this town. To put this issue into perspective, the U.S. Department of Labor, through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") requires employers to provide hearing protection devices to any employee exposed to at least 8-hours of 85 dB(A) of noise. The proposed noise ordinance creates the potential for homeowners to be subjected to the same risks that have raised the concerns of the U.S. Department of Labor. However, to require homeowners to wear hearing protection devices within their homes is clearly absurd, and to subject homeowners to the possibility of such necessity is grossly inappropriate. The stated goal of the proposed ordinance is to "balance the need to protect the tiw community against unreasonable noise with the legitimate goal of promoting and encouraging commercial and business growth in the community." However, it seems that that the proposed ordinance provides slight benefit to businesses within the town at the incredible expense of the residents. To say otherwise would be a blatant disregard to the desires and concerns of your residents. Fountain Hills was once cited as "a welcome oasis on the outskirts of a metropolis" by Phoenix Magazine. Upon passing this ordinance, Fountain Hills would instead become one of the noisiest towns in the valley. In fact, the surrounding communities of Paradise Valley and Scottsdale have each set a maximum allowable noise level, neither of which exceed 68 dB(A). Accordingly, Fountain Hills would hardly be appropriately described as an "oasis" from the noise and disruption of the Phoenix metropolis. The Town Council promised to protect the surroundings and environment that make the Town of Fountain Hills the tranquil oasis that earned its outstanding reputation. The 2010 Strategic Plan adopted by the Town Council specifically pledges that the Town Council will "[p]reserve the natural beauty that surrounds us and protect it so future generations can enjoy it." The fact that the Town Council is even entertaining the proposed Noise Ordinance in spite of this promise should cause immense alarm to the residents of Fountain Hills. CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, PLC VILCOPPER.0001 August 23, 2016 Page 4 L The Association requests that the Town Council take a stronger position in support of the residents of Fountain Hills. It is clear that this proposed ordinance is not in the best interests of the community, but rather the interests of a few businesses. Such decisions should not be made in a manner that would so negatively impact the Fountain Hills quality of life that each resident strives to preserve. We welcome any questions the Town Council may have regarding the Association's position in this matter and look forward to addressing this issue at the upcoming Town Council meeting. Please feel free to contact me directly at (480) 427- 2863. Sincerely, Jonathan D. Ebertshauser, Esq. for CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, PLC C Town Council P&Z supported by Mikolajczyk and Commissioner Stan meets Thursday Connick. Jones and Ow- (cont.from page 1 A) ers opposed. Archambault When the Town Council and Commissioner Jeremy meets this week it will con- of the noise during the day. Strohan were absent. sider designating Desert That number drops to 75 Vista Park as the only loca- from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Entertainment tion in town where people Commissioner Roger The commission had no may operate "unmanned Owers said he is in sup- issues with a proposal to aircraft,"and more specifi- port of the amendments to create an Entertainment cally, drones. make the ordinance easier District zoning overlay The FAA has established to understand and more for the downtown area. It regulations for the opera- enforceable. received little discussion tion of drones and the State "I'm just not sure these before a unanimous vote to Legislature has taken steps are the numbers we should forward a recommendation to limit restrictions munici- use," Owers said. "I would to council. palities may place on the like more definitive study." The proposed overlay en- use. Cities and towns may The numbers used for compasses approximately designate a facility where the amendment were rec- 63 acres bounded by Pali- the drones may be used. ommended by committee sades Boulevard, Saguaro Staff has chosen to des- convened in 2010 to study Boulevard, Avenue of the ignate Desert Vista as this the issue. This is the first Fountains and La Montana site in Fountain Hills. time action was taken to Drive. There is an addi- The council will also be address the changes. tional small section outside considering a lease agree- Bill Heinz, the owner that perimeter west of La ment with the Fountain of the CopperWynd Resort Montana and north of the Hills Civic and Cultural As- raised concerns about the Avenue. sociation(FHCCA)for prop- changes. The entertainment over- erty adjacent to the library "I feel we are steering lay is designed to accommo- and Community Center. into dangerous waters," date businesses that want FHCCAis working toward Heinz said."I am willing to to offer outdoor seating, establishment of a commu- work with the residents." dining,entertainment and nity garden at this location at He said he has taken similar activity that might the south end of the property several steps to address normally require a special "."' owned by the town. concerns — talking with use permit in a commercial The town is scheduled neighbors, turning speak- zoning district. to consider a cooperative ers at events and turning purchase agreement with off equipment that en- M.R. Tanner Development hances the noise. and Construction for the "With these changes we town's planned asphalt can't do weddings, confer- replacement and pavement ences or other events," management program for Heinz said."I'm committed the coming year. to doing my part. These The agreement is for changes will destroy busi- $1.8 million. The fund- nesses like CopperWynd." ing will come from High- Mark Saul, an at- way User Revenue Fund torney for The Villas at .r__. ... (HURF) and a General CopperWynd (HOA) said Fund budget transfer. they do not like the pro- This is the first phase posal either. of a major project in Zone "If this is adopted you 1 in the Four Peaks neigh- would have the noisiest city borhood at the northeast in Arizona," Saul said. area of town.The work this He said the ordinance is year will include mill and not consistent with other overlay of several collector cities, and there is not streets.Additional mill and enough accurate informa- overlay is scheduled for tion. next year, and slurry seal "We would ask the corn- the following year. mission not to recommend The Town Council will this ordinance to the coun- ,. meet Thursday, Sept. 15, cil," Saul said. C at 6:30 p.m. in council Commissioner Susan chambers at Town Hall. Dempster made the motion The meeting is open to the to forward the recommen- public. dation to the council.It was i P&Z recommends changes 1 , to Town noise ordinance By Bob Burns dards, one for downtown amendment that provides Times Reporter and resort areas and an- a table outlining permis- other for residential areas. sible decibel levels for time The Zon- "I think we need an ob- of day and seasonal. The ing he Planningi andwns Zonhesi- jective look at the decibel proposed ordinance allows ing Co but went s with standards and make sure a maximum of 85 decibels a 3-2 votew forwardingtaheada these are the right num- at 30 feet from the source bers,"Jones said. recommendation to the Staff is presenting an Town Council on proposed (cont.on page 5A) changes to the town's noise ordinance. Slide the City cancelled Some commission mem- s were not ber the proposed star The Town of Fountain poned indefinitely.We will withs for the ordinance and Hills Community Services be automatically refunding wanted moreheordinance ne study. Department announced all registrants over the last week that the organiz- next three days.We apolo- ViceChairman led Eugene ers of Slide the City have gize for any inconvenience Mikolajczyk,the waho thef cancelled their Fountain this may cause." meeting in Mike Archam- Hills event. Low pre-sale numbers said he understood Residents and visitors are cited as the reason Reg- thebault, said concerns,h but understood o may recall that Fountain for the cancellation. Reg- the il should consider thee Hills was the first location istration for this event at whether to u staff toi re-r in the state of Arizona to the time of cancellation whether a askstudyhost this event in April of was noted at 400 in pre- convene group on 2015. Other areas around sale attendance. At one the subject. the state later hosted the lir Mikolajczyk said the month before an event council has previously dis- same event in Flagstaff, date,Slide the City usually a Tucson and Phoenix.Foun- sees upwards of 1,000 pre- cusseds a noise controversyWynv Re tain Hills was expected to registered participants. with welcome the event back for Anyone who has already sort well andup its o residentsspeed on andd the second year on Satur- purchased their event tick- subject. day, Sept. 24. ets has been instructed to "I'd rather kick this u Organizers released the expect a full refund from the p- following statement in the organizers within the week. stairs than back to staff," middle of last week: Mikolajczyk said. Ifyou have any questions Howard "Due to the lack of reg- or did not receive a refund Jones Commissioner it is a istration for this year's by Friday, Sept. 9, contact Jones said he have feels ito Stan- event,Slide the City Foun- Slide the City via email at tain Hills has been post- jsc@slidethecity.com.