Fountain Hills Commission Unanimously Recommends Denial of T-Mobile 65-Foot "Stealth" Palm Tower in Residential District

e e e commissioner Corey commissioner depa either of you on the line yes I am this is thank you gray I'm here very good all right just about 30 more seconds and we'll get rolling here guys all right good evening uh this is the December 9th 2024 edition of The Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning commission uh we've got 10 agenda items tonight uh but we will start with a call of order Pledge of Allegiance and a quick moment of silence please I to flag of United States of America the stands naice thank you follow a quick roll call please commissioner Corey here commissioner depa here commissioner kovic here commissioner Sten here Vice chair Watts here chair gray here thank you Paula agenda item three call to the public Paula and open speaker cards one speaker carard Robert ROM to the podium please well thank you that was quick service I just got here and I want to congratulate Rick Watts on getting elected to the town count so we're looking forward to you being there I'm here to speak against the granting of the special use permit for tele uh for the telephone company to erect a ugly system in our neighborhood um the document the the thing that is to be erected is an ugly piece of industrial equipment that will be an isore in our neighborhood and is not appropriate for any residential facility or neighborhood in this town that just that Prides itself in great Vistas and great views this thing would be an isore if you look at where it's to be situated the closest nearing nearest palm tree to it that it's supposed to blend in with is 150 yards away 150 yards away and there's barely any there and so it's going to Tower above everything in the neighborhood and it is totally unacceptable and we wish you would just turn them away have them find another location uh or turn up the wattage or whatever they need to do in order to uh to broadcast from that spot but we urge you to reject it thank you thank you Mr rum uh with your permission sir uh we'd like to take your text and then move it under agenda item four which is the public hearing um for that antenna specifically thank you I didn't understand no no problem appreciate that so Paula we'll go ahead and move that around um on the back end here any other speaker cards no chair thank you all right moving quickly to agenda item four this is a public hearing uh for consideration and possible action on a special use permit to allow T-Mobile to modify an existing wireless communication facility located at 16239 East Ironwood Drive which is the First Assembly of God Church or or commonly known as generation church today Mr tavasi yes thank you Mr chairman members of the commission thank you Mr chairman for reading that off uh as you mentioned this is a special use permit request from T-Mobile that I'll be presenting before you um at the uh the Generation Church site so the uh the property um just for everyone's edification is at the South uh West corner of Fountain Hills Boulevard in Ironwood Drive um it is the current site of the Generation Church previously uh it was uh the site for the Assemblies of God church and the property is a total of a little over three acres now the church site itself is a little over one and a3d acres and uh there is an existing flag pole there and I'll show you some elevations later but it's a little over 53 ft in height uh directly adjacent to the east side of the church building as well as an equipment shelter shielded behind a screen wall uh actually shielding the the ground equipment that's currently there right now so t- T-Mobile is uh with a special use permit is requesting remov removal of the existing 53 uh foot flag pole uh that is uh also doubles up as a wireless communication facility uh and to replace it at that base where the current flag P exists with a 65- ft monop Palm as well as replacement of the ground equipment behind the screen wall um this placement uh the applicant contends will require a temporary cell on wheels or cow uh during construction to continue providing service while the uh proposed monopol is being erected so again going back to that map the proposed monop will be at the same location where the flag pole is uh currently located and new ground equipment will replace what's currently behind the screen wall uh which is facing the parking lot in Fountain Hills Boulevard uh this is the elevation of the current flag pole on the left um it's about 53 ft from the base to the uh to the top not including the the flag pole topper which probably uh adds at least another foot and what the applicant is proposing is a 65 ft monop Palm uh as shown here on the right uh the 65 ft is measured from the base to the uh topmost uh Palm FR and the uh the uh the antennas will be placed at the uh 59 ft um uh level of the monopol this is a plan view uh of the proposed uh new monop Palm uh as I mentioned uh the this is the compound that's directly east of the the church site um this here uh line roughly indicates the uh the the church the the East End of the church building but the uh monop Palm again will be uh placed or installed exactly where the uh the flag pole is currently um erected and the existing uh equipment will be replaced by some new modified equipment um before uh behind the screen wall um one thing I should mention before moving forward because I know that this has been a question in a lot of people's minds it it you know for whatever it may be worth uh the question being are the antennas providing the proposed antennas providing 5G service and the answer to that that I just got confirmation a little while ago is yes applicant has also included some photo simulations uh what you see in the foreground is the north uh West corner of uh Ironwood and Fountain Hills Boulevard looking South so you can see the flag pole existing as it as it is today on the left with the new flag pole on the right or the excuse me the the proposed monop Palm on the right incidentally I think with this photo it should be worth mentioning um and one of the uh members of the public uh brought this up earlier during the call to the public uh there used to be a lot more Landscaping than what you currently see out there today um I think I made reference in the staff report that the the site is fully landscaped uh that was based on a Google street view um the most recent one um there were some palm trees at where the current sign is located just barely cut off here to the left there were about at least three palm trees and there were a few mosquet trees adjacent to the church building um currently what exists there today as far as vegetation is concerned are the barrel cacti that you see on the foreground right along Ironwood and further in the back towards the parking lot one palie tree um but uh all the other vegetation as far as I could tell has been uh removed another photo simulation looking uh obviously East towards the uh the Four Peaks and so the factors uh I'll get into the factors for granting an Su um well they begin with Section 2.02 that discuss the um criteria used for uh granting sus in general um some of the things that the uh commission would need to do determine is whether or not the proposed use is detrimental to the public health safety peace and comfort or welfare of persons and whether or not it's detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the area or general welfare of the town there is a federal preemption that I uh I should note that local ordinances may not impose more stringent environmental impacts or en environmental effects uh with limits on radio frequency emissions as those are currently set by the FC C there are additional factors for granting an Su in this case for towers and uh they are uh listed here and I've gone over over them in some detail in the staff report but uh the first three I've um I've colored the text in red because per the details of the proposal it is these three factors as detailed in The Proposal that trigger the need for a special use permit one is the height of the proposed tower now the existing site is zoned residential even though there's a church on the property which is allowed in any zoning District per uh federal laws uh as dictated by Rupa um the underlying zoning is still residential and the height limit for residential in this case r 135 is 30 fet applicant is proposing a 65 foot increase bigger pardon a 65 foot monopol which is 35 ft more than what would normally be allowed in a r135 uh also the proximity uh of the antenna to residential structures and residentially zoned uh boundaries uh this takes into consideration uh the fact that well the site itself is own residential uh let alone the uh the neighboring uh properties adjacent to the property um now this also takes account the fall zone if the 65 ft monop Palm were to Fall Would it be entirely contained within the subject property the answer is yes however in order to uh avoid the special use permit requirement the uh the distance would uh to of the fall zone to the nearest property line would need to be 300% that of the height and it doesn't meet that requirement so there's another uh trigger for the need for a special use permit and also the nature of the uses on the adjacent and nearby properties again the property itself is residential that Al loone is a a trigger for the need for the um special use permit as is the fact that there's residential zone or residential uses uh to be more specific uh surrounding the property other factors to take into consideration is uh the surrounding topography and whether or not um there are any impact ta uh to the topography with this uh uh request uh surrounding tree coverage and foliage I touched upon that a little bit one thing the uh commission might consider is perhaps including if the commission was inclined to approve it um perhaps uh adding some what has been referred to as palm tree friends to kind of reinforce the uh stealth appearance of the uh of of the proposed monopol um also the design of the antenna um whether or not it fits in within the uh the context of the uh the neighborhood proposed Ingress and eress uh there's a driveway off of Ironwood which provides adequate access for regular maintenance for uh the uh proposed facility as well as um whether or not there's uh there were other suitable existing Towers other structures or alternative techn technologies that the applicant considered and I think uh the applicant could uh speak uh pretty thoroughly uh on the uh on that point uh whenever he's asked to come up to to speak about this request so a staff's recommendation um is to uh we're recommending approval of the monop to improve service coverage and to allow temporary placement of the uh sellon Wheels um but also staff is encouraging uh the commission uh continued discussion on how to mitigate the visual impacts based on uh the not only the the site plan that that I presented but also the uh the photo simulations and uh with that I'll conclude my uh presentation open up to questions or discussion thank you farad is there an applicant presentation as well Mr chairman the applicant has informed me uh a few hours ago that he has no presentation but um he has prepared to speak okay um in response to inquiries or or with a prepared statement of sorts uh you know what I'm I'm not quite sure but I think um not sure who the is I don't know where to oh yeah he's a y Michael Campbell uh who a site acquisition manager for T-Mobile Michael did you want to add anything to farad's presentation a before we start discussion good evening I'm Mike Campbell consultant for crown castle who is actually the landlord for T-Mobile and uh okay is that better yes okay okay I'll start again I'm Mike Campbell I'm a consultant for crown castle crown castle is the landlord for T-Mobile crown castle has the lease agreement with the uh Generation Church for the property uh my presentation really is to reinforce uh some of the statements that Farhad made and maybe clarify a few things I don't have a PowerPoint presentation so if you'd like me to go into that I can or if you'd like me to wait till after your questions and comments I can whatever is your pleasures if you if there's any added value that you see up front we'd like to hear it now and then of course we'll give you a chance to talk after we have the public hearing let me get my water if I could sure sorry sorry free all right okay good evening I want to thank staff for their assistance in the case we've been working on this for quite a while um and as staff stated uh crown castle is proposing to modify the existing site the need for that is driven by T-Mobile T-Mobile has uh minimal uh capacity in the current Flag Pole flag Poes were great design 10 years ago but as uh the technologies have evolved uh the whole Demand by the consumer of what can be provided has all kind of rolled out to we need these different types of antennas we need more space for the antennas obviously they can't put I think there's three antennas inside the uh inside the flag pole and it's very limiting that they can't put up other antennas um which yes this one will convert to a 5G um is an RF specialist that I work with uh stated that currently um there are three types of 5G deployments 5G on existing bands in use like this site is currently in use he said carriers have been using these frequency bands already in 4G Services 5G technology is being overlaid in place of 4G much like when four came on on top of three which came on on top of two the ones that are of concern are the ones that are in the small celles which which was in your rways those are small cells this is not a small cell that operates at a different frequency the monop monop Palm um as we know is going in the same location is kind of a unique situation where we can use the same Foundation um I've been doing this for a number of years and never had that happen before there will be some structural enhancements to that but the placement Remains the Same so our setbacks remain the same we're back off the streets we're as far away from the residential area as as it it's been the site was originally approved in I believe it 1999 or 2000 so it's been providing coverage for this community for since then and there's been modifications to the equipment to the antas over time this is the greatest of the group where the exterior physicality the physical view of it has changed considerably as noted it's going to be 65 ft tall uh to the top of the fronts the top of the antenna go to 60 ft and then there's 5 France on top of that um notes there was a question that that surfaced today about locations and I know farad mentioned it this location was apparently chosen back in 1999 because of the elevation it is the highest point in that search area figure out about a half mile each way from there there's nothing really higher nothing and if there is it's a residential house so uh the carriers and the tower companies tend to lean towards the church properties because they are in areas of Fairly dense communities and this helps us and it helps them by providing in there um Public Notices were sent out by staff the the property was signposted by a company I hire and um I know there's been a mixed return on the comments today I've seen some um but I also going forward U cron Castle is asking your recommendation of approval to council uh for this sup request and they can answer any questions that you may have as we go on so I just I have a couple right out of the gate and I'm sure more as time goes on here but um I know in the staff report it mentioned there were no other Towers available to collocate antenna T-Mobile antennas on is that I know in our in our it's confusing to me because we updated the ordinance you know in the process of this application right so is that something that we need to validate or do we take that at face value Mr chairman uh members of the uh commission um the applicant provides uh some uh I believe some radio frequency uh coverage plans of some of some sort that would demonstrate what the coverage area would be before and after uh the replacement but beyond that uh I think you know pretty much that uh is the extent of the documentation that would because our current ordinance that went into place after this application occurred would require us to prove up that there weren't other sites that that Tower or that antennas could be hung from um and my other question is is you know obviously see 65 ft's going to be a sticking point tonight um among several other things I'm sure what happens incrementally for every five or 10 feet that that that that uh height is reduced you know and assume that we get all the way down to 30 as as kind of our Baseline of underlying zoning sure Mr chair members of the commission um the difference with a five or or 8ot uh coverage in this area because it is a higher point would be minimal as far as RF coverage I'm not an RF engineer but in my 30 years of doing this I know that 5 to 10 ft does not make a break unless we're in a serious terrain issue and in this case being the higher point it's it's not a bad deal the current rad Center where the center point of where the antennas are now are got it here they're at 48 ft uh and those were six foot antennas that were mounted on there um they're proposing um looks like the same these maybe 8 foot antennas um so the difference what currently is up there now on the flag pull is 48 foot midpoint on the antennas and they want to go to 56 foot and then you've got four feet antennas of antenna above that and top of the steel top of the antennas is a common phraseology in us and then the FRS extend above that so if this was to to drop back down to say 50 foot rad Center you would have 54 top of antennas and then the Palm fronts above that for and additional five fee for the the disguising yeah um in the old ordinance 1706 b1f the ordinance calls for a notorized statement by the applicant as to whether or not construction of the tower will accommodate collocation will this Tower accommodate collocation did we get that statement No Mr chairman this uh this application will not um accommodate collocation uh because after all it is a uh an attempt to make it a stealth wireless communication facility so any Lo collocation of antennas would uh would certainly affect that stealth appearance uh certainly below the Palm frons okay um how how many well you're here farad how many homeowners uh were within 300 feet of the site that had to be notified uh Mr chairman uh commissioner goic uh if I remember correctly uh the mailing labels that were provided by the applicant took up a full page um which I believe it's about about 30 yeah okay um and you kind of touched upon this uh commissioner kovc if I don't mind and I'm not sure if I mentioned this during my my presentation certainly it's in the staff report but because the applicant had provided uh the application in September uh which was prior to the uh approval of the current wireless communication facility ordinance um we were using the criteria from as as you alluded to the the previous Ord although I don't think the um the criteria or the factors that I went over were affected uh significantly by the new ordinance did did we get the statement on collocation or the you know what I don't have the answer that off hand but I I can uh I can probably even double check that on my uh my phone um let's see we covered the history of the tower a little bit what so what's the gain of function between a full array of antennas and a double stacked canisters I mean is that what allows you to go to 5G is it go from Wireless uh cell phones to broadband internet okay commissioner C chair gray the the ability to put more antennas in gives it a broader scope of coverage and the ability of of your cell phone yes your cell phone the data data currently occupies last time I spoke with my RF specialist occupies 65% of a network so if you have a site out there that's operating like this one 65% of the draw on that is not for your phone it's for sitting there maybe watching this uh presentation or watching a movie or working on it the data is the biggest draw and the additional antennas provide greater scope Capac capacity is better work greater capacity to handle the demand by the public in the course of talking to um some people from T-Mobile I I was under the understanding that there were different towers for wireless cell phone service than there were for broadband internet is that the case I I don't have an answer on that one okay um all right I think that's all I have now farad I think this is for you first um the original Su was issued in 1999 is that correct that's correct has there been any change of ownership in that property since 1995 1999 uh Mr uh Mr chairman uh commissioner Watts um far as uh the change in ownership of the church it was previously owned by the Assemblies of God church I'm not sure if this current Church Generation Church is a is a non- denominational or if it's somehow somehow affiliated with the Assemblies of God but um uh I believe there's new leadership under the church but uh the answer your question um I'm not sure of uh what who the previous owner was according to our documentation well we've historically talked about sus following or staying with the property oh yeah and not and the ownership of that property so my my question really relates to is that lease that's in place now subject to the same the original Su or is it actually operating outside of an Su because there does isn't an Su that actually exist today yeah Mr chairman if I um if I I understand your your your question the Su runs with the land this is a new application for new I know this is setting the stage for next question so to speak so I want to know if we're if we're legitimate today or not yes yes the the Su runs with the land unless there was a condition made to renew within a certain period of time um but uh runs with a land or runs with the ownership of the land because previously we've talked about the ownership of the land if it changes hands the Su becomes null and void yeah it it it runs with the land okay where it becomes just for clarification where it becomes null and void is if the Improvement is never made prior to the transaction right correct then sunset at the time of transaction right okay and just for clarification is this actually a Broadband application or is it a cellular application commissioner Watts chair MC gray it is a wireless application which for voice data and and they'll you know the T-Mobile has their 5G all house coverage or home internet package that's out there so the specifics are this site will allow for everything so we could have the upper end of the frequencies Broadband as well the same thing as small cell towers no they would have to because small cells not planned on the small cells are set up to only cover um oh jeez I'm thinking of like on college campuses and up and down streets where there is high density very short range there it's ult as what Stephen Kennedy explained to me they're very high dense frequencies in a very short range this site will have the ability to reach out and cover the what it currently is you my concern still is if we can operate in the Broadband range of radio frequency that that Spectrum from 0 to 100 however it's rated then are we up are we operating in that upper end that Broadband operates in s i canot answer that okay um is the is this Tower anticipated to only cover the residence of Fountain Hills or does it have further reaching connectivity commissioner Watson it would cover the community that surrounds it within approximately a mile mile and a half it it won't reach down to u to sha Boulevard or out to 87 going north there's other sites within the T-Mobile network the cellular network wireless network is basically like like a honeycomb so this is one core inside of there and it just as the need it spreads out as far as the signal will reach and then ERS another site which overlaps and connects but this is not to serve somebody that's cruising on Sha Boulevard okay and has has the applicant provided any data that shows the number of drop calls the capacity that it's that's the reason that they need it there's something data driven that basically says here's why we need this new new thing I don't have that information no so we really don't know whether or not it's necessary well it's it's necessary because across the the across the state and across the valley I've worked on dozens of these across the valley where they were 10 years ago they put the flag poles up because that worked then it does not work for them now this will enhance their coverage it'll enhance for the the community for uh Emergency Services everything along theik we'll we'll see a much better improved coverage well I understand what you're saying but if you don't have any substantial data that says here's the number of drop calls here's the number of the amount of capacity here's the bell curve so to speak that shows me all of that capacity then how do I really know whether or not it's needed I I appreciate your comment but you're not at the mount at the podium thank you so we don't have any data is what you're saying I don't have it with me but what they AR not going to go out and do is spend a half a million dollars to improve a site without the push from the marketing or from the their data services on the backside telling them this site needs to be improved I I'd still like to see some data something that supports the fact that they are having drop calls they are having uh capacity issues that they they need to improve the coverage for that area because it doesn't exist today okay if you want to fill out a card then that's fine but just from the audience i' I'd appreciate not saying any comments thank you no it's the question you're asking him I can give you an you can give me one off and we understand is dat understood that's enough I'm not affiliated with that understood if you want a comment card you're welcome to fill one out open absolutely that's what's coming next anything else um another one for farad farad this to me taking down the existing Tower and putting in a new tower is new construction why are we submitting it as effectively a remodel to the existing Tower yeah Mr chairman uh members of commission that uh that point was brought up before by a member of the public and I uh you know concede that it may not be considered a replacement uh in the true sense of the word but uh we were just merely considering the fact that it was being placed in the same exact spot as the uh the current flag pole well I understand same Foundation same walls but uh I would assume that the increase in the antennas and so on are going to also require an increase in capacity ampacity for electrical services and that sort of thing along the way which I think would be a building issue but I just want make sure we're covering That Base as well so I would say we need to re revise the application to reflect new not uh remodel for right now that's it Mr chairman thank you thank you commissioner Gentleman on the phone any questions ahead of the public hearing I um all right I'll go ahead go ahead corter thank you sorry I think we're just double talking sorry I couldn't be there in person I appreciate you calling me out um yeah just a couple of questions and one kind of caught my attention earlier uh so this height is significantly higher what I'm hearing a lot from residents is concerns around Aesthetics so possibly a question from Mr Campbell I know you were started to address this earlier but um can you clarify why the increased height is necessary um compared to like other designs that may at lower Heights commissioner chairman gray uh the height request was made by T-Mobile's RF engineer and as it stands it's uh it's an 8ot increase in the what I call the rad Center what's known as the rad Center the mounting height of the antenna and the pal fround to me yeah sorry there's a little delay I Sor apologize for speaking over you when I heard you speak earlier it sounded like um there there could have been alternative designs that may not have been too impactful so I'm just wondering if you know other designs that were a little bit shorter were kind of uh looked at that that could provide a significant service that we need without being so tall uh commissioner Corey that this is the design that would fit there the height could be lowered as I mentioned to match what currently is there but to put anything else up there any other type of a tree or um concrete structure or something to that effect would be would have a larger a greater visual impact so okay yeah thank you Mr Campbell and my other question is kind kind of along the lines of that um we talk about like adding additional vegetation or something near there I heard somebody say earli are Palm Tree Friends uh can you just clarify what that would be so we all kind of have an understanding of what that might look like yeah hi uh Mr chairman commissioner Corey yeah I made the reference to Palm Tree Friends uh typically um well not typically but in some cases uh whenever a monop Palm such as this is proposed um depending on what kind of arrangements are made between the uh the company leasing the property and the owner um one can uh complement so to speak a monop palm with with a a few natural Palms to kind of reinforce the stealth appearance of the monop Palm great okay thank you for clarifying goe okay Paul let's go ahead yeah chairman gray I have um I have a question myself um so besides this 65t uh Tower at the base of it would also be um a pad filled with equipment right uh Mr chairman commissioner depa yes uh the uh equipment location uh the current equipment location uh is where the site for the new equipment will be uh the current equipment will be removed and replaced but it will be uh behind the uh existing screen wall that's there right now to screen it from uh view from uh the the neighboring streets yeah farhart so you're saying it'll be removed and replaced or it'll be modified I hear I hear uh that I thought I read that they were going to perhaps just you know um maybe increase or or I didn't I didn't understand it to be a replacement yeah uh commissioner depal let me go to the uh the site plan here um your pardon wrong way yeah I I got a uh screen capture here yeah it appears currently there are two cabinets uh there on the property um now uh my understanding was that the uh uh those cabinets will be replaced um and I'm not sure if you can see your screen right now commissioner depa but uh uh where my cursor is currently is what is the current uh condition of the equipment shelter and then to the right are the um the the proposed uh cabinet Replacements and uh perhaps Mr Campbell can can confirm if those if whether or not those are in fact Replacements or if there's any modifications made to the existing cabinets and and and if he can speak to the dimensions as that change um you know Aesthetics wise and the dimensions will that will that change at all will that affect it U Mr chairman commissioner depa uh it is screened uh currently the the current equipment shelter or I should say the uh ground equipment is screened with a 6ot wall um that will not change uh I'm not sure if there's a from a certain angle from ironwood where those uh cabinets would appear uh but uh it certainly squ screened well from uh view uh from Fountain Hills Boulevard okay okay so that will not be visible all right thank you thank you farad V chair wats is there's a mention of a kopa where is that I couldn't find it anywhere yeah Mr uh Mr chairman commissioner Watts uh that is an erroneous reference in the uh in the staff report there was a template that was used for a previous wireless communication facility and although John and I uh worked on revising the staff report accordingly somehow it did not make it in the in the published version but there is no coua gotcha there is no thank you yeah do you wanted to add it no is there any comments from the neighbors I mean that was in the meetings I didn't see anything Mr s yeah chairman gray if I can if I if I may ask one more question are um are other T-Mobile towers in the area also getting modified or is it just this one here within that Community uh I'll start off I guess Mr uh chairman commissioner depa um as far as any mod ifications that were uh would require a special use permit uh in my 5 years here there haven't been any applications to um replace any equipment to the same scale there may have been um uh Replacements in the true sense of the uh the word of of antennas on existing facilities uh like for like so to speak in terms of size but uh certainly nothing in the way of uh uh special use permits uh I'm not sure if Mr Campbell can elaborate chair gray uh commissioner depa I currently do not have any other uh modifications to T-Mobile locations in Fountain Hills and I'm not aware of any others that are going on commissioner there's been two applications in my time here one to add a site at the entrance of a darl canyon which is a large metal swaro Cactus and this site also came up um for a A Renewed special use permit but it was to essentially increase the size of the flag pole several years ago I'm say probably three years ago now farad that came through is John's sodding is that I don't think I worked on that case so okay uh commissioner s did you have one there was a public meeting um with neighborhood or people within 300 feet yeah Mr chairman um um Commissioners uh there is a public participation requirement at the very least the applicant is required to send out uh notices uh of the applicant's intent to um make the request for a special use permit there was no meeting however the the applicant uh we asked the applicant provide uh contact information on the notification letters not the public notification letters sent by the the town but the um yeah we've we've had I've seen a few comment cards but I've not seen anything else in this at all I'm wondering what the comments were from the neighborhood if there was a meeting that I assume there was a meeting uh there was no meeting there no meeting no so is there any record of any other comments besides the comments have come in uh commissioner famam um uh some of them are I think Paula will will read off a little bit later but I think uh today only um of course we had the the weekend but I came back today and there were six uh five or six yeah and there were uh there were there was at least one inquiry actually one inquiry that I had at the counter uh from a member of the public requesting more information about the uh well perhaps we'll hear more yeah public testimony on that thank you farad Paul let's go ahead and open the public hearing portion uh of the of the item here the way this uh process works if you filled out a a card in the back and delivered that to Paula she will call you up in the order that those were uh were turned in she'll call the next person as on Deck there's a timer here at the front of the room with three minutes on it you will will get a beep at what 30 seconds remaining Paula yes uh and then a solid tone uh as your 3 minutes expires so uh let's go ahead and call the first couple Paula okay our first speaker is Virginia O'Brien and on Deck will be Michael brahi evening what we'd like to do first though is Michael BR was scheduled to go first oh I'm sorry sure we can switch you of course thank you hello my name is Michael Bray been a residents of fountains Hills for 24 years my neighbors and I are presenting uh 70 signed petitions opposing The Fountain Hill special use permit application by crown castle to wreck that 65ft wireless cell tower in a residentially zoned District we strongly to erecting a new monop Cellular Tower 65 ft tall in our neighborhood located on the Generation Church property located at 16239 East Ironwood Drive Fountain Hills the church is residentially zoned by the city and part of the uh neighborhood Property Owners Association we the residents and families living in this community have serious concerns for the negative impact that high power telecommunication Towers bring with them in residential areas these concerns are a reason why we chose to live in a residential district by Fountain Hills protected by Fountain Hill zoning and ordinances some adverse impacts on residents in the surrounding areas include but are not limited to an unnatural visual impact and an imposing blot on the landscape public health issues surrounding radio frequency radiation increased w Wildfire hazards concerns for threatened endangered wildlife in their natural habitat and we contend there is no need for a 65t tall monopol Wireless cellular Tower at this regular residential location as many other options are available throughout Fountain Hills on commercial property and by signing this P petition we the undersigned residents respectfully request that the planning zoning commission Our Town Council and our mayor Jerry fidell utilize and enforce existing Fountain Hills zoning codes and ordinances to protect and preserve our neighborhoods and community and therefore deny the application by crown castle and uh Generation Church thank you all for your intention do I give the original copies happy to good evening my name is Virginia O'Brien and I am in thorough agreement with all the concerns expressed in the petition objecting to Generation Church at Crown Castle's request to erect a new 65 foot Fire wireless cell tower on residential property imposing a huge adverse visual impact that is anything but stealth the wireless cellular Tower would create unreasonable conditions in the opinion of over 72 neighborhood residents in the surrounding area that have signed petitions reflecting this opinion upon reviewing the town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning staff summary on this matter it appears to me that Generation Church and crown castle wants special appr approval to wave their compliance of Fountain Hills residential ordinances and violate those ordinances with Town Council approval if the Town Council grants them the special use permit they applied for here are three of the special approvals they want to wave ordinance compliance for the first one violation that they want a waved is in regard to the height of the proposed Tower residential zones structure height clearly states a 30 foot limit for all residents in that area Generation Church and crown castle want special approval to wave their compliance with the existing 30 foot limit allowed in single family zoning areas so that they can erect a 65t cell tower the second ordinance violation Generation Church in crown castle want waved is in regard to the required fall down distances the ordinance requires that any antenna constructed Ed on a property must have a fall down distance which is equal to 300% of the height of the antenna in that residential district this is a precaution against any offsite damage to adjoining Properties or structures should fall never mind the potential for a fire per zoning and planning report the cell tower fall down distance is well short of the 300% of the height antenna required in a residential district the third ordinance waiver Generation Church in crown castle seek is the waiver of the minimum 300t property line setback the existing ordinance requires a 300 foot minimum setback from adjoining property lines any antenna within 300 ft of residentially zoned property requires a waiver of this ordinance Planning and Zoning staff clearly states that the residential setback requirements have not been met by Generation Church and crown castle it is my understanding that the residential property owner Generation Church currently supports this permit to erect the new 65 fot monop pal wireless cell tower in light of this evening's hearing the increasing number of signed petitions and the adverse impact of this tower on a residential neighborhood I urge Generation Church and crown castle to respect their neighborhood communities object and neighborhood communities objections to the 65 foot wireless cell tower in our residentially know Zone neighborhood and reconsider their support for a special use application I thank you for your attention thank you Mr Brown Next speaker is Liz Gildersleeve on Deck is Jennifer skosan good evening all hello Paula after reading the attachments for this agenda item I do also have some questions that I hope this commission will answer before making a final recommendation for this special use permit first and I know it was addressed a little earlier I'm still not clear on who would be um receiving the benefits of this 65 ft Tower is it all of Fountain Hills does it extend into the fort McDow Community um I just I didn't get a clear answer on that the other question I had is why if it sounds like this is for Broadband mostly for Broadband so why can't this infrastructure go underground or some of it go underground um third there are residents who are concerned about the health impacts of the presumably increased radiation has any study been done to confirm or deny the health issues um next if I'm reading the citizen participation report correctly from the applicant it appears that the letters to the impacted residents were mailed out in May which of course is an not a real helpful time since a lot of people in our community leave for the summer um and I'd also I I didn't see it in the attachments but would it be possible for the public to see the form letter that was sent to the impacted residents and how this request for a special use permit for a six-story tower was explained and finally if you approve this special use permit it Waters down ourin our ordinance even further and sets precedence for future six-story Towers in our town should we then anticipate a sea of six-story fake palm trees in the near future from this applicant and other provid ERS in my opinion there are still lots of questions and I know the applicant the gentleman here has 30 years of experience but I wasn't getting a warm fuzzy feeling that he had all his information with him today so I hope you delay a decision and get get answers to these questions uh my questions and I'm sure you'll hear other questions from other residents who are going to speak thank you for your time good evening Mr chairman and Commissioners uh thank you for the opportunity to speak I stand before you today to express my strong opposition to the proposed installation of a 65 ft tall cell tower in our residential neighborhood first let's address health concerns while Regulatory Agencies assure us that radio frequency emissions from cell towers are within the safe limits multiple Studies have raised red flags about prolonged exposure particularly for children and vulnerable population patients research has linked proximity to cell towers with increases in headaches sleep disturbances and even cancer my family is personally about to welcome our fifth any day I've been having contractions to sitting out there in the audience which means all five of our children will be at an increased risk if the planning and zoning committee approves this exception why should we take this gamble with our fam's health when safer Alternatives exist second this Tower threatens the character and value of our neighborhood Studies have consistently shown that properties nearest these cell towers can lose up to 20% of their market value for many of us our homes are not just places to live they are our largest financial investment installing a cell tower here imposes an unfair burden on our community for the benefit of corporate interests third we must consider the precedent this sets approving a cell tower in our neighborhood opens the door for similar projects in the future gradually eroding the quiet safe environment we all chose when we moved here fourth added on the Fly the applicant mentioned that this would support First Responders I personally support First Responders every day I sell body cameras and tasers to law enforcement agencies and in five years I have never had an agency tell me they use T-Mobile so I would be curious if our First Responders used T-Mobile or if they use AT&T first net or Verizon because those are the two primary vendors I'm not against better connectivity however I urge the Planning and Zoning commission to explore alternative locations for this Tower such as commercial zones or industrial areas where its impact on residents would be minimal let's work together to prioritize our Public Health our property values and the Integrity of our community thank you could could you just read your name into the record for us Jennifer scowen thank you next speaker is Larry Meyers and on Deck will be Crystal Kavanaugh chair Commissioners Larry Meers 40y year re 43e resident of Fountain Hills um and I was here when they put up the flag pole it's pretty unobtrusive if you don't know it's there you wouldn't even know it's there and it's a cell tower this is a Broadband Tower we've had two years worth of discussions on broadb broadband and all of the impacts that it has this isn't about whether you get good service or bad service because I have T-Mobile and I have bad service and my options are to get Verizon AT&T or T-Mobile gave me a cell spot to put in my house that goes from my phone to the cellspot to the internet to the tower the big tower so just to put that aside um my most most of my my concern is once again an Su and the process this town has a habit of screwing up the process of an Su the Target Center Su the process was poor this Su the process is poor this is not a this is not an upgrade this is a new build the Tower that's there is a celf Tower the tower that will be there is a Broadband cell tower this is a new build so that's what the application should say and the staff should recognize that and write it as such asking for an Su and in your application stating unequivocally as crown castle did that there will have no effect on property values well the ordinance says it will and then you're asking for an Su to get around the ordinance and then you're telling the town that there will have no effect it will have no effect on the property values I don't see any study I don't see actually anything in this application that resembles a data point which commissioner Watts was asking for for any of this in the debate for the last two years we've talked about how the town doesn't have any expertise in this area and tonight it's clear again they [Music] don't and we've been denied the information from experts on this particular subject matter by our previous Town Council and U Town attorney and so I would once again ask that the town consult an expert cause the applicant to pay for that consultation so that the town can receive the data points necessary to make the proper decision on an Su that affects so many residents in various means various forms property values health concerns uh visual Aesthetics and in such then they would in fact be doing the having a proper process before granting an Su that is just a request from somebody who intends to make more money thank you very much I appreciate your time good evening Crystal Kavanaugh Fountain Hills resident I just have a few point points because most of them have been made but I want to start off by saying I'm very thankful for this Commission because you all ask questions now you don't always get the answers which is what I noticed again tonight and without those answers it's going to be very difficult to make a decision on this but I find it even more amazing that we have staff that readily recommend saying yes to things like this without these same answers and data this structure exceeds the height limit by 35 fet It's a 65 ft structure and then they use the word stealth there is nothing stealth about a 65 ft structure I don't care how many palm fronds you put on it or get them Palm fronded friends so the fall down distance as was mentioned before is inadequate It also says it's going to use the existing Foundation is that even adequate and I particularly get upset when I see statements in these staff reports that say things like staff believes no negative impacts on surrounding property well which staff is making that determination do they even live in Fountain Hills is always my question so little things like this are very disturbing when they want to be rammed through and I really really caution you to continue to search for the answers to your very important questions thank you next speaker April McCormack and on Deck Lori troller good evening I want to say I am so proud of this town um I believe all of the 75 senates have been collected over the weekend and that is a Monumental Herculean effort and I want to say thank you um okay a couple things about this um petition um so this is a six-story building every 11 ft is one story in construction and if you take 65 ft divided by 11 that's 5.9 stories this is insanity surrounded by all residential zoning districts and homes um so the ninth circuit has upheld municipalities asking for what's called a least intrusive means test and that means you can ask them have you tried to look for a site that's least intrusive to what you're proposing and in their own little staff packet prepared by this gentleman straight up it says they I haven't even looked haven't even looked so you can ask them to look do their due diligence and come back and show you other options um their plans I don't believe are to scale um I've been in construction my entire adult life and I went to Google Earth and measured the height of that flag pole which I believe is 49 ft I also measured how many homes are around that flag Poole right now within 1150 ft and the reason I did that is because a study from Israel found that if you live within 1150 ft of a tower or antenna your chances of getting cancer quadruple and so I stopped counting at 75 homes within ft that's how many people would be grossly affected by the placement of this um the church I wish the property owner was here I know they've been contacted by some people in this audience um to which they've said they'll pray for your brain heart and soul they seem to care less and be completely motivated by whatever lease payment they are getting um on the plans that this gentleman prepared there is zero detail of what these transmitters are going to be broadcasting there is nothing UNF frequency at all I mean i' I've seen a lot of these applications I've never seen that and this is going to be from the little bit I heard a 5G macro Tower I mean this thing will be all of these services are different frequencies the phone is one location WiFi Bluetooth all of these other things are different frequencies so there should be detail of what how many antennas are going to be in there and what frequency they are going to be you know using right now we're going to be um broadcasting WiFi like this is downtown San Francisco in the middle of this residential area it's absolutely crazy and I know you're in a pickle because it's already there and um I feel so sorry for the people that live in this vicinity we looked a lot on this street did a ton to diligence to build and the only reason we didn't build there is because of this I knew this would happen and I didn't know when I knew it probably pretty soon and um I was too scared to even entertain it and these people have a very um legitimate reason to feel the same way 350 people have been to fountainhill saaf tech.com since Friday and they're very concerned thank you Miss troller will give you the four minutes you asked for thank you hi guys gentlemen it's been a while hope you had a good holiday Lori troller resident um I'm going to um fly through my 18 points real quick um but I think farad already gave you the reasons you need to deny this it's too high it's too close and you're setting a precedence with you know putting this in the residential area as as noted he had those in red on the thing so I'm going to um skip to some comments I had about this entire presentation and reasons for when we come back to the ordinance these are all things I want you to consider consider when we're writing the ordinance these are things we got to write in so we're not stuck in this position the next time um I i' I'm kind of surprised that we're even they're even addressing this this is a Sleeping Bear this guy went in in 2019 with no law changing this now to a new buil they're under the new ordinance so I don't even know why they're doing this because now they got that in there without any laws without worrying about the residence or something like that y just leave it as is that's my opinion um number two to clarify Emergency Services never use Broadband they don't you get that much smoke if you're in a fire you have that much smoke you don't talk it it disrupts the communication Emergency Services have their own frequency and it's FM frequency they never use this um the this is broadband again we've been talking about this for a long time you can go underground you guys have absolutely no obligation to to approve this according to federal law because it's Broadband Broadband services do not have the AOK to do a buildout like cellular does it's different laws and Broadband just doesn't have it um the appearance sorry the appearance of these palm trees change quickly if anybody's driven past the AL Mo and you look at that palm tree P the Alamo um that two years ago it looked like that it it was that one set of antennas right now there's another set a second set of antennas and by the way a set of antennas a full set of antennas you can put more on this one set which means that level um weighs about a ton would you love to be in church and have that hit you anyway um the one at Alamo has two levels it looks far from anything natural because the fronds are now down a whole another level so if you really want to see what the potential of the what this can look like and any other 65 foot palm tree um look at the one at Alamo it's um it's not pretty um let's see sorry uh I think oh um Peter you mentioned that um you wanted to ask if we had to validate or take for face value some of the quotes that was presented to you in the presentation I would say you can go get your own numbers if you want um many towns get experts to do this and they don't use Town staff they they reference experts and those experts go to run those numbers and they check those numbers so I've never heard of a town having to take anything at face face value you can you can check that all you like there's nothing that would keep you from doing that in any law that I've seen um it also mentions that the base is not going to be changed I think John specifically mentioned that in in this the Bas isn't going to change well you've got a base right now that was designed to support that flag pole that has no wind shear to it basically because there's no frons on it well there's a flag on it and there's a whole different weight component so that base if that base is only this big and needs to be this big and the town gives it an approval for an Su that they they even tell you they're not going to change the base and that sucker goes over now we're up for a lawsuit because you approve something that didn't get engineered properly and that's going to be on the town so I would ask you to consider that because John specifically said the base will not change so I don't I I wouldn't if I wouldn't put an engineering stamp on that base um do I still okay um yeah you do um finally I I'm just going to there's a lot more there's so much more one thing I want to say we want want this service Town wants a service we don't we're not denying this it's already there so when they use the terms you you can't deny there's the in the application um it says there's page 8 n and 10 there are that states the laws basically it says you can't deny service we're not denying service it's right there and it's working so if they want to upgrade their service that's up to them and we are not denying it so by doing a denial don't be afraid of oh the lawsuits and stuff like that because we're not denying anything and again it's Broadband let's bring it in underground let's preserve our values and the beauty of our town thanks thanks Peter next speaker is Kevin Rose and after Kevin Ellen Proctor Kevin Rose did he leave okay Mr Proctor please um hello uh good afternoon everybody um so I'm a resident that does live within 300 fet um I got the letter um it was dated November 20th so that was the first I found out about this a few weeks ago um so I didn't really prepare anything but um I guess just for the record I am a civil engineer a registered professional engineer so I do have my engineer stamp um I'm I'm against this um aesthetically health concerns and my property value I purchased the home U about a couple years ago um so I do have concerns about this I didn't know um the flag pole was an antenna I have no problem with the flag pole but uh this new it it is definitely new construction I would um I also found it surprising about the foundation um seems like it um would need a new Foundation but um anyway just wanted to submit my uh testimony into the record so thank you no more speaker cards chair Paula can you tally up what came in via email um and maybe hand delivered that did not speak for us so we received six comment cards by email and three of the people opposed the project one was for it and one was I couldn't decide what it was they just made a comment you want to read that comment just so we can well sure I think there were four in against so let's see so the comment is following you can neither stem the tide of progress nor fight the federal government no matter what is said at a public meeting this 5G invasion of progress cannot be stopped perhaps we can keep them away from folks homes and place them in public parks and such however yeah how do you interpret that for against I'm going to go against against okay there you go yeah I mean the however does that opens it up again but I just leave it against it does say it's that they are against in if you look above the comment no that's not very fun I know all right there you go let's go ahead and we will formally close the public hearing um farad let's bring you back up for um any any final discussion amongst the commission with staff um I'll start since the mic's hot already I you know we heard we heard um a lot of the same sentiment that I think farud you you pointed out in the staff report around height uh fall distance setbacks um new vers verus uh renovation Etc the thing that gives me the most pause and I I I'm of the same opinion as several of the speakers I you know the the service is the cell service is warranted the rest of it is is highly subjective but we're talking about this placement on an R1 to35 property and that's the that's the underlying thing that I have a lot of um a lot of trouble with here here so I want to hear what the other Commissioners um have to say commissioner kovic um yeah I had a hard time this is a tough vote but um you know because extending the tower 10 ft and expanding capacity to allow a full array of antennas will allow more residents to get less expensive wireless internet and access at home and uh but the tower doesn't comply with our previous zoning ordinance it doesn't comply with the new zoning ordinance when we were charged with reviewing and rewriting chapter 17 we were given eight model ordinances from other municipalities and this Tower wouldn't meet any of those eight the tower doesn't meet many of the goals of our zoning ordinance goal number one it doesn't protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of the towers and antennas goal number two in the ordinance it doesn't encourage the location of towers in non-residential areas goal number four it has no provision for collocation it doesn't encourage the joint use of an existing Tower site and then goal number eight with single family residences next door and across the street it doesn't consider the public health health and safety of communication Towers so this Su doesn't meet four the nine goals in our ordinance um so basing our recommendation to Town Council strict strictly on Planning and Zoning aspects of the petition I'll be recommending denial this is a non-conforming use petitioners asking us to double down on the non-conforming use the town publicly states in the ordinance we don't want this use in a residential area we have a wonderful town the ordinances are a big reason why so there's got to be a better way commissioner Watts so I'm going to make a comment about the last comment card I think that there was actually some insight in into that comand card that was made and I think Miss trowler said the same thing that we're not here to prohibit 5G in any form at some point it's the proper management and implementation it's how we can do it constructively how we can do it smartly if that's a word but not to just no it's not it's not a word strike the smart light thank you um but I I just don't think I think the height issue r135 doesn't fit um I don't think there's any bumpers in our current ordinances around the radio frequency limitations uh the applicant was kind of not real exacting about the reasons and wasn't exacting about what frequencies it's got internet it's got Broadband but I think we need to have bumpers around what's cellular we can't restrict cellular that's a given and I'll I'll acquest to that but I think we've got to get something that says you cannot operate outside this frequency and you can't and you can't operate within a certain area so those are a couple of reasons I know for a fact that the nopa has not had an application submitted to get the approval and I don't believe it would pass the community of architecture kind of got a little insight there so I I also will be against voting for moving forward this Su farad can you just procedural clarification for me what's the procedural value of this being considered a renovation versus a new build is is that purely semantics or is there either procedural or uh Financial value to the applicant yeah U Mr chairman I don't I'm not sure if procedurally there is certainly under the old ordinance I'm not sure if there's a uh procedurally any value as you said the new ordinance does have shot clock requirements so to speak um had that been submitted uh after the ordinance took effect or I should say after the ordinance was approved um I guess you know then we could you know start discussing whether the 90-day shot clock would uh would would apply here for Replacements versus new facility um in my earlier discussions I think and this is all having to do with the new ordinance um with uh with some staff it uh it sounds like it's a we would consider it a new facility under the 150 day shot clock okay thank you chrisher SPM uh telecommunications is not in my wheelhouse but I didn't hear just the motion from all of you tonight I felt you there's a lot of facts that were brought out I I appreciate hearing that I'm not so sure um how this a tower like this would affect values of property necessarily but I I do think there's there was no there's no compelling reason to approve this this antenna and frankly a billion dollar company ought to be able to design something that's a lot more attractive than something like this I the one that's down east of Soro I first time I saw that I just laughed to have that uh in a in a town this beautiful U there's there has to be better ways to do this uh and T-Mobile or whoever would like to present a tower to to improve their services and and create more business they've got to do a better job of convincing not not only us but you as neighbors and those that are directly affected just driving by the site um after this came out and the photos and everything I'm I'm picturing how bad this is going to look and it's one of those why did we allow that to happen so until they come up with a better answer I'm I'm I'm a no totally no commissioner depa yeah uh chair I'm I'm not I don't have enough information here to really um come to a solid decision on this but um I'm not convinced that it is a rebuild um I don't know what the weight of the components uh that are going to be sitting on the top of this tower that is twice as high as uh as the flag pole um so yeah I'm I'm I'm I'm not able to uh to to move forward with this either commissioner Corey at this time thank you chair um yeah I'd have to agree with what my uh colleague said I think the increased height doesn't it doesn't really align with the character of the residential neighborhood and I think we should explore other designs or configurations that maybe can give us uh the communication that we need without it being so impactful so um I think I will also be a no vote on this and I appreciate all the feedback that we heard today thank you Commissioners um I think it's pretty clear uh the way the recommendation is going to go here tonight um I don't know if anybody has a motion in mind that they'd like to make commissioner kovic sure I'll move to deny the uh request I'll second okay let's do it on the basis of uh I'd like you to include on the basis of it's in a R1 to35 uh zoned zoned parcel as one if if you would consider that absolutely secondary considerations second well we've got a second from commission Watts any any any additional clarifying considerations so R1 to35 I want to make sure we give the council good good meat to work with it doesn't meet the goals of our zoning ordinance okay so let's say on the basis of siding in a 1 to35 parcel and in general non-conformance with zoning ordinance heavily inclusive of height fall zone and setback yes I think the radio frequencies also need to be included that they're not it's not clear whether it is actually Broadband or simply cellular and that needs to be defined I think we got that answer I think it's broad I mean I was he said it was Broadband I don't think it's clear it it is but this is a in hearing so let's mhm all right um and I think the the statement about First Responders it does not affect First Responders so I want to make sure that's clear to the council as well this does not have an impact on First Responders they do operate completely on I know for a fact on MCSO they operate on a different frequency completely or different system so it doesn't affect that um I think about covers it for okay farad enough to work with absolutely okay so a motion on the table to recommend Denial on the basis just discussed from commissioner kovic seconded by commissioner Watts uh Paula just for uh posterity sake rooll call please commissioner Corey I commissioner depa I commissioner kovic I commissioner seen I Vice chair Watts I chair gray I 60 thank you Paula okay so just for clarity uh that motion is going to town council with a recommendation to deny on that basis Mr chairman on on that note about the town council meeting if I may make a clarification um I think the schedule for the next year's Town Council meetings will be officially um uh under consideration next week um there's reference made in the public notice as well as the legal ad that the meeting will be on January 22nd which is a Wednesday two days after the Martin Luther King holiday um I believe there is a push to uh reschedule that uh on Tuesday for Tuesday January 21st um but we'll find out next week but just for everyone's benefit F in the public and uh I've asked the applicant to make the change in the sign once it becomes official okay thank you farad okay uh let's move on to agenda item number five another public hearing consideration and possible action amending chapter 12 of the commercial zoning districts to allow outdoor display of non- gasoline powered vehicles of no more than one ton in weight to the C1 neighborhood commercial and professional zoning District under a special use permit and farad let's just give the room a couple seconds here all right thank you Mr chairman members of the commission so this next item is a uh uh staff initiated text Amendment for the direction of the Town Council to allow outdoor display of small non- gasoline powered vehicles particularly in the C1 zoning District now what spurred this uh text Amendment proposal uh as you might recall I believe uh it came before the commission back in SE I want to say uh actually I think maybe October um there was a reone request uh from uh a business owner that business owner being the owner of a uh uh golf cart sales uh buiness business at the corner of Fountain Hills Boulevard and Glen Brook Avenue uh and uh the request was from a rezone from C1 to C2 uh particularly to uh allow outdoor display of golf carts and that was the only instrument that would um allow outdoor golf cart display uh or any kind of vehicle display uh Outdoors in the in the uh C2 zoning District um so that uh came before the commission back in October it was uh the reone was denied um uh per commission's recommendation and also per staff's recommendation uh at the November 19th council meeting um however uh as staff had expected um after the commission meeting as well as the council meeting uh staff receiv received Direction to um propose a text amendment to allow golf cart uh display in the C1 zoning district and the reason to for the denial was um there were a whole uh list of other uses under the C2 um that would have been allowed had that res Zone been approved including hotels and drive-throughs which clearly would not have been appropriate for the area so uh given the direction given by Town Council we took a number of considerations s uh did did a little bit of research um and in looking at not only golf carts but also similar vehicles um we uh we first looked at uh you know the scale of these these vehicles and we found that uh you know four seater four seater golf carts uh can weigh anywhere between uh 400 to 550 pounds um six-seater golf carts uh which aren't that uncommon can weigh as much as 1,800 50 lbs uh we also asked the question well are there other non- gasoline powered vehicles such as golf carts um um that are in similar size and weight and um we thought possibly there there could be a number number of others the staff report made reference to uh pedicabs uh I'm not sure how frequently they would be used in the area but they are after all vehicles non- gasoline powered and not even electrical um or Electrical uh uh Electric Power uh go-karts for example and so uh we basically um as you'll see in the the suggested text amendment in the following slide we uh thought of a limit of one ton for outdoor vehicle non- gasoline powered uh outdoor vehicle displays um we also thought about likely areas for the display well more likely than not these such Vehicles would be displayed in in uh in the parking stalls now that brings up a number of questions of you know would display of such Vehicles compromise um the parking demand uh for a particular uh commercial center and also should we um consider this uh a bu right use in the C1 or or one that would require an Su and uh really uh we we recommend language in the zoning or that would require a uh a special use permit for outdoor display of non- gasoline vehicles um of no more than one ton in the se1 uh zoning District I know there's a reference here to the CC district and that um but this this is uh particularly for uh specifically for the C1 zoning District this proposed text Amendment um see what thought of adding oh uh so that way can come before you uh and bring up other considerations that might be associated with the requests such as the the the parking requirement um would if if if there's some serious questions about accessibility to a parking lot um because of these uh vehicle displays well that's something that the uh the commission and councel can consider uh commission and councel can also consider a uh an expiration date or a requirement to come back back and renew after a certain period of time in the earlier presentation I mentioned that special use permits typically run with the land however unless there is a specific time limit uh placed on uh or stipulated with the approval then that can be uh tagged to the uh the property in in question um so quite simply that's uh that's it uh in a nutshell but if you have any more questions about how staff went about this and proposing the the language you see before you um I'll open up to questions right now pretty straightforward farad um like the idea of it being tied to the special use permit as we delve into new kind of shouldn't be Placid but uncharted waters here with something like this um and I appreciate the the background and how we got to this um I'm just curious what the commission thinks I i' almost propose that this type of special use permit sunset uh with a business license so that we're you know we're able to kind of re-evaluate that um over time I don't think that that should run with the land like like some others do um commissioner Watson no I agree I think the special use permit sunsetting or being limited to um the individual that applies for the special use permit they ought to have some stipulations on it and I'm still a little confused about is it the land is the owner because I've heard both ways and I'm going to do a little more research there but I think this particular one should sunset with uh the ownership or the business license in this case either one um but if he does sell the the business to a relative or partner or something like that uh this would have to be renewed I don't I don't see why that would be necessary not if you necessarily did it with the business if you sold the business you wouldn't have to renew it yeah the license would stay intact type of business you're talking about not the owner of the business you that yeah if the in this particular case I'll use the golf carts um if I sold my golf cart business to you that special use permit would remain intact because it's consistent but now if I sold the property to somebody else then uh it would have to be you'd have to apply for a new special use permit John doesn't like it sorry so chair Commissioners I I got up particularly when was the comment about the business license if you sell the business to Phil and Phil's going to have to get his own business license so it' be a new business license so I think you'd have to be a little careful in how you might word that uh but I guess going with what commissioner Stephen was saying if it's really the same business at the same location regardless of who the owner is and again I'm not sure why that would need a special use permit change I my thought initially is it could just be considered with each special use permit and how you might want to put a tie on it if there's a a time frame or or if it's a vacancy or or whatever I certainly I guess coming back to Vice chair your comments and still kind of the confusion that's out there about how these continue or don't continue if this particular applicant gets approval of his Su continues his business but then for whatever reason closes it down and it's it's gets discontinued and then after it's discontinued someone comes back and wants to do the same business they would have to reapply it doesn't run with the land after the business has been vacated it's lost its status at that point but so here your suggestion is to make it um with the business license as opposed to the owner of the business no I'm I guess I'm not being very clear I think the business license would be the wrong way to go because I don't think that that accomplishes what you're after I think you could handle it on a case-by Case basis with each special use permit to see if you want to put some stipulation on how it transfers or how it terminates but just in normal practice if one business goes out and it's the property is now vacant then somebody wants to put the same business back in they would need a new special use permit it doesn't run with the land once it's become BAC it in that regard I mean but then we're just kind of Crystal balling it with each and every application so I I go back closer to business type and continuity of business just simply say something generic to the effect of if the parcel's used for an alternate purpose the special use permit would sunset at any time I just I I don't think you want to leave something like this with the parcel forever to be picked back up 10 years from now um I also I got a question regarding why are we talking about non- gasoline powered vehicles um is this your business I thought so you take you take older golf carts in on trade I do well I mean there sometimes they might be gas I mean but I get I don't guess well but if you wanted to display them you would not be able to do that under this provision or some of your other vehicles or other um product they may be gas powered as well right what electric go-kart is that what I heard that that was I'm sorry what okay all right I I don't deal with gasoline golf carts I I if I do take them in on trade you're correct that that does happen from time to time but I get rid of them as quickly as as I can you know well in the event that you can't why are we li I just don't understand why we're limiting limiting to non- gasoline vehicles is there is there a reason it was written that way yeah Mr chair excuse me I'm sorry Mr chairman commissioner spam uh the reason being is the gasoline powered vehicles with their Motors and engines typically you know generate noise that you know may not be compatible um you know within depending on the area so there's fewer nuisances with associated with a non- gasoline powered vehicle well there's cars running on the street as well so I I I I just don't know that you want to limit in those cases you might not be able that's just my opinion I I agree I guess I I would feel better if you took it out uh I don't mind the the the ton he put one ton in there I'm okay with that is it is there is there a weight problem if it's a gasoline cart no no gas I mean one ton would be fine yes that would I'd be okay with the one ton but the gasoline you're right if I take one in on trade and I'm I've got to get rid of it and and I'm under the gun you know because I can't you've got money tied up yes in it so and I don't want to leave a gas cart inside the building right so personally I I I would like to to provide more um flexibility with that and and eliminate the non gasoline all they'd have to do is remove the gasoline power they can leave the weight I'm good with that so I I generally am with you but devil's advocate for a second what if he takes in an unmuffled go-kart or a razor and now that's displayed and shown to a prospective buyer in in a residential district that's unfair to the C1 designation I in I I I get where you're coming from because I don't like the razors they're loud and obnoxious and and uh they're unlike aive too they're not like a golf cart you know they're they're much quieter a razor they're very very loud so is there a can we use a different classification I mean is there a lens your classification that can be used that would call that stuff out basically we are I mean I'm a golf cart store I don't sell uh utvs I I don't uh no interest in selling Vespas or anything like that no not really no no motorcycles or you know I I have no interest what why can't we provide an exclusion for the operation of gas powered vehicles and a 30-day limit to uh dispose of them when taking on trade I'm okay with that yeah I don't I don't care do something then you've accomplished that and you for yeah that's fine yeah okay um so let let's try and expedite this PA us speaker cards no chair commissioner W did you have more nope that's it okay um final discussions or a motion commiss wats U I am moved to approve with the additional comments about uh the exclusion of the operation of gas powered vehicles and a 30-day limitation on the storage of gas vehicles and sunet of the Su with and sunet of the Su with a business Li I'm still I'm confused a bit about the business license versus the ownership versus business just say when when continuity of the business ceases to exist or something when business continuity ceases to exist at that under that SU okay when the when the continuity of the business ceases under the business license of the operation muddy as all G look at the minutes yeah gives you a little bit to work with uh commission commissioner Cory commissioner TOA yeah one comment our all golf carts non gasoline so I'm glad that we addressed that um and I'm with you on uper it commissioner depa yeah and would this be restricted uh to this owner like uh like John was saying or is it going to be to the license and also would a neighbor of his be able to just uh maybe decide one day to sell his own and just pull it out front and uh and leave it there with a forel sign on it or can any of the neighbors pull up their card so what my question is is this this restricted to this address only yes it's restricted to this to Mr chairman this is a if we're talking about the text Amendment before you this is this will be across the board for anyone but they'll all been they'll all require a special use permit that is correct but it's not for this particular individual at this particular address yes uhuh okay but but commissioner dead each applicant is going to have to come through the Su process so in essence the next iteration of this is specific to this business at this address okay all we're doing today is modifying the ordinance to allow for the use of an Su in this application all right all right thanks yeah all right well thank you commission kov is so if we pass this tonight does the um golf cart business have to then come in for a special use permit they have to go through that through that process after this uh uh Mr chairman commissioner yes uh the applicant would require to uh be required to apply for a special use permit and I'm not sure if the previous so chairman commissioner kovic so back in October when you consider this before you you uh postponed or set aside the special use permit request waiting for this so we are getting it scheduled for your January meeting for it to come back uh for its approval is there is there a fee that he's going to have to pay for this Su uh Mr chair no well as as John just said we'll okay okay so we're we're yeah great okay um all in favor well wait was there a second no second commissioner ass second so commissioner recommends approval with stipulation commissioner seconds all in favor I I I thank you thank you all right uh straw pole do we want to continue on tonight or do we want to defer what's our next agenda look like John so uh your January meeting at this point the only thing I'm aware of is the special use permit for the golf cart do you have uh oh oh we may have uh the uh speci use permits up in plat 106 that we continued from a previous meeting that may be back also oh the eim yes proposal um straw pole we want to continue on tonight if well do you object if we if I take my straw pole no uh chairman this is uh early input discussion by the commission so if you'd rather not discuss it this evening we can we can wait well I I mean I don't I don't want to give you a memorable one what do you guys think defer it yeah okay if you don't object John we'll defer that all right uh so agenda item six we will it's not a hearing so we'll just defer continue that uh to our next agenda noce our next regularly scheduled meeting uh see number six discuss and provide no number seven commission discussion request for research to staff anything for John commissioner kovic yeah just um in response to the meeting tonight is where does it fall in the town to bring in Broadband um fiber underground who who does that uh chair commissioner kic at this point it would be a private IND that feels like it's economically feasible for them to do so does somebody in the is there would that be Amanda that would would solicit something like that from Private Industry or or who would do that either that or public works okay or the utility in themselves well yeah the utility obviously if they saw it as well the interesting to to your point and we've talked about before there's a number of um Grant like programs and funds out there to support that effort if it's driven from the municipality so I think that you're going down a path that we should probably promote Mr Mayor sitting in the back row that's all I am but to your point if we found some commercial heavy commercial industrial application Campus based and we were supporters of doing that for that local that would be a good thing for economic development to promote absolutely yeah chicken egg egg chicken yeah it would be all right John reverse it anything for us oh chairman uh happy holidays we've already discussed what we expect to be on your January meeting so with that uh Vice chair Watts we'll see you in another meeting good morning he what happens he goes to like to the end of the row when he moves up there to the big leagues he'll decide that down there all right John farad thank you thank you guys we're adjourned Clayton you can go home all right thank you what