Extracted text (via pymupdf)
44835 characters
March 12, 2025 SU240026 Page 1 of 3 Report to the Board of Supervisors Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Board Hearing Date: March 12, 2025 Case #/Title: SU240026 – Superstition View Supervisor District: 2 Applicant/Owner: Linda Grice, Young Design Corp / Mountain Road Storage LLC Request: Special Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless communication facility (WCF) in the C-3 CUPD zoning district Site Location: Generally located 297’ north of the NEC of Mountain Rd. & Williams Field Rd. in the southeast Mesa area Site Size: 2,450 sq. ft. lease area of a 1.96-acre site County Island Status: Yes (City of Mesa) Additional Comments: The proposal is a 100’ (h) monopole WCF within a 70’x35’ ground compound screened by an 7’ solid wall. The site is part of an approx. 2-acre site zoned C-3 CUPD. It sits in the northeastern portion of the parcel accessed via a 12’ easement from Mountain Rd. The WCF meets the ordinance standards with the exception of the diameter of the antenna array which at 16’2” exceeds the maximum 8’ (ref.: MCZO Article 1202.3.1.1.h ). This array diameter triggered requirement for the SUP. The monopole will be neutral in color with a non-reflective sheen (ref.: MCZO article 1202.3.1.1.d). The WCF will be utilized for AT&T with the ability to host two additional carriers in the future. The WCF is required to meet a 1:1 setback from the north property line due to existing Rural-43 zoning and the setbacks are 110’ from the north property line, 186’-2” from the south, 286’ from the west and 22’-8 from the east. The applicant is requesting two variations for the proposed WCF associated with the antenna array size and to utilize decomposed granite with a compacted base for the driveway. The increase in the antenna array size is consistent with other WCF SUPs approved by the Board in this region. The proposed neutral, non-sheen tower will allow the tower to blend with the surrounding rural/residential area. A stealth design was not proposed due to the sheer height of the tower and lack of any similar verticality in the immediately surrounding area. March 12, 2025 SU240026 Page 2 of 3 The application was routed to the City of Mesa, who did not comment. Staff received a letter from Mesa Gateway Airport Authority stating the site is within the Airport Overflight Area (AO) III from the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and references that the subject site will experience frequent aircraft overflights and will be affected by noise. WCFs are considered a compatible land use in proximity to the airport and referenced requirement for Form 7460 with the FAA and other design considerations associated features that could impact pilot’s vision, placement of lighting and any sources of electromagnetic interference. Since the publishing of the staff report, staff received one (1) e-mail in opposition, detailing concerns with visual impacts of the proposed WCF. The total number opposing the case is three (3) individuals. There are no outstanding concerns from county review agencies. Commission Recommendation: On 2/6/25, the Commission voted 7-0 (motion by Commissioner Finter D2, seconded by Commissioner Milhaven D2) to adopt a motion recommending the Board of Supervisors approve SU240026 subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘i’: a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan entitled “Superstition View“, consisting of 7 full-size sheets, dated January 16, 2025 and stamped received January 16, 2025 except as modified by the following conditions. Staff may determine slight refinements to remain in substantial conformance with the approved site plan. Minor and major amendments to the site plan will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report entitled “Request for Use Permit Narrative Report – Superstition View”, consisting of 6 pages, stamped received January 20, 2025 except as modified by the following conditions. c. The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply: 1. Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of application for construction. 2. Based upon the conceptual nature of the information submitted, changes to the site layout may be necessitated by the final design of the infrastructure. 3. The proposed construction appears to meet the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 1205.7.7 and as such a site plan containing the information on the attached checklist (Form 718) is required. 4. The CMU enclosure will require drainage openings (turned block, every other block, no decorative block permitted) along the bottom. March 12, 2025 SU240026 Page 3 of 3 5. All work in the S. Mountain ROW will require a permit from MCDOT. Access to S. Mountain Road will require a paved driveway access (within the R/W) and a MCDOT R/W permit to be issued concurrent with building permit(s) for the WCF. Drainage along the roadway must be maintained. 6. The applicant must execute a Wireless Agreement with MCDOT for all equipment, conduit, F/O and other work that will be within MCDOT R/W. This agreement must be coordinated with Shannon Marucha, MCDOT Utility Senior Project Manager, 602-506-0068 or Shannon.Marucha@maricopa.gov d. The maximum height of the Wireless Communication Facility shall be limited to 100’. e. The maximum allowed antenna array diameter is 16’-2” unless an Eligible Facilities Request under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act. f. A Minor Amendment shall be required to co-locate future carriers on the Wireless Communication Facility. g. This special use permit is valid for a period of 30 years and shall expire on March 12, 2055, or upon termination of the use for a period of 90 or more days, whichever occurs first. All site improvements associated with the special use permit shall be removed within 90 days of such expiration or termination of use. h. Noncompliance with any of the conditions assigned to the approval of this Special Use Permit by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be grounds for revocation in accordance with the requirements and procedures as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. i. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, and at the time of expiration of the Special Use Permit, the property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, or the expiration of the Special Use Permit, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation or expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the Special Use Permit had never been granted. Presented by: Daniel Johnson, Planner Reviewed by: Darren Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: 2/6/25 P&Z Packet (11 pages) P&Z Handout Memos (23 pages) Note: 2/6/25 Draft P&Z Minutes are not available as of the writing of this report, but can be provided upon request later when available. SU240026 Page 1 of 11 Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: SU240026 – Superstition View Hearing Date: February 6, 2025 Supervisor District: 2 Applicant: Linda Grice, Young Design Corp Owner: Mountain Road Storage LLC Request: Special Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless communication facility in the C-3 CUPD zoning district Site Location: Generally located 297’ north of the NEC of Mountain Rd. & Williams Field Rd. in the southeast Mesa area Site Size: 2,450 sq. ft. lease area of a 1.96 acre site Density: N/A County Island: Yes (City of Mesa) County Plan: Rural Development Area Municipal Plan: City of Mesa – Regional Center Municipal Comments: None received to date Support/Opposition: 2 in opposition Recommendation: Approve with conditions SU240026 Page 2 of 11 Project Summary: 1. The request is for a SUP for a 100’ (h) wireless communication facility monopole and ground equipment on a property zoned C-3 CUPD. The subject site is located approximately 297’ north of the NEC of Mountain Rd. & Williams Field Rd. in the southeast Mesa area. The lease area consists of 70’ x 35’ with 2,450 sq. ft. lease area of a 1.96 acre site. The lease area is located at the northeastern region of the parcel with a 12’ wide access easement along the northern region for roadway access from Mountain Rd. with a single technician parking space. 2. The WCF meets the underlying standards with the exception of the diameter of the antenna array which exceed MCZO Article 1202.3.1.1.h which limits diameter of antenna arrays to 8’, the WCF is proposed with an antenna array of 16’-2”. The tower will include a total of 9 antennas, six RRUs and 3 Squid/OVPs. A backup generator is proposed along with ground equipment within the WCF compound to be enclosed within an 8’ tall CMU wall. The monopole will be neutral in color with a non-reflective sheen as required per MCZO article 1202.3.1.1.d. The WCF will be utilized for AT&T with the ability to host two additional carriers in the future. The site plan shows two future lease areas directly north of the AT&T lease area. 3. The subject site is currently vacant. C-3 CUPD zoning was approved by the Board of Supervisors for the subject site and two adjacent parcels. Case Z2016083 entitled for the commercial storage of RVs and a self-storage facility on 8.4. The storage facility was never constructed. The C-3 CUPD included variations for screening, parking and utilization of septic system of all which have no impact with the proposed WCF. 4. The WCF is required to meet a 1:1 setback from the north property line due to existing Rural-43 zoning for a 100’ setback to monopole and antenna attachments. The setback to the antenna attachments is 103’-5”. The tower will be setback 110’ from the north property line, 186’-2” from the south property line, 286’ from the west and 22’-8 from the east. The applicant is requesting two variations for the proposed WCF associated with the antenna array size and to utilize decomposed granite with a compacted base for the driveway. These deviations trigger requirement for the SUP, see chart on next page. SU240026 Page 3 of 11 REGULATION BASE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS for WCF PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS (C-3 SUP) Maximum WCF height 120’ 100’ Setback from property lines abuts land in Rural/Residential zoning district One foot for every one foot in height Northern Setback to antenna: 103’-5” Property line to monopole setbacks From north property line: 110’ From south property line: 186’-2” From west property line: 286’ From east property line: 22’-8” Parking surface material Pavement – Article 1102.7.1 Driveway connection to Mountain Rd. will be asphalt. The internal driveway will be decomposed granite with a compacted base. Maximum Diameter of Antenna Array 8’ 16’-2” Tower Diameter 30” 22” 5. The narrative report includes exhibits that indicate the region is developing primarily as residential and rural land uses. City of Mesa jurisdiction is located to the south and southwest with single- family residential land uses. The report states there are no other WCFs within a 1-mile radius of the site. The first carrier to be located on the monopole is AT&T with maps provided showing the existing and proposed cellular coverage. The applicant states that the tower will improve coverage and provide additional capacity for the existing tower located to the south, AZL04289. The tower will fill in a coverage gap and expand and improve AT&T’s network capacity, see images on next page. SU240026 Page 4 of 11 Existing coverage area with mid-level coverage identified in the vicinity. Proposed coverage area with best level of coverage for vicinity with the proposed monopole. SU240026 Page 5 of 11 2024 aerial image of site and surrounding environs. Aerial image surrounding environs. SU240026 Page 6 of 11 Zoning District map showing C-3 CUPD zoning, Rural-43 to the north and west and residential to the south and southwest within Mesa jurisdiction. Proposed site plan SU240026 Page 7 of 11 Enlarged image of site plan with lease area. SU240026 Page 8 of 11 Tower elevation details 100’ height with north elevation (image on left) and west elevation (image on right). Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use: 6. On-site: C-3 CUPD/ vacant North: Rural-43 / vacant South: C-3 CUPD / vacant East: C-3 CUPD/ vacant West: Rural-43 / scattered large lot residential Utilities and Services: 7. Water: N/A Wastewater: N/A School District: Queen Creek Unified School District Fire: Rural Metro Police: MCSO Right-of-Way: 8. The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Major Streets and Routes Plan. Street Name Half-width Existing R/W Half-width Proposed R/W Future Classification Mountain Rd. 40’ 40’ Minor Collector SU240026 Page 9 of 11 Adopted Plan: 9. City of Mesa 2050 General Plan (adopted November 2024): The subject site is designated as Regional Center. The general plan describes this designation as an area for major retail, recreational and entertainment. This classification is associated with commercial land uses. Public Participation Summary: 10. The applicant met all statutory minimum requirements for public outreach with notification mailers were sent to all property owners within 300’ of the site and all identified parties registered as an area of interest. The site was posted with two public hearing notification signs. The applicant reported that one neighbor submitted opposition with concerns associated with aesthetic impacts, setbacks and use. Staff received two letters in opposition with concerns associated with property values, aesthetic and community character. Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies: 11. N/A Staff Analysis: 12. Staff notes the proposed WCF meets ordinance requirements for height and setbacks but exceeds the maximum 8’ diameter for the antenna array at 16’-2”. This has triggered the SUP requirement. The increase in the antenna array size is consistent with other WCF SUPs approved by the Board in this region. The proposed neutral, non-sheen tower will allow the tower to blend with the surrounding rural/residential area. 13. Staff is supportive of the SUP. The application was routed to the City of Mesa, no comments were received from the City or Area of interest groups as part of routing of the application. The County has not received any public comment on the WCF application. Staff believes the proposed WCF will provide increased cellular coverage in southeast Mesa directly south of Williams Field Rd. Recommendation: 14. Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve SU240026 subject to the following conditions ‘a’ – ‘i’: a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Site Plan entitled “Superstition View“, consisting of 7 full-size sheets, dated January 16, 2025 and stamped received January 16, 2025 except as modified by the following conditions. Staff may determine slight refinements to remain in substantial conformance with the approved site plan. Minor and major amendments to the site plan will be determined in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report entitled “Request for Use Permit Narrative Report – Superstition View”, consisting of 6 pages, stamped received January 20, 2025 except as modified by the following conditions. c. The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply: SU240026 Page 10 of 11 1. Engineering review of planning and/or zoning cases is for conceptual design only. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of application for construction. 2. Based upon the conceptual nature of the information submitted, changes to the site layout may be necessitated by the final design of the infrastructure. 3. The proposed construction appears to meet the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 1205.7.7 and as such a site plan containing the information on the attached checklist (Form 718) is required. 4. The CMU enclosure will require drainage openings (turned block, every other block, no decorative block permitted) along the bottom. 5. All work in the S. Mountain ROW will require a permit from MCDOT. Access to S. Mountain Road will require a paved driveway access (within the R/W) and a MCDOT R/W permit to be issued concurrent with building permit(s) for the WCF. Drainage along the roadway must be maintained. 6. The applicant must execute a Wireless Agreement with MCDOT for all equipment, conduit, F/O and other work that will be within MCDOT R/W. This agreement must be coordinated with Ms. Kelly Roy, MCDOT Utility Branch Coordination Manager, 602-506-8603 or Kelly.Roy@maricopa.gov d. The maximum height of the Wireless Communication Facility shall be limited to 100’. e. The maximum allowed antenna array diameter is 16’-2” unless an Eligible Facilities Request under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act. f. A Minor Amendment shall be required to co-locate future carriers on the Wireless Communication Facility. g. This special use permit is valid for a period of 30 years and shall expire on March 12, 2055, or upon termination of the use for a period of 90 or more days, whichever occurs first. All site improvements associated with the special use permit shall be removed within 90 days of such expiration or termination of use. h. Noncompliance with any of the conditions assigned to the approval of this Special Use Permit by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be grounds for revocation in accordance with the requirements and procedures as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. i. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, and at the time of expiration of the Special Use Permit, the property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, or the expiration of the Special Use Permit, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation or expiration of the Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit enhances the value of the SU240026 Page 11 of 11 property above its value as of the date the Special Use Permit is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the Special Use Permit had never been granted. Presented by: Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor Reviewed by: Darren Gerard, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Site Plan (reduced 8.5”x11”, 7 pages) Narrative Report (6 pages) Engineering comments (3 pages) Letters in opposition (5 pages) DATE: February 4, 2025 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: SU240026 – Superstition View WCF Agenda Item: #4 Since the publishing of the staff report, staff received one (1) e-mail in opposition. The opposition is concerned with the visual impacts of the wireless communication facility in a rural desert landscape area. The property owner is within the 300’ buffer of the subject site, the total number opposing the case is three (3) individuals. Attachment: E-mail in opposition (1 page) This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. Always validate the sender first. From: craig smith To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: case# SU240026 Date: Monday, February 3, 2025 4:40:46 PM Hello, This is Craig and Paula Smith at parcel number, 304-34-003X. We received a card in the mail regarding case # SU240026 - Superstition View WCF. Please do not let this happen. A 100' facility would stand out like a sore thumb in this area. It is still a rural area and we like the desert landscape the way it is. I have been in my house for over 34 years and I don't relish the thought of looking at a sunrise through an 100' facility. We cannot make it to the meeting in person, but will try the virtual attendance. Let us know if there is anything else we can do. Thank you for your time, Craig and Paula Smith DATE: February 5, 2025 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: SU240026 – Superstition View WCF Agenda Item: #4 Since the publishing of the staff report, staff received comments from Mesa Gateway Airport Authority dated 2/5/25 regarding the application. The letter states the site is within the Airport Overflight Area (AOA) III from the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The letter references that the subject site will experience frequent aircraft overflights and will be affected by noise. Wireless communication facilities are considered a compatible land use in proximity to the airport and referenced requirement for Form 7460 with the FAA and other design considerations associated features that could impact pilot’s vision, placement of lighting and any sources of electromagnetic interference. Attachment: Mesa Gateway Airport Authority letter (6 pages) MESA GATEWAY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 5835 SOUTH SOSSAMAN ROAD MESA, ARIZONA 85212-6014 PHONE (480) 988 7600 Operated by the Mesa Gateway Airport Authority, a cooperative effort by Mesa, Gilbert, Queen Creek, Gila River Indian Community, and Apache Junction. February 05, 2025 Rachel Applegate Maricopa County Planning & Development Department 301 West Jefferson Street, Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Re: Superstition View WCF (SU240026) Description: Special Use Permit Location: Mountain & Williams Field Roads This is a Special Use Permit request to allow 100-foot wireless communication facility monopole and ground equipment on a property zoned C-3 CUPD located approximately 297 feet north of the northeast corner of Mountain & Williams Field Roads. This site lies within Airport Overflight Area (AOA) III, as identified in Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Authority’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). It is disclosed that this location will experience frequent aircraft overflights and will be affected by noise. Attendees may hear and see aircraft landing and taking off from the Airport and will experience aircraft overflights that generate noise levels considered by many to be “annoying”. Wireless communication facilities are generally considered a compatible land use in proximity to the airport. Considerations that address airport compatibility with this proposal include: 1- Any proposed permanent, or temporary, structure is required and subject to an FAA filing for review in conformance with CFR Title 14 Part 77 (Form 7460) to determine any effect to navigable airspace and air navigation facilities. An FAA determination notice of no hazard to air navigation shall be provided. Design Review considerations that address airport compatibility include: 1- Any building uses, design, or features which may obscure a pilot’s vision in any way resulting in glare, or flash blindness, should not be permitted. 2- Lighting placement or systems that direct lighting upward or toward the approach paths of aircraft, or that could be confused with airport identification or navigational lighting should not be permitted. 3- Sources of electromagnetic interference with aircraft instrumentation, ground-based radar, or navigational aids should be considered incompatible in AOA’s and shall be considered through CFR Title 14 Part 77 (Form 7460) review. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at (480) 988-7649. 2 Sincerely, Ksenia Kerentseva Airport Planner Attachment 1- Recorded Avigation Notice & Public Airport Disclosure Map Cc: Bob Draper, Engineering & Facilities Director, MGAA FAA Traffic Pattern Airspace FAA Traffic Pattern Airspace 60 DNL 65 DNL Airport Overflight Area III* (Airport Influence Area)* Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ± 0 1 2 3 Miles LEGEND PUBLIC AIRPORT DISCLOSURE MAP Day Night Level (DNL) Noise Contour / Airport Overflight Area Boundary FAA Traffic Pattern Airspace Boundary AIRPORT BOARD EFFECTIVE DATE: February, 21, 2017 1. This exhibit has been prepared in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes, Sections 28-8485 & 28-8486 2. FAA Traffic Pattern Airspace boundaries established in accordance with guidelines provided in FAA Order 7400.2 3. Airport noise contours were developed using the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT, Version 2c), based on total annual operations (take-off and landings) of 498,000 NOTES * Applicable to new development DATE: February 5, 2025 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: SU240026 – Superstition View WCF Agenda Item: #4 An e-mail was received from the applicant with responses to the Mesa Gateway Airport Authority letter review comments. The applicant provided the issued FAA determination of ‘No Hazard to Air Navigation’ for the Superstition View WCF. The FAA letter indicates the proposal does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. The applicant contacted Ksenia Kerentseva with Mesa Gateway Airport Authority to address the responses and provided a copy of the issued FAA letter. Staff received an e-mail from Ksenia Kerentseva indicated they have no issue with the proposal and that the original letter still stands for the applicant to file form 7460 for the crane. Attachments: Response to Mesa Gateway Airport Authority from the applicant (3 pages) FAA letter dated 9/13/24 (6 pages) Mesa Gateway Airport Authority response to applicant contact (4 pages) This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. From: Linda Grice To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: RE: SU240026 - Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 2:59:21 PM Attachments: image001.png My comments are revised: 1- Any proposed permanent, or temporary, structure is required and subject to an FAA filing for review in conformance with CFR Title 14 Part 77 (Form 7460) to determine any effect to navigable airspace and air navigation facilities. An FAA determination notice of no hazard to air navigation shall be provided. Tilson does not have their FAA filing back yet but it is in process and can be provided when issued. The FAA has issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, indicating the “aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation” and provided additional documents to be filed after the tower is fully standing and crane height during installation will not exceed 115 ft AGL. From: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 2:37 PM To: Linda Grice <Linda.Grice@ydcoffice.com> Subject: RE: SU240026 - Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Linda, Do you want to revised your response to item 1, so I can send an updated e-mail and the FAA document to the Commission? Thank you, Rachel Applegate Planning Supervisor Planning & Development 301 W. Jefferson St. Suite 170 Phoenix, AZ 85003 O: 602-372-0318 [ Maricopa.Gov ] Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! From: Linda Grice <Linda.Grice@ydcoffice.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 1:00 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov> Cc: Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov> Subject: RE: SU240026 - Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Hi Rachel, Please see the response below in yellow to the Airport Authority letter comments. 1- Any proposed permanent, or temporary, structure is required and subject to an FAA filing for review in conformance with CFR Title 14 Part 77 (Form Hi Rachel, Please see the response below in yellow to the Airport Authority letter comments. 1- Any proposed permanent, or temporary, structure is required and subject to an FAA filing for review in conformance with CFR Title 14 Part 77 (Form 7460) to determine any effect to navigable airspace and air navigation facilities. An FAA determination notice of no hazard to air navigation shall be provided. Tilson does not have their FAA filing back yet but it is in process and can be provided when issued. Design Review considerations that address airport compatibility include: 1- Any building uses, design, or features which may obscure a pilot’s vision in any way resulting in glare, or flash blindness, should not be permitted. The tower color to be light earth tone and Tils can stipulate it will be non-reflective, if need be. 2- Lighting placement or systems that direct lighting upward or toward the approach paths of aircraft, or that could be confused with airport identification or navigational lighting should not be permitted. The tower will not be lit unless we are told by the FAA that it has to be lite. 3- Sources of electromagnetic interference with aircraft instrumentation, ground- based radar, or navigational aids should be considered incompatible in AOA’s and shall be considered through CFR Title 14 Part 77 (Form 7460) review. Carrier frequencies will not interfere with anything airplane or airport related. Best regards, Linda Grice, PMP Site Acquisition Manager 10245 E. Via Linda #211 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 602.620.0866 (m) From: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 9:04 AM To: Linda Grice <Linda.Grice@ydcoffice.com> Cc: Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov> Subject: SU240026 - Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Morning Linda, Attached is the letter received from Mesa Gateway Airport Authority. I will need to provide the letter as a handout memo for the Planning & Zoning Commission. Thank you, Rachel Applegate Planning Supervisor Planning & Development 301 W. Jefferson St. Suite 170 Phoenix, AZ 85003 O: 602-372-0318 [ Maricopa.Gov ] Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Aeronautical Study No. 2024-AWP-10376-OE Page 1 of 6 Issued Date: 09/13/2024 Heather Carlisle SQF, LLC 16 Middle Street 4th Floord Portland, ME 04101 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Antenna Tower Superstition View Location: Mesa, AZ Latitude: 33-18-28.40N NAD 83 Longitude: 111-35-27.40W Heights: 1442 feet site elevation (SE) 115 feet above ground level (AGL) 1557 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: _____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M. This determination expires on 03/13/2026 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within Page 2 of 6 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Scott Desmarais, at (404) 305-6429, or roger.s- ctr.desmarais@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2024-AWP-10376-OE. Signature Control No: 630052698-633012897 ( DNE ) Julie A. Morgan Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Case Description Frequency Data Map(s) cc: FCC Page 3 of 6 Case Description for ASN 2024-AWP-10376-OE Proposed 115' Monopine Tower Page 4 of 6 Frequency Data for ASN 2024-AWP-10376-OE LOW FREQUENCY HIGH FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP ERP UNIT 6 7 GHz 55 dBW 6 7 GHz 42 dBW 10 11.7 GHz 55 dBW 10 11.7 GHz 42 dBW 17.7 19.7 GHz 55 dBW 17.7 19.7 GHz 42 dBW 21.2 23.6 GHz 55 dBW 21.2 23.6 GHz 42 dBW 614 698 MHz 1000 W 614 698 MHz 2000 W 698 806 MHz 1000 W 806 901 MHz 500 W 806 824 MHz 500 W 824 849 MHz 500 W 851 866 MHz 500 W 869 894 MHz 500 W 896 901 MHz 500 W 901 902 MHz 7 W 929 932 MHz 3500 W 930 931 MHz 3500 W 931 932 MHz 3500 W 932 932.5 MHz 17 dBW 935 940 MHz 1000 W 940 941 MHz 3500 W 1670 1675 MHz 500 W 1710 1755 MHz 500 W 1850 1910 MHz 1640 W 1850 1990 MHz 1640 W 1930 1990 MHz 1640 W 1990 2025 MHz 500 W 2110 2200 MHz 500 W 2305 2360 MHz 2000 W 2305 2310 MHz 2000 W 2345 2360 MHz 2000 W 2496 2690 MHz 500 W Page 5 of 6 Verified Map for ASN 2024-AWP-10376-OE Page 6 of 6 Sectional Map for ASN 2024-AWP-10376-OE This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. From: Ksenia Kerentseva To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: RE: SU240026 - Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 3:23:36 PM Attachments: image001.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png Hi Rachel, That’s great, thank you for sending this over! We have no issue with this proposal, however the letter would still stand, as they would have to file a separate 7460 for the crane. I also just spoke with Linda and she mentioned that they are aware of filing a separate 7460 for the crane when the time comes. Thank you, Ksenia Kerentseva Airport Planner Engineering & Facilities Mesa Gateway Airport Authority 5835 S Sossaman Rd Mesa, AZ 85212-6014 Office: (480) 988-7649 kkerentseva@gatewayairport.com www.gatewayairport.com Please be advised that our office hours are Monday - Thursday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. We are closed Fridays. From: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 2:53 PM To: Ksenia Kerentseva <kkerentseva@gatewayairport.com> Cc: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov> Subject: FW: SU240026 - Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Importance: High CAUTION: External mail. Be careful with links and attachments Good afternoon Ksenia, Received responses from Linda Grice (applicant) regarding the Mesa Gateway Airport Authority letter regarding SU240026 along with a copy of the issued FAA letter. Would you like to amend the Mesa letter for the Commission hearing? I would need a revised letter to provide the Commission. Thank you, Rachel Applegate Planning Supervisor Planning & Development 301 W. Jefferson St. Suite 170 Phoenix, AZ 85003 O: 602-372-0318 [ Maricopa.Gov ] Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! From: Linda Grice <Linda.Grice@ydcoffice.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 2:03 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov> Cc: Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov> Subject: RE: SU240026 - Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Also, Tilson had the FAA No Hazard Determination letter. Please add this to the zoning case. Should I be sending this to the Mesa Gateway Airport Authority? Or is Maricopa County sending it? Thank you. Best regards, Linda Grice, PMP Site Acquisition Also, Tilson had the FAA No Hazard Determination letter. Please add this to the zoning case. Should I be sending this to the Mesa Gateway Airport Authority? Or is Maricopa County sending it? Thank you. Best regards, Linda Grice, PMP Site Acquisition Manager 10245 E. Via Linda #211 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 602.620.0866 (m) From: Linda Grice Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 1:00 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov> Cc: Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov> Subject: RE: SU240026 - Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Hi Rachel, Please see the response below in yellow to the Airport Authority letter comments. 1- Any proposed permanent, or temporary, structure is required and subject to an FAA filing for review in conformance with CFR Title 14 Part 77 (Form 7460) to determine any effect to navigable airspace and air navigation facilities. An FAA determination notice of no hazard to air navigation shall be provided. Tilson does not have their FAA filing back yet but it is in process and can be provided when issued. Design Review considerations that address airport compatibility include: 1- Any building uses, design, or features which may obscure a pilot’s vision in any way resulting in glare, or flash blindness, should not be permitted. The tower color to be light earth tone and Tils can stipulate it will be non-reflective, if need be. 2- Lighting placement or systems that direct lighting upward or toward the approach paths of aircraft, or that could be confused with airport identification or navigational lighting should not be permitted. The tower will not be lit unless we are told by the FAA that it has to be lite. 3- Sources of electromagnetic interference with aircraft instrumentation, ground-based radar, or navigational aids should be considered incompatible in AOA’s and shall be considered through CFR Title 14 Part 77 (Form 7460) review. Carrier frequencies will not interfere with anything airplane or airport related. Best regards, Linda Grice, PMP Site Acquisition Manager 10245 E. Via Linda #211 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 602.620.0866 (m) From: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 9:04 AM To: Linda Grice <Linda.Grice@ydcoffice.com> Cc: Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov> Subject: SU240026 - Mesa Gateway Airport Authority Morning Linda, Attached is the letter received from Mesa Gateway Airport Authority. I will need to provide the letter as a handout memo for the Planning & Zoning Commission. Thank you, Rachel Applegate Planning Supervisor Planning & Development 301 W. Jefferson St. Suite 170 Phoenix, AZ 85003 O: 602-372-0318 [ Maricopa.Gov ] Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!