Downtown Overlay District Stripped of Ground-Floor Use Restrictions in Stunning Reversal; Density Raised to Match South Side

This is the planning and zoning commission meeting June 9th, 2025. It's called to order. Uh let's all stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nationy and justice for all. Uh Paula, can we take the role please? Chairman Kovacic here. Vice Chair Corey here. Commissioner Seam here. Commissioner Schlloberg here. Commissioner Corey. Oh, I beg your pardon. Excuse me.

Commissioner Corrian here, Commissioner Proctctor here, and Commissioner Gray is absent. Okay. Call the public. Do we have any speaker cards? No, chair. Okay. Item number four, consideration and possible action approving the regular meeting minutes of the planning and zoning commission, April 21st and May 12th, 2025. Can I get a motion to approve? Motion to approve the minutes. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I opposed. 6. Okay.

Item number five, consideration of possible action ordinance 25-02 amending the Fountain Hill zoning ordinance to add chapter 27 downtown overlay district. Director West. Commissioners. Good evening. Let me get this running here. Here we go. Good to see you this evening. We've been discussing this downtown overlay for a few meetings now and keep uh hearing some additional ideas and thoughts and comments.

So, we'll take a try it again tonight and hopefully we can get to recommendation on to town council. So, again, just a couple of background slides to in case anybody hasn't been following this before.

Council approved a downtown strategy uh last September after a period of studying work uh by the staff getting input from the public and some of the main points that we're look for through that downtown strategy to is to have a more active and vibrant avenue uh more employment opportunities in the area more mixed use and to find ways to better use and maintain some of the vacant properties until they can be developed.

So, there are several things that are being worked on uh by staff to help implement that strategy. One of which is to update our zoning in the area. Currently, um most of the downtown area is zoned C2. We have one small spot of C3PD. Downtown currently has two overlay districts, entertainment and a planned shopping plaza overlay. The two overlays, uh the entertainment overlay primarily, uh provides for some outdoor entertainment type activities. allow some noise and things to occur outside.

And then the uh plan shopping plaza overlay, its primary objective is to allow the development of the small lots and then use the common parking field. Um so having those two uh overlays that do similar but different things in the same area provides a little bit of a challenge as we work with people uh trying to develop in the area and point them to two different overlays. So one of our objectives here is to just combine those two overlays.

So in the future as uh people are trying to look at what they can do and can't do with the property, it's easier to understand by having just the one overlay. Uh otherwise, excuse me, u we have noted that uh the existing entertainment overlay that's been in place since 2016 really hasn't led to any entertainment activities happening on the avenue. So, Fredas is the only outdoor uh type of restaurant on the north side of the avenue and it was there prior to this ordinance going into place.

Other goals within the proposed ordinance then is to increase the byite residential uses so we can get that more mixeduse atmosphere, more people living downtown to work and shop in the downtown area, increase that vibrancy and activity and then again to increase the employment opportunities. So, we proposed a new downtown overlay ordinance and divided that into three districts because of the needs of uh the area are slightly different as we move across it.

So, we'll talk about each of those again this evening. First, the Avenue district uh that maintains the uses permitted by Wright in the C1 CC and two C2 zoning districts, but there's a uh modification to that that's been proposed in the draft ordinance that we've been talking about and that is within 50 ft of the uh street fronts for ground floor uses that there'd be some limitations placed there. Still a wide list of uses that are available as shown on the screen.

We've provided to the commissioners and the public previously a more extensive list of what those uses would be. One of the things we keep kind of hearing some push back on, oh, you're only going to allow restaurants on the ground floor. Well, no, it's more than restaurants. It's more than bars. It's a lot of retail uh and active other uses that can happen on the ground floors through this ordinance. It's primarily the office uses uh that we're trying to uh reduce over time.

And again, just to remind everyone, if this ordinance were approved and adopted as proposed, all the existing uses can stay where they are and they can still be there many years in the future. It's when places become vacant and new leases are being filled, somebody else is moving in, that's when the changes would happen, when the new code would apply. So, nobody has to leave or move out if this gets approved.

Also then in the U Avenue avenue district in terms of special use permits uh that would be available to allow excuse me different different thought here. One of the questions or comments that's come up as we've talked about continue to talk about the idea of the SUP for the ground floor uses that right now in order to get an SUP it's a process that uh has a application fee I believe of $2,000 something in that range. um and that it requires certain amount of notice and citizen participation.

Maybe for this type of consideration of SUP, those requirements are a little bit more than are necessary. You may recall for those of you who've been on the commission for a while uh year or so ago, we created a front yard patio SU option. And with that, uh, you only pay it's either 10 or 20% of the application fee and you only notice a budding property owners instead of what you would with a larger SU.

So, that's an option here too if the commission would want to consider that uh in order to make the SUP maybe not quite such a challenge. the uh Avenue District continues to allow the uh entertainment uh overlay uh as currently provided with one change and that is that instead of having to go to the town council to get the encroachment permit that we would have that approved by the town engineer. So it simplifies that process for for that particular area.

It also uh proposes to increase the allowable residential density by right from eight units per acre up to 30 units per acre. And as I outlined in the staff report, uh staff could easily support 45 uh units per breaker. That would be uh similar to what Park Place is and what you've approved in other SUPs already in the area. The SUPs though allow the um residential density. The SP could again be used to allow residential density even more uh than the 45 or wherever you end up on second floors.

But in the Avenue district, it does not allow residential by right or through SUP on the first floor because again we're trying to create those active uses on the first floor. There's also some discussion previously about the boundary uh and we've talked about several options and those other options are still on the table if the commission would want to modify these district options.

But one of the things we've had some significant discussion about is this corner over here of Avenue uh and Law Montana and the former Washington Federal Building and the way that particular property has developed over the years being subdivided into three lots built with some pretty large buildings and not much parking. The options for what can happen on that property is a little bit more limited than some of the other areas along the avenue.

So, uh, staff is now suggesting that we could easily amend that and is recommending that we take those that corner out of the avenue district to make it part of the business district. But again, that's subject to your uh direction here at the end. So then the business district and I went ahead and showed that modified boundary here. Again, this district continues to allow the same uh uses CO through C2.

It keeps the overlay district, the entertainment overlay district as it is with one exception. That is, it removes the byite allowance for out on the rideway. When you think about and look at the business district and the sidewalks that are available, those are narrow sidewalks out by the street versus what we have along the avenue. And so having that by right doesn't make as much sense there.

in the future as things change, it could still happen because encroachment permits can be requested any place, but it's not not uh as directly allowed for in the code. But otherwise, you could still have the outdoor activities uh in the parking lots and the private properties that allowed through the uh entertainment district today. And then also the same thing with regard to the residential use proposing the increase from 8 to at least 30 or maybe the 45.

here you could get SUPs for ground floor and upper floors uh for residential the innovation district the area north of Palisades uh really there's been no changes in this particular piece as we've talked about it over the last couple of months the main goal here is to increase some of the employment activities that can occur with some light manufacturing lab space uh those types of things currently with the C2 zoning that's in the area residential uses are allowed through a special use permit So, we have included that in the overlay.

We have we haven't done anything in the overlay to exclude that. There's been some discussion by commissioners that maybe we do want to exclude residential uses in this particular district. And so, again, we could amend the code to do that as directed by the commission. The overlay district also provides some opportunity for temporary uses of the vacant lots.

tries to make it a little bit easier through some guidelines that provided previously to the commissioners uh developed by the zoning administrator and town engineer to let people come in and and do some fairly minimal improvements on a lot and use it on a temporary basis until the market justifies more significant development. We hope that would clean them up a little bit more again generate more activity in the area.

Another area that we've had some discussion about has been the uh common parking area and its allowances. Uh at this point, the draft ordinance proposes no changes to what's in the code and what's been there for uh several years. As this uh ordinance was developed many years ago, it allowed for all the lots of 10,800 square feet or smaller to not have to provide any on-site parking. That the large lots in Plateau8 would provide all the parking as well as the on- street parking.

But there are five larger corner lots ranging from a little over 30,000 to a little over 40,000 square feet. Those were required to provide all their own parking initially. When we updated this ordinance a few years ago, we did make an allowance that they could request to an SUP to uh get a 50% parking reduction. Let the plateau 8 parking lot provide the rest of that parking.

There's been some suggestion that we ought to uh remove the parking requirement for all those lots and just make that equal for everybody. Um and just uh let the plateau wait to cover all of it. Here are just a couple of examples of had some time to look at that a little closer using the Chase Bank as an example. That lot has a little over 40,000 square feet of buildable area.

If you had a if they weren't required to buy any of their own parking and they can build a twostory commercial building on that lot, they would be required or need 290 parking spaces. Well, that's about um half of what's available in that block then used up by that building. Or if they did say a three-story mixed juice building with ground floor residential and two stories of of ground flooror commercial and two stories of residential, you know, they would need about 190 parking spaces.

So again, that's about a third of what's available in that block. If we take all the five larger lots, add them together, build them at onetory commercial buildings, uh they would need over 1300 parking spaces. There's only around 2500 available altogether in this area, including on street parking. So staff sees some trouble with just totally eliminating the parking unless you also do something to keep the uses that could happen uh in line.

We think the the ordinance is probably best left where it is at in this regard. Setbacks uh continue to allow the same setbacks as u stated in the ordinance, zero setbacks on most of the properties. We did include in the draft ordinance uh recommendation for a bill line. They're trying to create that urban uh street wall kind of uh scenario and um that helps with the pedestrian interest and and viability along the street.

It was noted in the previous meeting that there are a few places where maybe that that doesn't work and showing you one here along Park View where there is actually a 20 foot front setback on the plat. And so, uh, if we keep this, uh, bill two line, it probably needs to be language needs to be modified just a little bit to include an exception if there are any easements or setback requirements that conflict with that.

So, with that, uh, staff again is recommending approval of the ordinance that has been submitted to you with some direction on a couple of these topics as presented. What is the maximum density we really think is appropriate for the the downtown area? uh revised boundary possibly on the Avenue district.

Uh directions if you want to uh simplify the SUP process for somebody wanting to use uh uh the avenue for use that would not be permitted by right and then also adjusting the bill 2 language to recognize easements or building setbacks that that would push a building back. With that, I'll take any questions you have at this time. Commissioner Span here. Uh John, can you put up Can you put up the uh business district map again?

What what was the comment regarding sidewalk uh use on Park View and Verie River in the existing entertainment overlay district. It allows use of the public rideway for outdoor events, activities, and have the noise and whatever that goes on. Uh the suggestion is that because we really don't have the same types of sidewalks on Verie River and Park View that we do along the avenue for those types of events to occur in the public rideway that uh removing that as an easy use.

Uh you could still potentially do it by coming and requesting the the um encroachment permit, but it doesn't make as much sense just to make it a stated use. Well, since since those two streets are being redeveloped, would would it not be part of it to consider widening the sidewalks there to allow for for use of that public space? Chair, commissioner, to get to that level, we would need sidewalks at least 15 feet wide. And I can't remember for sure. 8 feet, 10 feet.

I can't I can't remember what we looked at, but there what's being proposed at this point isn't wide enough. And plus, they're detached so much from the businesses most places because you got the business, a parking lot, and then the sidewalk. I think if you're going to go outside, you're probably going to go in the parking lots instead of out to the sidewalk along Park View. Well, there'll be parking behind the establishment. Right.

I'm not sure, but I I'm not understand what you said about the So, access to those. So, again, okay, Commissioner. So, along Park View, your business is back here and you've got a parking lot and then we're talking about sidewalks out here. So, you're less likely to go all the way out to the sidewalk. If you're going to do something outside, you're probably going to be doing in the parking lot. My apologies. I I I was guess I was more referring to Birdie River. Okay.

That is a little bit different. Uh by the time you get uh down this far from the avenue, the sidewalks and the the slopes there aren't going to be that wide. Great, Commissioner Corey. Thank you, Chair. Um, I think in that example, a visual can really help.

It's hard to picture what we're looking at without actually seeing something, but just to reiterate reiterate what my colleague said, and I I said this a couple times before on Verie, we should make sure that we're prioritizing that as the kind of the gateway to the business district. So making sure that those sidewalks are wide enough for people to see that as an entrance and not just a small sidewalk along the parking lot.

So my point is we can get creative with the ways that the cars park along that street. And I would say we don't need to consume all of that with parking spaces. We can make some of that more uh more sidewalk, better walkability because we really want to make sure we connect people from the entertainment district to the business district and that's the way to do that. Um, and then I have a question, John. You were talking about setbacks earlier.

Can you go back to that slide for a minute and just clarify for me? Um the setbacks, are we saying that we are looking for consistency with the setback of the buildings that would be in that area, the setback of the actual structure of the building? And the reason I asked that is let's say that um a cafe or something wanted to open up on uh in the business district.

Would they be able to have a setback that's further back so that they could have seating and a place for like um chairs and tables to be or is that very consistent where that building line is going to be? Does that make sense the way I'm asking that? Yes, it does. Okay. Chair, commissioner. So, the way the ordinance is being proposed, the uh 70% of the building wall would need to be within 5T of their front property line.

And so, they would have a little bit of space on their property potentially um for any outdoor seating, but they would also then look at using the sidewalk that's in front of the business between there and the parking lot to expand out into the way this is currently drafted. So, there's some options there. Maybe it needs to be more of less of a bill two line. Maybe it should only apply to the Avenue district and not the entire area.

Um, but we are looking for that opportunity to create that consistency here except leads to walkability and interest and and so forth in an urban type area. So, a follow-up question then. Um, would that build to line does that mean that the actual full face of the building needs to be to that point or could they build a patio that is to that line so that maybe more of the seating can be kind of incorporated into the structure? Commissioner um again a picture would be tell a thousand words here.

Right. Sorry, I don't have one. But, uh, as drafted, it's 70% 70% of the frontage. So, you have 30% that can be set back however far. So, that does leaves you some room where where the there can be more some room left uh for some outdoor activity, outdoor seating. If you think of uh some older main street type settings, a lot of times you'd have some uh display space and then it angles back for more display space before you get to the door.

And so it allows for at least some of that type of activity to occur. Um so you can create so if it was 100 ft 70t would have to be built too and 30 feet they would have some flexibility. Correct. It's kind of limiting. I don't know if that's enough space for just kind of seems kind of restrictive there if it's a small space, you know. Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. Um, nice work on this, John. Um, you obviously incorporated some aspects of form-based code in here. Um, peacem.

Um, I I'd like to if you've had sight of the Chamber of Commerce's uh concerns, uh, I'd really enjoy hearing your perspective on their concerns with restrictive reasonzoning. Uh, chair, commissioner, I certainly understand uh, the concern. Anytime you start limiting uses of property, you can make it more challenging in the future about what can happen there. and you have the potential that a a building sits vacant because they can't find the specific uses that are allowed.

Uh at the same time, however, again, as you look back at the list of what is allowed, it's still a very wide range of things that are allowed by right and we've left the door open for the things that aren't the preference because you can still apply for the special use permit to get the full range of uses.

So, if the market really doesn't support uh the retail type activity and offices are really the only thing that that are viable, then they can apply for that and and it can be granted and and they're still occupying their building. Okay. Uh one one other question. Um, would you agree with my off-the- cuff assessment that the chamber's incentives and creative strategies uh that they articulated in their memo today are not mutually exclusive of the ordinance in which we're proposing the resoning?

The chair, Commissioner. Absolutely. Commissioner Coran, just to amplify um Nick's question in regard to the new plan, the overlay, Avenue of the Fountains would have a a larger sidewalk. Is that correct in the new overlay? Uh beyond the existing sidewalk area. Is that correct? Uh chair, commissioner, the overlay itself does nothing to widen the sidewalk.

That was a separate public works project to widen the sidewalk that at least at this point has been pushed back in time in favor of improving Verie River and Park View. Okay. Because I did notice that the the Mexican restaurant on Avenue of the Fountains, the existing remaining uh sidewalk is pretty narrow. I think it's about five or six feet where they have pushed back the patio concept.

And to Commissioners Cory Cory's question, just to amplify that a little bit, um, if we do the same thing with patio u, and in that area and extend that district, uh, do we risk the same thing where we narrow the sidewalk where the patio is is popped out or pushed out? Um, and how do we overcome that uh concern? Chair, Commissioner Corgan.

So, if we were to get any additional requests for uh use of the public rideway, those encroachment permits, uh we would as staff anyway be looking at making sure we maintain uh ADA accessible sidewalk in those areas. So, uh I'm not sure if town engineer have to answer that for sure. Five or six feet uh and hopefully we wouldn't end up with the same type of situation that we did with the existing restaurant. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Slober. Yes, John, just so I'm clear.

So, I'm going to use myself as an example again with the restriction on the avenue. So, assuming there's a vacancy that I want to occupy that's on the ground floor and assuming this overlay passes and I'm going to have to apply for a special use permit, then it's going to come to planning and zoning first, which I assume I'd abstain from, and then assuming it's sent on goes on to council.

So each particular unit is going to end up at town council to be voted on assuming it makes it through planning and zoning. So yeah, chair, commissioner, um yes, if this ordinance were to pass as written within for any of the uh spaces that are within 50 ft of the avenue right away, if they become vacant and wanted to fill with an office use or one of the ones that's not on the list, yes, they would have to apply for the special use per council for final action. Commissioner Sevilla, thanks.

Um, John, you and I have talked about all of this and and I I've and in meetings as well, I've expressed my concern about uh having an exclusive um retail entertainment uh use on first floor. And I still feel very strongly about that as far as having that that restriction. I think it's there's a rippling effect to uh property owners that can impact underwriting for financing. that can make it more difficult for uh for them to fill their space in in times of recession or pandemic.

Um that I don't think at this point in time the avenue is I think I'm I'm more of a market driven individual that feels that if if there's the the market for a restaurant to go in a specific place that currently holds a service industry that a landlord will seriously consider that when a lease expires. Um, I understand the SU process, but I also don't I don't trust the political process of gaining that approval. Um, no, no offense intended by present or future councils, but I I think that's it.

There's a tremendous risk that property owners are taking. There's risk that that every one of the small business owners are are taking being on the avenue or being anywhere. Um, life savings, it's their whole life. And I think providing or or suggesting any type of restriction to use of first floor is is wrong.

Um, at at some point in time organically, if the avenue becomes a point where there's more demand for restaurant and more entertainment and other types of of these types of uh uses, then the the property owner will be very interested in having uh a tenant such as a restaurant or some other sales tax generating business. I just don't think at this point in time that it's that it's right. Um, I think part of this is cart before the horse.

The the avenue should be redesigned uh to the point where it's part of the program for uh in in in addition to the two streets that are being uh redeveloped that taking this time to redesign the avenue, what it could uh take into account all the many comments the chamber and and the merchants have put forward.

Um and then at that point in time to if it wants if you feel like there's a significant offering that the avenue is providing property owners then it'll be easily digested by property owners at that time because there will be a demand for other uses. But I just don't I just don't believe in in putting that kind of restriction on the use of first floor space. And I I think I've been consistent with all that. I just haven't seen anything to change my mind about it.

Um, so I I hope that that we can eliminate that part of it because I think we, you know, you you you plan for the worst and hope for the best. And I I think with the economic conditions can change, it can put a a very um a property owner in a in a very difficult position by having restrictions on their space. So that's my opinion. I and I have to follow that. I've looked at and we've talked so much about it. I haven't changed I haven't changed my opinion. Thank you.

Um I just have one one quick question and then uh we'd go on to speaker cards and then we would come back and have further discussion after. Are you going to read chair? No, I was going to do that after the speaker cards. But uh my question would be Parkplace. It was zoned for 50 units an acre, right? And then they build it to 45. So, yes. Is Is that the case? I believe that's correct. I think I had it in the report. Okay.

So, we wouldn't um we wouldn't be breaking new ground if we went ahead and said residential in this area could be 50 units an acre. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Um Paula, are there Well, commissioners, any other questions for John? Paula, are there any speaker cards? There are, chair, there are two speaker cards. The first speaker is Dory Whitidge. And the second speaker is Roger Issacs. Roger's better at this. He was supposed to go before me. My name is Dory Witriick.

Um I own ReMax Sun properties out here and another business or two. And I own two buildings on the Avenue of the Fountains. Uh my square footage uh totals about 11,000 to 12,000 square feet. I bought them as office buildings, retail buildings. Um, you know, I I I get what's trying to happen here, but let me just say a few moments, a few things. So, I'm what you would call a small business person and a small building owner, I guess.

Um, but my businesses have had a really big impact on our community over the years. I didn't purchase restaurant buildings. I purchased two buildings that were built without any thought of the electrical requirements, the plumbing, the specialty requirements that a restaurant requires to turn those buildings into restaurant buildings. And to do so, I've already done some renovations in my buildings.

And I can tell you that there is that is not an investment that can be made in those old buildings that makes sense for anybody. And I bought my buildings at a at a period of time when, you know, the prices were lower. So, what are you trying to do to us? What does the town try to do to us?

Um, in the spirit of going along with your plan, with the plan, not your plan, but the plan, I've created a space along the Avenue of the Fountains called Collaborate for um small businesses and and retailers and services. I will tell you that in our small town, small businesses really struggle to get these businesses up and running and their fail rate is disheartening. I think you already know that.

You think you can create an area that rivals downtown Scottsdale or some other dining mecca, but at most we will have 32,000 residents in this community. And the statistics for that population have a limit to the number of diners, drinkers, and merry makers that will be in our downtown on any given night.

So now you're trying to force a small building owner like me to spend money on buildings that will be leased very difficult to lease and may not even lease up with what I'm going to have to lease it up with those investments. The dream of a restaurant culture is manifested when you have the people living here to make it worthwhile to your point of the organic growth.

those restaurants um will see guests when we have people downtown and you have taken many leaps forward recently to allow for more bodies in the downtown. Let that happen. Put this off a little while. It's not necessary and it's very harmful to business owners and building owners like myself. Thank you. Roger Issacs. I've been here so many times now I won't even introduce myself.

Um I just wanted to take a minute and first say that um in going through this process um I I think that John his staff has done a good job trying to respond to specific adjustments that could be made. Uh, one of the adjustments made last time puts me in kind of an awkward situation because they said, "Okay, well, your property is different. Things you've been saying is true.

Let's pull it out of the Avenue district." So, I could stay seated and not say anything, but I feel obligated to say, "Hey, I was out here for myself. I can do a lot of different things with my lot. I'm trying to point out some of the detailed problems I have with what I consider to be the prime focus of this from my point of view and that's for some reason the weaponization of planning and zoning overlay. I haven't seen this in other communities.

In fact, I want to share with you that when I talked about this with uh one of the other owners on our property who owns property in downtown Scottsdale and downtown Fountain Hills, he said, "I don't understand why Fountain Hills planning and zoning is taking this approach. Downtown Scottsdale does some similar to similar to this, but they did exactly the opposite.

What they did was they told the comm uh the developers and entrepreneurs that wanted to put in bars and restaurants that if you want to get a liquor license in Scottdale, we want you to be in this area of town. By doing that, they caused people that were looking to fill vacant areas to realize this is the easy route. So, they took exactly the opposite approach.

Instead of saying you can't have these businesses in downtown Scottdale, they said, "We'd like downtown Scottsdale to be an entertainment area. That's where we think we want law enforcement to be on Friday and Saturday nights. So, if you want a liquor license, this is where you need to be." And he's got property there. He's got property here.

and he's asking me, "Why are we doing this backwards?" And I said, "I don't know." In fact, if you walk the streets out here right now, I'd say, "Why is there a new restaurant going in down at Fountain Side underneath residential owners that are have got lawyers to try to fight it? Why is there I just saw the first time there's another restaurant going in on the Southside Avenue?" And so, I believe that what's going to happen is you're not actually going to incite change with this.

people aren't going to come in and put bars and restaurants on the north side in office buildings without adequate parking. Um, so I guess it's kind of like that one of the movies I kind of formative for me and where they conclude it just doesn't matter. And I'm going to tell you that I'd like to see you vote on this, but I'd hope that if you vote on this, you do give John the full SUP experience. And if you vote it down, then he can come back in a year and try to repropose that.

Because one of the things I think I've learned through this process is that there is a lot of pain with this process. There's a lot of delays. To get an SUP is not, well, they can ask for an SUP. An SP cost people thousands of dollars. So, I think there's some goodness here and I I would encourage you to consider voting and also I'd consider you guys looking at changing how the SUP works. Any other speakers? No, chair. Okay.

Um, commissioners, I'd like to read Commissioner Gray's uh comments on on the on the downtown overlay into the record. Um, and this is from Peter Gray. Commissioners, as the commission deliberates on ordinance 25-2 this evening on the proposed downtown overlay, I want to begin by addressing a key point raised by the Chamber of Commerce in their letter received June 9th, 25.

While I don't often find myself in alignment with the chamber, in this case, I'm in full agreement with a few of the recommendations. public private partnerships, joint grant applications, and structured incentive programs should and must be part of our strategy. If we are serious about revitalizing our downtown, these tools must be deployed on a grand and coordinated scale.

I also understand the reservations and burden this may place on existing businesses, and I think we need to accept that burden. To a degree, some of the reservations expressed by the chamber will be realized. While I respect the chamber's obligation to advocate for its members, we all must also recognize that as with signage, zoning, and every other area of regulation, we cannot be all things to all stakeholders all the time and be advocates for change and improvement.

Let's also be honest about the composition of the avenue today. The current construct of the avenue is a patchwork quilt of low rent service entities as infill the cumulative result of decades without a cohesive framework or vision. This overlay is our opportunity to change that to replace randomness with intention and stagnation with momentum. Our responsibility is to the long-term vision and vitality of Fountain Hills.

Towns like ours are not without options to mitigate burdens to stakeholders. We can and should pursue grant programs and partner with developers through incentivebased agreements that align with the overlays vision. These partnerships can unlock funding, reduce risk, and accelerate reinvestment. A key part of that momentum is residential density. I would like to see the allowable density increase to 50 units an acre, aligning with what is already permitted on the south side of the street.

This level of density is essential to achieving the critical mass needed to support walkability, retail, and a vibrant street life. It doesn't make much sense to me to allow it on one side of the street, but not the other. We must also address the corner lots with clarity. These parcels are pivotal. If we do not act decisively, they will never be redeveloped. I don't yet appreciate the influence or veto power of plat 208.

However, I strongly advocate for the total removal of self-parking requirements on these lots except for essential back of house services. Requiring on-site parking on these constrained parcels is a non-starter. It is incompatible with the form, scale, and economic feasibility of the kind of development we want to see. Instead, we must enable a full decanting of parking demand into shared resources like plat 208 and adjacent street parking. This is how we unlock these sites.

This is how we move the first chest pieces. So, that's Commissioner's Gray take on it. Um I'd like to hear from the other commissioners um that we've heard from. Okay. Commissioner Corey. All right, I'll start. Thank you, chair. Um, and thank you to our speakers tonight and to the chambers um, letter earlier that provided some insight. And I think there's kind of three themes that I see here. And the first one is I would say tenant diversity.

Um, I I tend to agree that, you know, like Dory was saying, she bought a property and was expecting to be able to provide a certain service. And I think that we are going to be doing an injustice to our business owners or commercial property owners if we are too restrictive on what those businesses are. And I think there's also risk if we limit it to having more like long-term vacancy. We've seen vacancy over the years.

And if we are restricting what can go in there, how could that impact more vacancy? Um, I think that's definitely a risk. Um, and then like we heard tonight, you know, some of those buildings were designed specifically for a specific service like maybe their office space um, and they can't easily be converted into something that fits within that.

And I know we have a lot of variety in the entertainment district that we're saying, but um but it's not not all the businesses are going to fit in that kind of square hole. Um there we're not designed for retail or entertainment, I'll say. So I think that's another risk there. Um so that's the first one is the tenant diversity.

I think like my colleague here said it will happen organically and I think that if we proceed to the next step which is residential density which we heard from um the other colleagues here then it will happen organically. We are already working on building out downtown. We have the next building going in that Bart's putting up. Um I completely agree with increasing the residential density to match the other side of the street.

And I think when we bring more people in, that will organically help the businesses um, you know, create a thriving downtown for our businesses. And I think we heard this tonight, they're going to want to go where the traffic is. So, you know, let them go where they want to go. They're going to pick the right place, the right spot for their business. Um, so residential density, I would agree with increasing to 45 units per acre.

Um, and then the last kind of comment here I have is around parking. And I think I saw this in your presentation tonight is I think we should relax the parking concerns for now because we know that we always have an abundance of parking unless it's one of those key signature events that bring a lot of people down here. That's the only time that I ever see that our parking lots are full. And when that happens, cars park on the street and it's not an issue.

But we seem to always be bringing up where people are going to park and if we put a business here, where are they going to park? And are we going to have enough spaces? And I get it. But I don't know that that should be a concern right now because we have plenty of parking. I I completely agree with the recommendation to allow the corner lots to just use plate 208. Use the parking.

Like I've said many times in the past, when a visitor comes into town, they don't know where the designated parking is for each of the individual businesses they're going to go to. They just find an empty spot and they park there. So, I think we should just make that a lot more flexible for them. Don't restrict the parking. Allow common parking, which we know is generally underused, and let the corner lots use that parking. Um, and the I guess the last point is, you know, the SUP.

I know in the past I spoke to I would be willing to say yes, let's let's use an SUP um for the entertainment district to be able to provide a different type of service. And to the gentleman's point in the back um he mentioned the cost of the SUP and I just wanted to clarify we had discussed that the cost could be like 10% of the original fee. That was one of the ideas.

Um, but I think after the discussion we've had tonight and what we've heard from the chamber and different folks is I think that's just going to be a hurdle that we don't want to introduce right now. Uh, it's going to complicate things and I think we should just let the businesses go where they want to go. Trust that they're going to make the best judgment for their particular business. Bring in the people and let it happen organically. So those are my thoughts. Thank you. Commissioner Coran.

Uh, from what I've heard, the concerned uh, business owners in this particular area have a good point, have a valid point. I I did read the Chamber of Commerce letter and did uh, today receive uh, Peter Graves letter and and digested that, read it, and uh, he has some very valid points. Uh but I think the idea here would be to let free enterprise uh designate where growth happens.

I think uh the idea of trying to force a certain type of development in an area that just simply doesn't allow that economically is probably not such a it's it's a little too soon to try to step in and develop something that doesn't have an otherwise de designated development area. And free enterprise again is the best always in my opinion is always the best way to go because the economy free enterprise will determine where developments happen.

When those things happen, we can encourage those things and step in then beginning with planning and zoning and with the help of our great staff to to redevelop those areas that have that focus or attention. And in particular, I see this with the discovery center, the dark sky discovery discovery center that's going to make something happen. When it does, I think we can act quickly to do that. Um, and that's just kind of in in short a summary of my thoughts on it. Thank you. All right.

Um, my thoughts on the matter. Um, first, residential density. I think it should I think if the south side of the avenue is zoned for 50 units an acre, then the north side should be zoned for 50 units an acre. Um I I'm okay with the innovation district. I don't have any comments there. I don't have any comments on the business district. Uh I don't have any comments on temporary uses. Um the parking I have a I do have a question for you, John.

Uh the corner lots, they do they currently have a a 50% grace you uh using the plat 208 parking? Yes, chairman. When we updated the ordinance a few years ago, we uh put that 50% reduction in the code. Nobody's used it yet, but that is in there. Okay. Um, so I I I would want to keep that at least keep that if not wave.

Um, it it's but it does seem like it would be a burden to wave it completely when you've got if if Chase uh would use 290 parking spaces for to to build a to fully build out the project. Yes. Again, these are just hypothetical examples. If they were to clear that and start over, they really build two stories that fully covered the lot. Maybe it's not likely, but it could happen.

The code would allow it and then you're using a path of the parking spaces in that block for the one business or that one property. Yeah. So, I would in any I I wouldn't I'm not concerned about parking like I would agree with Vice Chair Corey um at this point. Uh and the build two lines are good. The issue I have and the issue it's in the back that's forefront in everybody's mind is demand.

And as a commission we would be remiss in making a recommendation to for this zoning if there weren't any demand. and and I think it's folly to make a recommendation without a retail site assessment to know what the demand would be for retail on the avenue and and for the uses that we're saying have to go on the north side of the avenue.

So, um, somehow or another, I would be okay recommending everything except the Avenue overlay until there was a retail site assessment uh, obtained and digested. Chair, if you don't mind, maybe I could say that a slightly different way is that you would be uh ready to recommend approval of the ordinance except for the restriction of the uses on the avenue with regard to the first floor. So, the thing shown here on on this screen, um we took that piece out, then you'd be okay with it.

So, with that, I'd like to have my the the uh commissioners Yeah. I I think we're going to be revisiting this again. I mean, if this is successful and retail is in demand and and things move as everybody hopes, parking is going to be an issue. We're gonna have to be looking at parking again at some point in time because I I think as as if if there's more and more restaurant uses that demands more parking that's closer to the front door.

Um there's, you know, appraisals that have to be done on for financing that that may jeopard be jeopardized because there's not easy access for their particular brand new restaurant they want to put in. So, I I think we're going to be we're going to have to be looking at the parking as the as the maybe the change or the evolution of the entertainment district continues on and hopefully we'll have to hopefully we'll have to discuss it. That'd be a good thing because there's so much demand.

But I I we're going to be seeing this. I think we're going to be seeing this again. So, can I make a motion? I I So I Yeah, I we want to make a motion. I just want to make sure that we do this right the first time. Um let's, you know, not have a quick second on the motion until we fully understand it. So, um John, can you summarize again what you just said about the the the ordinance? Sure.

Chair, I'll I'll do my piece and commissioner, you can see if this gets close enough to what what you were going to do in your motion. So recommend approval of the ordinance as drafted with increasing the residential density up to 50 units per acre, removing the restriction for ground floor uses in the avenue. Um, we're advising the boundary of the avenue so that it cuts off here and doesn't include this corner. Don't need to worry about the modified SU process.

Adjust the bill to language to recognize easements and building setbacks. And one thing I'm not covering here would be if you're making any change to the parking. Okay. The commissioners, we got all that. Phil, you want to make the motion? I'll I'll move approval with the the changes that John just explained. Is that okay? Uh, is that okay? It's fine by me. Again, you have all the changes. Oh, of course. Okay.

So, chair, again, that doesn't include any changing to the parking at this point, correct? No changes. Oh, okay. that yeah that means that the they got 50% grace on their parking to use plat 208 but they don't have unlimited grace. Okay. So, I will second my colleagues um motion, but I just want to clarify the third topic was the setbacks. Can you clarify what that modification was with the setbacks?

So, modified the language to recognize there place or two where there's some building setbacks, maybe some easements that it's going to push a building back more than that five feet. And so, we adjust the language to recognize it. Language. Okay. Yeah. So, yes, I I second that motion. Thank you. We ready to vote? Uh, can we have a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Commissioner Proctor, I. Commissioner Corrian, I. Commissioner Schllober, I. Commissioner Son, I, Vice Chair Corey, I.

Chair Kovacivic. Hi. 6. Okay. Uh, we move on. I can't find my agenda here. Okay. Okay. I uh agenda item six, review and discuss ordinances and requirements associated with regulating small cell wireless facilities in the public right of way. Okay. Chair and commissioners.

So, as you know, over the last few meetings, uh we've been working through the process of the uh instructions given by town council that this commission review the different ordinances regulations dealing with uh wireless telecommunications uh and antennas.

you have uh over the last few meetings reviewed the regulations in chapter 17 of the town co or the zoning ordinance which address everything on private property um and well really everything but small cell wireless in the rightway and so that's where we're at now in the process going through and understanding what we have and looking at what modifications you might want to make so I provided a report to you that's that uh provides some description of the different items that are out there for your consideration as you review this part of the project.

And so the first thing uh is Arizona revised statutes 9591 through 600 provide the framework uh that towns and cities must operate in in order to address small cell wireless uh facilities in the rideway. After uh the state adopted those rules back in 2017, 2018, whenever that was, then the town was obligated to put in place uh its rules consistent with the state statute.

That's when we adopted town code article 16-2 for small cell in the right of way as well as a number of supporting and implementing documents. the lease agreement uh that would be signed with the town, the uh standard terms and conditions, and then some design standards and guidelines. So again, the staff report steps through uh some of those documents. Again, they're quite lengthy, and so tried to pick out those things that I thought might be of most value for you to pay attention to.

Uh and I've summarized that even further here uh for the presentation this evening. Again, we're just starting a discussion so staff can see where the commission wants to go and and how we're going to proceed with this part of the topic. So again, uh definitions, there is a specific definition in state statute for what a small wireless facility is.

And then it tells us that authority basically local jurisdiction shall establish and make available rate fees and terms for small cell wireless in the rightway. There's limited zoning review and authorities shall approve an application unless it doesn't comply with some stated standards. And then also in state statutes, a jurisdiction can and cannot do. There's a list of some of those things. So shall process and take action with 150 days of complete application.

Shall not base decision on customer demand for service or quality of service and may adopt a reasonable appearance or concealment standards. So that gets into our design guidelines piece that we have. In terms of the town uh regulations, again, we have what's in 162 of the town code. That's pretty uh nuts and bolts of the process and the required documents. Doesn't really get into any detail.

The real detail of how we uh are regulating small cell in the rideway in Fountain Hills are contained in the terms and conditions. And it's a rather lengthy document. uh town council has uh sent all this to you. But as I look through it uh and what's in there, to me, it seems like the places for the commission to focus their review and discussion and possible modifications are in the sections listed here.

I think that's where we will find the meat of things that relate back to what this commission does and what the community's maybe been concerned about in terms of uh addressing this community's needs. And then the design guidelines um that sets the standards for what these can and can't look like as they're placed in the rideway. Most of what's in there is based on them going on existing light poles. And then an example of one being in a swirl cactus.

I believe the only other design that's in there. So maybe there other options by now that could be looked at in terms of design guidelines. That's certainly something we'll want to get commission direction on. Also included the campanali ordinance. We reviewed that heavily with regard to other portions of the uh wireless communication ordinance. In terms of uh that draft ordinance, it really did very little with regard to small cell in the right ofway.

It said if you're going to go uh colllocate on existing pole, then apply for building permit, it was the only thing that you had to do. And then beyond that, there was nothing specific about small cell in the rightway. And I believe that is the end of my review of what I've given to you for your review and discussion.

Again, this evening, we're looking we're just wanted to start this discussion and see how you'd like to handle moving forward and understanding what's what's there and what may be needed as we revise these ordinances. Um, do we have any questions for John right now before we go to speaker cards? Commissioner Corrian. Corgan. Thank you. And uh the Yeah, Commissioner Corrian. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Koivic. Uh just a clarification, John, on small cell.

Could you give a description of that and how FCC regulations cover that versus um now am I getting this confused? This is in chapter 16 versus chapter 17 where FCC requires certain uh strong um requirements versus chapter 16 which does not. Is that right? Chair Commissioner Corrian, let me um pull this up here. I got to wake this back up. And now I'm not getting my code right.

and um go into this to answer the first part of the question I believe um so the definition for small cell uh in state statute and I think you'll find it a number of places uh talks about certain things in terms of the size of the antenna the cubic feet that it covers as well as then the ground equipment a few other things like that anything that fits within that is small Well, um, so then when it comes though into the FCC and I think maybe you're going to some of the RF emissions and what those can or can't be, there's not anything in the state statute that addresses that.

So, as far as I would understand, they're still subject to those same emission limits of any other wireless facility um as regulated by the FCC.

So uh just to clarify additionally on that same topic the 50 foot is it 40T or 50T foot pardon me 40 foot or 50 foot that's the state limit that's not an FCC limit that's obviously a state limit is that correct uh so commissioner yes that's a state limit okay and there is a 40 foot and a 50 foot and I'd have to go back and and read them one has to do with whether it's a new tower or a collocation and what's within certain distances of And I I'd have to read it again to to say exactly what it is, but those are the two two limits that are out there.

From what I'm reading or understanding, it's 40 foot, but you have an allowance of 10 ft additional. Is that right? You could go to 50. I mean, according to what I see, I'm not sure. Chair Commissioner, again, I believe there are some conditions where that is the case, but again, it's it's very I'm going to say convoluted, and I have to read it every time to remember exactly how it applies where. Okay, good.

And in reference to that, so page 47 would be really chapter 16 in the campanelli part of the I'll call it a presentation or the documentation. Uh, and I'm referring to 162. Okay. Chapter 162 of the town code. Yeah. Yeah. So, in other words, uh, on page 47, there's a reference to 16-2.

That may be different than that's different I think because that's damage right that's the in the campanelli thing it's a damage issue coverage for damage or indemnification for damage okay so totally a different issue I I don't have mine opened up here the way you do to look at the page number to see exactly what you're on but if we're talking about 162 then we're talking about the town code article 162 but if you're in 172 then that would be something out of the campenelli ordinance okay good thanks for uh clarification on that.

Okay. Anybody else? Paula, do we have any speaker cards? Yes, chair. We have one speaker Lorie Troller. Good evening all. Lori Troller. Um, just to help you out a little bit, Matt, you were there. The 50- foot limit is a it is a Fountain Hills number and I believe John has a 10% allowance when on anything. So, if we have an ordinance that gives a number, you you've got another 10% give. I don't quite understand that. I know that. I I've heard this before.

So, anything that's 50 foot could go 55 ft with whatever allowance that you can explain that better than I can. So, anyway, um um I'm going to try and go over some terms that might help clarify a lot of stuff. The whole reason we're here, tele uh the federal government wrote a telecommunications act 1996 as it relates to the construction of the infrastructure for telecoms to build cell towers. And all of this is so everybody can make a 911 phone call.

It's not so your kids can stream super fast and it's not so you don't complain that you're not getting your movies. And Corey, I know you want fast service, but it's not going to be at the detriment of my front yard and a tower because my neighbors want this service that you really don't have the federal right to put a tower in somebody else's yard to get. We do have to put towers up for self-service. So, what we're talking about right now is this.

What you have to ask yourself is what is the service being provided on the tower that's being built. So if it's going to be the broadband stuff, put it underground. Goes underground. It's in underground in Anthem. It's underground in Davies, California. It's underground in Tennessee. It's underground in a lot of places. We put it underground. That's our standard in the town. It's either that or a whole bunch of towers. Um service-wise, it's better service. It's uninterrupted.

So we get a storm, we still have service. you put a cloud or dust in front of in between two two broadband towers because that that signal is much lighter in strength. So it's it's it's easier disturbed. So anything any dust that goes in between towers. You put it underground, you're not going to have that floods out, you're not going to have a problem. Um we just it's it's better service. It's actually faster service. Um, there's actually grants to build it underground.

Somehow people aren't looking at those, but there are grants and the our town has the ability to to get those grants, too. So, um, let's see what else. This the ordinance as Campanelli wrote it and as John kept the structure for, there's really four types. What you're looking at is it colllocated or is it not collo colllocated? So colllocated means Verizon built a tower and AT&T wants to put their antennas on it. That's colllocation. It's all that is.

So the ordinance as we have it right now is separated into four types. Are they colllocated or are they not colllocated? Am I okay to continue? Okay. And then the other question is so now if they're colllocated and not Hey, I can do that. Not colllocated. Are they new or are they um or I'm sorry, are they SWF? And I'll explain that in a second. Or are they not S SWF? So, what is S SWF? That's the question you asked. Um small wireless facility.

So, a personal you got to go all the way back to what a personal wireless facility is. Um and that it's it's simply a location with antennas on it for the purpose of telecommunications. That's all that is. than an SW. That's what a personal wireless facility is. So what's a small wireless facility?

A small wireless facility is a per personal wireless facility that has the limits that John was talking about whether it's the height or 3 cubic feet or 28 cubic feet of the whole thing and all this stuff. Um it can't be on tribal land and um exposure rate. You were asking here it is. I bring this document every time. This beautiful document. Um, here's the FCC compliances. If if those antennas are not operating in these guidelines, tower should be shut off. We don't check this stuff.

Nobody checks it. Nobody checks to see if the cumulative um emissions from a tower are meeting this. Nobody checks it. But here's the standards and we will write it to these standards. Campanelli has written it to this these standards. This is called bulletin 65. That's the reference for that. Um so there are standards um that they have to operate in and the federal law says they have to operate in that too.

So um the only thing that I wanted to note that I noticed on John's version of 17 I want back jump back to 17 for a second. He had a lot of side notes that there were a lot of things that were taking out taken out.

I don't know if they were going to be put back in for 16, but um he removed the the issues around environmental impacts, historical sites, force majour, which means if all of a sudden we have a massive storm that comes in, but we have an application that's due and we can't gather to talk about it and and do it give it due process, it automatically approves. It doesn't give it doesn't even give the town a chance. So that's force majour that was removed.

Our protection from that 11th hour submissions it's another tactic um telecoms take they'll they'll give a submission for an application like right the last minute of a time frame and we have to process that we don't have the time to process it so it just automatically gets approved that was removed. So, there's a whole list of things. If you look at John's um 17 that he had prepared for this meeting, a lot of the things that you said weren't in there.

I I'm not sure if you're going to resurrect those for 16 or what that was, but I'm concerned about all the little notes on the side. I'll let you guys look at that. There's a whole bunch more that were removed. Um the other thing was the the state statutes that John provided. My concern here again and I keep saying this is the ninth circuit of appeals which would overrule any of these is not included. So I again when he says these are the rules we have to live by.

There's other rules that supersede these that we don't see because a lot of these I'm not going to say a lot. Some some of these have been modified by the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. So, I'd hate to write a law that's restricting us with our abilities to protect ourselves. And we don't have to because the Ninth Circuit overrode him. We didn't look it up. So, again, that's another Campanelli reason to bounce this all off of Campanelli again because he would know that stuff.

Um oh I'll I'll end with um a a timing thing. When for these meetings, John, I don't know how much time in advance you put on the public display all this information for us to consume and digest. If it's only two or three days and you've have a month worth of work, I know I can't read it and consume it and I know this stuff. I don't know how you guys have the ability to read something that was published maybe four days ago and it's that thick, consume it and know the questions to ask.

You guys are laughing. So I know it's Can we get can we can we either write a resolution or come to an agreement that John you can publish your materials for these meetings at least 14 days in advance of us being able to consume it. I honestly we can't keep up we we can't ask and give due process because we're not given enough time to do it. I I certainly don't.

Um if I didn't have different job, I could, but um that's the only thing is I just hope you guys give give yourselves a little breathing room if you can modify your process a little bit. Give you guys a little more time to look over these documents. And that's it. Thanks, guys. Thanks. Okay, commissioners discussion. All right, I'll start. Um, I know what we have a lot a seemed like there were a lot of definitions that were missing.

Um, that's probably not, you know, part of what we're here for tonight. We were going to get started on 16. I think the definitions fit in 16 and 17, but there were a number of definitions that were missing. Um and and another thing I it was interesting that uh the speaker mentioned bulletin 65 because I had picked that out of the COPEC uh ordinance and and um I think that if that's the the document that has the standards, we should make reference for it. um use restrictions.

I I the personal wireless facilities in the rightway, they're allowed by state law, I guess. So, we don't even have anything to say there. And if they're not in the rightway, they're part of 17. Um as far as the indemnity go, um I mean, I'd like to see the same hold harmless if we can, if it makes sense. in uh 16 in in the the small small cell as we have in in 17 with the towers.

I'd like to incorporate the distances from the doors that are in Sedona and and and any of the restrictions that were in uh Paradise Valley, too. And can can we require annual testing on I didn't see annual testing on the the small. No. chair. I don't recall seeing that in there currently either and I don't know why we couldn't. Okay. And then just in general, I I an attorney has to review these terms and conditions. That's a legal document. I'm not an attorney.

I can't, you know, make I I can't review it for uh as a legal document and provide a legal review. So, I strongly suggest that council takes this back to an attorney. And those are my comments. Commissioner Cor again, some of the things I made note of uh from Miss Troller in uh on May 12th. I'll just kind of reiterate those and see if there's you know if that's been included. Um and one of them was the um the historical factor. I don't know that we have we seen that in here yet.

If we have if we have a historical if there is some significance to not mounting um small cell around that area uh of the park the fountain which is the original 1972 development area I don't know that we need that but that's a question and then u I think again as as the uh chair pointed out Kovase Mr.

Kovas sec the uh hold harmless u insurance risk uh factor that's very important so if it's not there we should have that uh the annual testing I agree with that's important it should be done regardless um and then the evidence of need concerns me this was brought up uh by Miss Troller back on May 12th um now when there's a gap a professed gap from the provider whether it's whatever provider it is.

Um I think that probably as in chapter 17, chapter 16 more so um they should be able to uh that provider should be able to u give uh testimonial documentation other than the uh you know the what's called the driveby uh method um and actual the the need for uh additional towers if that's there and then the underground factor which Miss Troller brought up again today that's veryant important.

I think it should all go underground um fiber optic cable and I have written I don't know but I have written some you know scientific documents in regard to this and they say that the um strength of the signal durability of the signal and um connect connectivity and so on is much superior with um that type of cable um underground uh I call it cable it's not cable fiber optic uh fiber optic underground with small towers rather than tower to tower. So just again what she brought up today.

Um the other issue was just getting uh agreeing with the chair that we need an attorney to review this because there's so much involved and we don't want to be uh in a position where we're u put the town at risk by not having adequate uh legal protection. Those are my thoughts. And I want to jump back on the under I left the underground out, but I do think that we should require broadband underground if we if that's at all possible. That would definitely be part of my recommendation.

So chair, if I may jump in on a couple of those things and maybe we'll start right there. Certainly, you know, you can make some suggestions, recommendations to council. wouldn't be directly part of anything that we're doing here because the charge is to review and recommend changes to our wireless ordinances and requirements.

Um so there are a number of things uh if you look in the uh terms and conditions uh item number 14 in the terms and conditions in indemnity and talks about uh hold harmless a little bit in there.

So maybe one thing I'm hearing uh at this point in terms of how to tackle this particular part of the project is maybe the first thing is going to be to have uh legal review of where we're at in terms of the terms and then as we do that come back to the commission with some of the things you've talked about what we find through that legal review and then uh pick it up at that point to talk about modifications that are being recommended or suggested for the commission rather than trying to plow forward in some way absent legal review uh through the commission that that I like that so we can we can sort of look at that.

Um coming back to a couple of comments from Commissioner Corgan and from Miss Troller. Um, so we did I did hear the discussion last month with the commission and recognize there were some things that the commission wanted included from Mr. Campanelli's uh report that when I listen to the minutes I didn't quite pick up on, I've gone through and I've added all those things into that chapter. I've added in all the definitions uh that were missed and so forth.

So hopefully when you see that come back, you'll you'll see that we've addressed those things. Um, we'll point out uh again we're certainly willing in in my mind basically everything's on the table for at least review and discussion as we get attorneys involved and understand these things a little bit deeper level. But I will point out what's on the screen there in terms of as compared to our other wireless ordinance uh and ability to do some of those driveby tests and they have to prove a need.

The state statute says shall not base decision on customer demand for service. So, I'm not sure how that plays into our ability to do the same thing with a small cell. We'll have to see um you know how all this plays out. And as Miss Troller said, maybe there's been some Ninth Circuit uh rulings that will override some of these things in state statute. We'll have to explore those and see if that's the case. Any other comments? We move on. Okay.

Uh commission discussion re request for research to staff. [Music] Anybody? Just a retail site assessment. Uh the item eight, summary of commission requests site assessment. Um so every time we get here, I don't know if we should ever just redo this agenda because we pretty much skip eight and always go to nine. Um but uh in terms of coming up at this point we have nothing that's come in for a July application.

About the only thing we would have discussed would be continue discussion of the small cell wireless. Based on the discussion this evening it sounds like that's going to hold until we get a chance to do some more legal review uh of the small cell before that's going to come back. So we're not seeing any reason for a July meeting. So you can mark that off your calendars. We do have several applications in for your consideration uh at your August meeting.

So be prepared to be back uh for the second Monday in August. Uh ready to review some applications. July's off. You're off for July. Take a vacation but be here in August. Okay. Uh motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor? All right. Let's hear. All right. [Music]