Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ.2021.0712.MinutesTOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 12, 2021 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Peter Gray; Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg (telephonically); Commissioner Jessie Brunswig; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic; Commissioner Roderick Watts, Jr. Absent: Commissioner Susan Dempster Staff John Wesley , Development Services Director; Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Present: Planner; Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant 2. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Chairman Gray called the meeting of July 12, 2021, to order at 6:00 p.m. 3. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None 4. CONSIDERATION OF approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission May 10, 2021. MOVED BY Commissioner Dan Kovacevic, SECONDED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission May 10, 2021. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously 5. CONSIDERATION OF a Special Use Permit to allow four residential units at an existing building located at 16842, 16843, 16844 and 16845 E. Avenue of the Fountains (generally located north of Avenue of the Fountains, between Saguaro Blvd. and Verde River Dr.) and in the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) Zoning District and the Entertainment Overlay District. SU 2021-04 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 Mr. Tavassoli gave a brief PowerPoint presentation which addressed: Purpose Location Request Review standards Staff Recommendation Mr. Tavassoli explained that this was an application for a Special Use Permit at 16842, 16843, 16844 and 16845 East Avenue of the Fountains. Currently it is a vacant building which would be remodeled to allow two residential units on the 2 nd floor and two residential units on the ground floor. A portion of the first floor, facing the Avenue is occupied by the restaurant Sofrita's. No additional on-site parking would be required in Plat 208. This property is zoned C-2 and is within the Planned Shopping Center and Entertainment Overlay District. Mr. Tavassoli said that the proposed property use ties in with the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020. The plan calls for thriving neighborhoods that encourage a broad range of housing types and densities consistent with the character area. He said that this downtown area is a highly integrated mix of uses where this underutilized property could benefit from a long term use for commercial and residential. He reminded the commission that the residential use on the second floor is allowed by right and the two units on the ground floor are the subject of the SUP. He concluded that staff recommends approval. In response to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Tavassoli replied that Sofrita's business hours were not discussed with the applicant. The parking allocation for the buildings in Plat 208 already exist. The parking spaces for the residential units are two spaces per unit. Commissioner Brunswig asked if the property owner has tried to secure businesses for the commercial space before deciding to split the property to residential and commercial use. Stan Connick, project architect, explained to the Commission that he thinks this is a neat project because it allows for underutilized property to become part of a thriving downtown area. It creates a better mix then what is currently there now. The units are reasonably small, around 1,000 square feet. The floor plans are typical with fresh and cool interiors. There will not be too much change to the exterior. The client is purchasing the building with the condition of an approved Special Use Permit. In response to Commissioner Schlossberg the applicant said that they are looking to invest and repurpose the property. They intend to sell the four units individually. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Tavassoli replied that staff did not receive any feedback or responses to the mailer notifications regarding the project. Public notices were mailed and posted to the Fountain Hills Times and the property. The notification mailer sent to the Park Place apartments were sent to the Park Place owners since the units are leased. Mr. Tavassoli stated that the courtyard is a common element for Plat 208. Any change in use of the courtyard would probably go through the review 2of17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 process with the Plat 208 Association. Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. Chairman Gray closed the public hearing. MOVED BY Commissioner Jessie Brunswig, SECONDED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the Special Use Permit to allow four residential units at an existing building located at 16842, 16843,16844, 16845 East Avenue of the Fountains. Vote: 4 - 2 NAY: Chairman Peter Gray Commissioner Dan Kovacevic HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER Ordinance number 21-02, establishing Section 2.08, Citizen Participation, in the Zoning Ordinance.Case Z2020-12 Mr. Wesley said that this agenda item was continued from the last meeting in order to research and provide information that the Commission requested to make possible adjustments to the ordinance. Mr. Wesley said that this is a proposed ordinance for a new section in the Zoning Ordinance. The reason for the new section, "Citizen Participation" is to require applicants to engage community participate early in the development process. Currently the only requirement is for a public notice be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the development project, public notification published in the local newspaper and a poster display on the property. By the time the applicant gets to the public hearing stage it becomes difficult to make changes or modifications to a proposal. By starting the process earlier property owners near the development have an opportunity to be informed about the proposed project and provide feedback to the developer. Mr. Wesley gave a PowerPoint presentation which addressed: Background Proposed section 2.08 Previous Discussions / Changes Implementation Guidelines Staff Recommendations Mr. Wesley said that the proposed new Section 2.08 zoning ordinance would include: • Section A of the ordinance requires that the applicant submit a Citizen 3of17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 Participation Plan with their application. The Plan needs to state who they are going to contact (at a minimum this is the property owners in the required public hearing notice area), a general description of how interested persons can obtain information about the proposed development, how the applicants plans to contact those on the contact list, a description of the schedule for implementation of the plan, and a statement as to how the applicant will keep the Town informed of comments received. • Section B of the ordinance requires the applicant to file a Citizen Participation Report prior to the item going to its first public hearing. The Report must describe any issues or concerns raised and how they were addressed (which can be a statement that they did not make any changes), include a list of people who made contact with the applicant through the citizen participation process, and provide a description of all input received from interested parties • Section C of the ordinance lists the type of information that needs to be supplied to the public when they are notified of the proposal to ensure they have a picture of what is being proposed. • Section D of the ordinance states that if the Development Services Director determines the ordinance was not followed or the efforts to work with the public were insufficient to provide meaningful public input, that the application can be postponed, rescheduled, or denied. • Section E of the ordinance makes it clear that the information and notices published regarding the Citizen Participation Ordinance are different from the public hearing notices that occur prior to a hearing. He stated that staff took into consideration the commissions concerns and comments from the last meeting which were: • To reduce the Homeowner's Associations or registered neighborhoods to be included in the notification regarding the planned development to those with property within the standard notification area (300'). Staff has made that change in Section A. 1. B • Include virtual meetings in the options for informing citizens and receiving feedback. That was an option in the previous draft ordinance, but not specifically listed. Section A. 3. now specifically lists this as one of the options. There was also some discussion of making a virtual meeting a requirement. Staff has chosen to not make it a requirement in the ordinance. This is because of the range of types of cases that might have to implement a citizen participation plan. We have, however, added a set of guidelines to be used along with the ordinance. Those guidelines are attached. Those guidelines encourage virtual meetings, especially for larger projects and applications being processed during the summer months when many residents are out of town. • Require a checklist of ordinance requirements to demonstrate the development will comply with all ordinances, or highlight which ones will not be met, so they can be recognized and discussed. This one was more challenging for a number of reasons. Citizen Participation Plans will be required with general plan amendments, rezoning, and special use permits. Only the special 4of17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 use permit application requires a site plan. Therefore, at this stage of a project the developer may not know what site plan challenges they may have that would result in a need to deviate from the ordinance. We do not want to create a false sense that just because no deviations were listed at this point that there will not be some in the future. Further, there are so many ordinances that a list would be very long and cumbersome to put together and use. As an alternative, staff has added a new Section C. 4. which requires the applicant to include "a list of any identified deviations from standard ordinance requirements being considered or requested for the development." This will at least get the applicant, staff, and citizens thinking about the topic and considering any potential issues. • Require staff to attend any meetings held between the applicant and neighbors. There is a concern that the applicant may not paint a clear picture of the project or properly represent commitments made during the meeting. The challenges with this approach are that, given the nature of the application there may not be organized meetings, some information flow can happen out side of an organized meeting, and the emphasis is to create dialogue between the applicant and neighbors - having staff in a meeting tends to shift the emphasis and have staff be the go between. As an alternative, staff has included in the guidelines that staff is to be notified of any meetings and the option to attend. This provides flexibility to the individual situation without making it an ordinance requirement. Mr. Wesley concluded that he hoped the Commission had the opportunity to review the revised implementation guidelines. The guidelines allow the applicant to view examples of guidelines in hopes of making it easy to implement the ordinance. It would also allow the applicant to make reasonable changes to address concerns so those would not have to be addressed at the required public hearing. The applicant is not obligated to make recommended changes but to report the input received and how they responded. He said staff recommends approval and he would be happy to take any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Brunswig made a suggestion to put a statement in the ordinance to clarify Citizen Participation Plans and public hearings — they are two different types of meetings. She also provided to Mr. Wesley a "markup" draft of the plan. Commissioner Kovacevic said that he is in favor of the ordinance. It is good business for the builders to speak with the neighbors. It's an opportunity to make life better for everybody. He would like to see the word "continuous" removed from the ordinance. He does not see how it is a continuous feedback process. Mr. Wesley agreed and said that the word "continuous" would be removed. Commissioner Watts suggested that staff should attend the public meetings in case the situation become contentious. Staff would also be available to answer questions asked by the public. Commissioner Watts suggested small changes in the guidelines that the code requirements read as "should be." Mr. Wesley replied that the guidelines are very flexible. Any comments or changes to 5of17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 guidelines are easy to make. Ted Blank, Fountain Hills resident, Board Member of the Fountain Hills Dark Sky, told the Commission he appreciates the Commission considering the new ordinance and affirmed how important the amendment is to keeping the dark skies dark. He said that "Commercial outdoor lighting is available in many styles, including what are called "Dark Sky Friendly" designs. These are designs that ensure that all light is directed downward and that the actual "luminaire" or light -emitting component is not visible from outside the property. Unfortunately, this element of design is frequently overlooked when architects and designers are choosing outdoor lighting for their projects. The result is outdoor fixtures which produce glare, shine onto adjacent properties or drivers in the street, and light up the sky for no reason. By the time the legally required Public Hearings are scheduled, outdoor lighting is typically already specified in the design, and may even be ordered and in a warehouse waiting to be installed. If those lights turn out to be in violation of Fountain Hills existing lighting ordinances, it's going to be a costly fix to replace them. An example of a situation like this can be seen at the Morningstar Assisted Living facility. When construction was well underway he reviewed the lighting plan and confirmed that the outer perimeter parking lot lights were clearly specified to be ordered with curved rear shields to keep the light from those perimeter fixtures from spilling out onto the street and shining into the eyes of drivers. For whatever reason the shields were either not ordered or not installed. An early design review would have discussed these shields with the developers and stressed how important they were, increasing the chances that they would have been properly ordered and installed. By the way, those lights remain unshielded today, almost five years later. The opportunity to review plans at the earliest possible stage will be a boon to both citizens and developers, as it will ensure that appropriate lighting is specified at the beginning and avoiding expensive rework. However, it is possible that at the very early stages of review, the exact manufacturer and model of outdoor lighting fixtures for a project may not have been decided on. Please ensure that citizens can stay involved all through the design process. A single opportunity to review plans may not give citizens the opportunity to weigh in on important decisions which may be made at a later date." Larry Meyers, Fountain Hills resident said that he supports the ordinance. He said that it will clean up a lot of messes before they ever get in front of the Commission. If the Town had it four years ago things would have been a lot happier than what transpired. Ed Stizza, Fountain Hills resident, said that this is a very important process and important for the applicant to hear what the public has to say about a project. He said he supports this ordinance and said it was too bad this was not around when the medical facility came to town. He expressed concern about one of the Town's capital projects, the installation of a crosswalk at Saguaro and Tower. His concern was the crosswalk lights conflicting with the Dark Sky Ordinance. He suggested that a timer be used on the lights. The following Fountain Hills residents submitted comments electronically and stated they support the proposed Citizen Participation Ordinance. 6of17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 Jill Blank wrote, "I am in support of this ordinance. Citizens should be allowed to provide comments and input prior to development changes and prior to design planning. Thank you." Frank T Bye Sr wrote, "The Fountain Hills zoning ordinance currently does not include a required citizen participation process early in the design phase. It is proposed that such a requirement be added to our zoning ordinance. I'm in favor of this being added to the zoning ordinance." Mary Courtney, Fountain Hills resident, wrote, "I strongly support a requirement be added to the zoning ordinance for Citizen Participation early in the builder/developer design phase. "Daybreak" is a sad reminder how important this is." Cindy Couture, Fountain Hills resident, wrote,"Early citizen input on issues is essential for saving time and money for developer and town staff as well as keeping citizens' needs in mind. Please vote for early citizen participation." David Dunham, Fountain Hills resident, wrote, "I support this ordinance." Karen Farkas, Fountain Hills resident, wrote, "In my opinion, it is more cost-effective for all concerned to have citizen input as early in a planning process as possible. Delaying input until close to the end of the approval process means that some aspects of the project may be very difficult to change, particularly without incurring significant costs. My main concerns are with lighting and noise, although I will admit that I am also concerned with the visual aspect - particularly after the color fiasco with the apartments on the Avenue of the Fountains. Thank you for reading my comments into the record." Charles Holmes, Fountain Hills resident, wrote, "Citizens often feel they are left out of the planning process, not being afforded the opportunity to provide meaningful input. I believe this ordinance will go a long way to correct this. The earlier in the process that input can be offered will help improve the final plan. Please give positive consideration to this improvement in the process. Thank you." Clyde Hurtig, Fountain Hills resident, wrote, he was in support of the proposed ordinance and his "Concerns are light, noise and odor." Nora Leone, Fountain Hills resident, wrote, "Please amend the proposal process to require citizen input early in the approval process. This can help ensure that lighting for new projects will not interfere with Fountain Hill's designation as a dark sky community. We are so lucky to be one of the few communities worldwide with that designation, but some contractors and site planners may not be aware of how the lighting they choose impacts that status, thank you for reading my request." Cathy Sumard, Fountain Hills resident, wrote, "The Fountain Hills zoning ordinance currently does not include a required citizen participation process early in the design phase. I recommend that such a requirement be added to our zoning ordinance. Early in the process it is generally easier to impact the design of the property and buildings 7of17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 before a lot of design decisions are made and costs are incurred in the design process. The goal of the ordinance is to ensure a person owning property near a proposed development has the opportunity to be informed early in the design of a proposed development and provide early comments. Vote Yes!" Robert Wilson, Fountain Hills resident, wrote, "I am in full agreement that a required citizen participation process early in the design phase be added to our zoning ordinance. This includes outdoor lighting, which is critical to retaining the town's designation as a Dark Sky community!" Peggy Yeargain, Fountain Hills resident, wrote, "I support the adoption of this ordinance allowing residents to participate in early design reviews." Chairman Gray closed the public hearing. In response to Chairman Gray Mrs. Wesley replied that the Citizen Participation Ordinance applies to the applications that require a public hearing process. Most site plans would not require a citizen participation since it is administratively reviewed and there is no public hearing process. Chairman Gray stated that the perception may be that more applications will go through the Citizen Participation Ordinance process than those required. Never the less the big ticket items are processed through the proposed ordinance. Stakeholders and property owners will have an opportunity to provide input. Chairman Gray stated that since there was so much interest from the Dark Sky Community regarding this ordinance, is there a way to involve them in the process. Mr. Wesley replied that Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance lays out all the standards and requirements pertaining to the dark sky lighting ordinance. The Dark Sky Committee could be included in the notification list. This would include the Dark Sky Committee but not require feedback from them. This could be added to the required list for the ordinance or guidelines. He also suggested that Chapter 8 could be revised to include the Dark Sky where they could provide feedback to the applicant and Chairman Gray agreed. Dan Kovacevic stated that the dark sky lighting requirements are on the plan but the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot enforce that it actually happens. Mr. Wesley said that through the planning and building review process any noncompliance is called out and required to be corrected in order to get permit approval. This would include dark sky noncompliance. He said he was unaware of the dark sky lighting issue at the Morningstar mentioned earlier in the evening by Ted Blank. Mr. Wesley said he would research this issue further. As Dark Sky complaints come in they are addressed by staff. Commissioner Brunswig pointed out that if accommodations are made for one group what would prevent additional groups from wanting to be part of the ordinance. Mr. Wesley said that's a good point. If the Dark Sky Ordinance is amended it would 8of17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 allow the Dark Sky Committee to participate and provide feedback to the applicant and the Town. Commissioner Corey stated that the Dark Sky Committee helps the Town support the ordinance. He said that it was clear from the public speakers and comments that the community supports the dark sky. He said that staff should attend the citizen participation meeting to help facilitate and ensure the developer follows through on the plan. He asked, "How does the public stay involved throughout the whole review process?" Mr. Wesley replied that the developer is responsible for providing detailed meeting reports to the Town. The neighbors have an opportunity to comment on how the meeting transpired. If there is a conflict then staff would assist with a resolution. Staff would review a plan submittal and ensure the developer/applicant is holding the amount of meetings and providing public feedback appropriate to that particular project. The meetings could be held virtual, in person or one on one such as a door to door campaign. In regards, to a checklist, Mr. Wesley replied that staff currently does not have plans to use one. A checklist of everything in the ordinance would be so large and impossible to apply. In response to Chairman Gray Mr. Wesley replied that a note could be added to the text amendment that staff requires additional meetings. Discussion ensued regarding the stipulations to the ordinance. In response to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Wesley confirmed that the Dark Sky Ordinance is in compliance with the dark sky community requirements. The Town prepares an annual dark sky compliance report that includes light level readings. MOVED BY Chairman Peter Gray, SECONDED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey to forward a recommendation to Town Council to approve Ordinance 21-02, establishing Section 2.08, Citizen Participation, in the Zoning Ordinance. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously 7. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER Ordinance 21-06 amending the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 1 to change the definition of hospital and Chapter 12 to provide for hospitals as a permitted use. Z 2021-01 Mr. Wesley explained that this agenda item (#7) was continued from the April 12, 2021 and May 10, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission agendas for consideration of alternative zoning allowances. Mr. Wesley gave a PowerPoint presentation which addressed: Purpose 9of17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 Proposed Text Amendment Staff Recommendation He said the purpose of this agenda item is to update the zoning ordinance to reflect the decision that was already made by Town Council and to list hospitals as a permitted use in the Town. The Commission's recommendation to allow hospitals in a C-1 zoning district was supported by Town Council. C-1 zoning for a recent application was subject to approval with a Special Use Permit for the 24-hour operation of the hospital. Although the recent hospital applicant was allowed in the C-1 zoning district, the Commission expressed concern at a previous meeting regarding hospitals allowed in the C-1 zoning district. The zoning is such that a hospital in a C-1 zoning district would need a SUP in order to operate beyond the mandated hours. Also the Town Council has the authority to decide which zoning district a use should be permitted. At the May 10, 2021 meeting the Commission expressed concern about what is meant by the term "hospital." Staff heard the Commission's request to see a definition that would limit or prohibit the opportunity for behavioral health or substance abuse facilities to be considered a hospital and allowed in this zoning. Staff researched other communities in Arizona to see what zoning districts were used to allow hospitals. Most communities allowed them in similar districts to the Town's C-1 and C -C by right or through a conditional use permit. None of the communities excluded hospitals from the typical neighborhood -office and commercial zoning districts. Mr. Wesley explained that the proposed ordinances option one, would allow hospitals in the C-1 and C -C zoning districts with approval of a SUP for hours between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and in the C-2 and C-3 by right. Option two would be hospitals in C-2 and C-3 only. The proposed ordinance would also address the concern regarding the definition of hospital by stating facilities operating as behavioral health hospitals or detoxification facilities would not be included. Staff recommends approval of the modified hospital definition and option one allowing hospitals in the C-1 and C -C with a SUP and in the C-2 and C-3 by right. In response to Commissioner Watts Mr. Wesley said that there are no time limits of care listed in the zoning ordinance. Those regulations would probably come from other state rules or Medicare guidelines. Mr. Wesley said that he was not aware of any detox facilities in Fountain Hills. There are sober living homes in Fountain Hills that fall under the group home classification. There is one treatment facility, outpatient treatment where patients recovering from chemical dependencies go during the day. Any types of those facilities are not hospitals so they don't fit into this definition. Chairman Gray said that often in marketing campaigns the word hospital is used for sober living and detox centers even though they are not hospitals. Under the ordinance they are recognized as sober living. Commissioner Corey stated that he struggles with the understanding that a hospital is classified this way but not behavioral health. 10 of 17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 Mr. Wesley replied that to protect the interest of the town and looking to other municipalities ordinances, specific sub categories were created. Someday when the Town receives an application for a behavioral health facility this same process will take place. Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. Crystal Kavanaugh said that she supports the tightening up and specifying the hospital definition to protect Fountain Hills. She expressed concern regarding the proposed definition language not being detailed enough regarding behavioral health. Behavioral health should be excluded from C-2 and C-3. She asked that the definition be very clear so that future applications would not be misled. She suggested perhaps the town's attorney should review to ensure every aspect and the intention is covered. Dr. Schleifer, Fountain Hills Medical Center, told the Commission that the proposed ordinance definition is spot on. He explained the difference between acute behavioral health crisis and long-term behavioral health care. He said that emergent behavioral health cannot be deleted from a hospital definition because it is provided in an emergency situation. Some examples would be suicide, alcohol withdrawal and drug overdose. After these emergency situations are stabilized, the patient is transferred to a behavioral health facility. He said that he works at the largest hospital system in the valley and they do not provide in house behavioral health services. Fountain Hills Medical Center (hospital) is not licensed to provide in house behavioral health services. Cindy Golisch, Fountain Hills Medical Center, said that they were very comfortable with the proposed ordinance definition. Larry Meyers, Fountain Hills resident, said that he agreed with Dr. Schleifer. He said that the roots of this discussion did not stem from the hospital at Trevino and Saguaro Blvd. It stems from a detoxification center where people's treatment reoccurs. Sub -acute detoxification and behavioral health is something this town does not want. He referenced a facility at 28th street and Cactus where people live in their cars on an adjacent property to the sub -acute treatment facility. He said that people often show up at these facilities for treatment hanging around until they are admitted. Usually if there is a detox facility there are sober living homes. The patients are released to somewhere such as a sober living home. Fountain Hills already has a number of these homes. He said he liked the idea of excluding behavioral health in the definition so it cannot be lumped in with the hospitals. Chairman Gray closed the public hearing. Discussion ensured relative to specific types of outpatient behavioral health services and zoning districts. Mr. Wesley said that there are a lot of questions regarding the current code. He said that his intention is to review and update the codes. 11 of 17 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2021 Chairman Gray suggested word changes to the proposed ordinance. Chairman Gray asked for a vote. MOVED BY Chairman Peter Gray, SECONDED BY Commissioner Jessie Brunswig to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve Ordinance 21-06 to utilize the base language allowing for hospitals under the proposed definition across C-1, C -C, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts and also with the proposed text amendment, to the definition of hospital, specifically sentence four — " This definition shall not include nor provisions for outpatient and inpatient services defined or classified under the umbrella of behavioral health including chemical dependency with the exception of the emergent, initial point of care treatment typical of an emergency department." Vote: 5 - 1 NAY: Commissioner Clayton Corey 8. CONSIDERATION OF Ordinance 21-11, amending Section 11-1-7, Noise, of the Town Code. Z 2021-03 Mr. Wesley explained that normally proposed changes to the Town Code do not go before the Planning and Zoning Commission but felt it would be helpful to receive the Commissions' input. The noise ordinance has been challenging to enforce regarding party house noise. The current ordinance is not enforceable by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The Town, the Town attorney and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office met to review and suggest changes in order to better address noise complaints pertaining to the party houses. Mr. Wesley gave a PowerPoint presentation that addressed: Purpose/Background Purposed Text Amendment A — amended Purpose to broaden the usage of this section of the ordinance 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 peace and quiet enjoyment of residential neighborhoods and business districts FROM UNNECESSARY, UNUSUAL, OR UNREASONABLE NOISE THAT IS EXCESSIVE, DISRUPTIVE, AND/OR ANNOYING AGAINST THE NEED TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS, AND RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY, MAINTENANCE, AND against unreeisonable noise with the legitimate goal of promoting 2111d rowth in the community. A — amended Purpose to broaden the usage of this section of the ordinance Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote the health and general welfare of 12 of 17