Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__05-08-23_0814_468       NOTICE OF MEETING REGULAR MEETING FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION      Chairman Peter Gray  Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg Commissioner Patrick Dapaah Commissioner Clayton Corey Commissioner Susan Dempster Commissioner Dan Kovacevic Commissioner Rick Watts      TIME:6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING WHEN:MONDAY, MAY 8, 2023 WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Commissioners of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town’s Council,  various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Commission meeting. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Commission are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived.    REQUEST TO COMMENT   The public is welcome to participate in Commission meetings. TO SPEAK TO AN AGENDA ITEM, please complete a Request to Comment card, located in the back of the Council Chambers, and hand it to the Executive Assistant prior to discussion of that item, if possible. Include the agenda item on which you wish to comment. Speakers will be allowed three contiguous minutes to address the Commission. Verbal comments should be directed through the Presiding Officer and not to individual Commissioners. TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM IN WRITING ONLY, please complete a Request to Comment card, indicating it is a written comment, and check the box on whether you are FOR or AGAINST and agenda item, and hand it to the Executive Assistant prior to discussion, if possible.   REGULAR MEETING           1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE – Chairman Gray     2.ROLL CALL – Chairman Gray     3.CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Commission will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual commissioners may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Commission agenda.     4.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 2023.     5.PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Zone Change for a dual-zoned parcel from R1-35H and OSR to a uniformly zoned R1-35H parcel, located at 16134 E. Tombstone Ave. in Firerock Parcel F, Lot 5 (APN 176-11-069). RZ23-000001     6.PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: SPECIAL USE PERMIT request to allow 16 licensed beds at a home for the aged on a 0.37-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Palisades Blvd. and Westby Drive (16602 E. Palisades Blvd.: APN 176-05-993) in the R-3 Multifamily Zoning District. SUP23-000002     7.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: A request for approval of a Special Use Permit for residential use of commercially zoned property at 12800 N. Saguaro Boulevard, the northwest corner of Saguaro Boulevard and Paul Nordin Parkway, to allow conversion of the existing hotel in to apartments and four short-term rental units. SUP23-000004     8.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION: A request for approval of a Special Use Permit to permit up to 10 apartments in three buildings on a .33 acre parcel located at 16741 E. Glenbrook, the southwest corner of Glenbrook Boulevard and Fountain Hills Boulevard. SUP23-000001     9.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION: Modifications to Chapter 6, Sign Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance     10.COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff.    11.SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director.    12.REPORT from Development Services Director.    13.ADJOURNMENT      Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2023 2 of 3 13.ADJOURNMENT     CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the Town Clerk. Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2023. _____________________________________________  Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant   The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5199 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Commission with this agenda are available for review in the Development Services' Office.    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2023 3 of 3 ITEM 4. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/08/2023 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 2023. Staff Summary (Background) The intent of approving meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action that took place at the meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's website and maintained as permanent records in compliance with state law.   Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approving the meeting minutes of the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 2023.   SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 2023. Attachments Summary PZ April 10, 2023  Verbatim PZ April 10, 2023  Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 2023 1 of 3 DRAFT TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Chairman Gray called the Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on April 10, 2023, to order at 6:01 p.m. and led the Commission and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence. 2. ROLLCALL Commissioners Present: Chairman Peter Gray: Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Susan Dempster; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic (telephonically); Commissioner Rick Watts, Jr. Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Development Services Director John Wesley, Senior Planner Farhad Tavassoli, and Executive Assistant Paula Woodward 3. CALL TO THE PUBLIC The following residents addressed the Commission under the Call to the Public: Larry Meyers Crystal Cavanaugh 4. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2023. MOVED BY Commissioner Dempster to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2023, SECONDED BY Commissioner Corey. Vote: 7 - 0 passed – Unanimously 5. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance 23-06, Site Plan Review Ordinance, repealing and replacing Zoning Ordinance Section 2.04, Site Plan Review Regulations. John Wesley, Development Services Director provided a PowerPoint Presentation regarding the proposed text amendment changes to the site plan review regulations. Chairman Gray opened the item up for public comment. MOVED BY Commissioner Watts to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the repealing and replacing Zoning Ordinance Section 2.04, Site Plan Review Regulations with changes from: “F.1.a. A change in landscape area or open space less than 10%” to “A change in landscape area or open space less than 25%. “SECONDED BY Commissioner Dapaah. Vote: 7 - 0 passed – Unanimously Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 2023 2 of 3 6. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance 23-05, Parking Ordinance, repealing and replacing Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 7, Parking and Loading Requirements. John Wesley, Development Services Director provided a PowerPoint Presentation regarding the proposed text amendment changes to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 7, Parking and Loading Requirements. Chairman Gray opened the item up for public comment. MOVED BY Commissioner Corey to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the Ordinance 23-05, Parking Ordinance, repealing, repealing, and replacing Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 7, Parking and Loading Requirements with the amendment to remove the fifty or more vehicles requirement under J.1. and add “at staff’s discretion” to section J. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. SECONDED BY Commissioner Watts. Vote: 6 - 1 passed Commissioner Corey Aye Commissioner Dapaah Aye Commissioner Dempster Aye Commissioner Kovacevic Nay Commissioner Watts Aye Vice Chairman Schlossberg Aye Chairman Peter Gray Aye 7. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 6, Sign Regulations. MOVED BY Chairman Gray to continue Agenda Item # 7, Chapter 6, signs regulations to the May 10, 2023, Planning and Zoning meeting. SECONDED BY Commissioner Watts. 8. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. Discussion ensured regarding direction on a text amendment to provide zoning allowances for tattoo and body piercing shops. 9. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director. 10. REPORT from Development Services Director. Mr. Wesley stated that May’s meeting would include Rezone of Plaza Fountainside Hotel to C2 as a Special Use Permit to convert to apartments; Special Use Permit for multi-family at Glenbrook Blvd and Fountain Hills Blvd; Cell Tower Special Use Permit; Residential property rezone to allow a bigger house; and the General Plan annual report. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Gray adjourned the Regular meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on April 13, 2023, at 8:14 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 2023 3 of 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Chairman Peter Gray ATTESTED AND PREPARED BY Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on April 10, 2023. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this day of April 10, 2023. Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 1 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 1 of 50 Post-Production File Town of Fountain Hills Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 10, 2023 Transcription Provided By: eScribers, LLC * * * * * Transcription is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. * * * * * TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 2 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 of 50 GRAY: All right, 6:01, let's go ahead and call this meeting to order. This is the April 10th, 2023 version of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission, that you would all rise with us for the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. ALL: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [MOMENT OF SILENCE] GRAY: Thank you. All right. Paula, roll call, please. WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey: COREY: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah. DAPAAH: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster. DEMPSTER: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic. KOVACEVIC: Here. WOODWARD: Commissioner Watts. WATTS: Here. WOODWARD: Vice Chairman Schlossberg. SCHLOSSBERG: Here. WOODWARD: Chairman Gray GRAY: Here. Thank you, Paula. Agenda item 3, Call to the Public. Paula, do we have any speaker cards? WOODWARD: Yes, Chairman, two speakers. GRAY: Thank you. WOODWARD: In order of appearance, Larry Meyers and Crystal Cavanaugh. MEYERS: Chair, Commissioners, what else is new? So we have a new business coming to town, Fountain Hills, Imani Wellness LLC. Actually, they're a new property owner, 17100 East Shea, FireRock Business Center. They bought two parcels. No problem with that, right? To be a property owner here in Fountain Hills. Big problem with their business. They're licensed as an outpatient treatment center with the state, quote, intensive outpatient treatment programs, IOP, for substance abuse and TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 3 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 of 50 mental health disorders in Arizona, as the main headline on their webpage. So this is a full-blown detox facility. That would make three, if you count Angel Heart, Fountain Hills Recovery, and this one. And they're run by nurse practitioners who can prescribe and administer drugs; so we know what that's all about. So simple enough, they fall under the new ordinance, C2-C3, provided they meet all the parameters to serve the community and whatever. 17100 East Shea is not C2-C3, it's C1. So let's see if we can get any boxes checked for C1. And I only bring this up because we seemed to have a tendency to sort of make some things up as we go along with some of this stuff. Certain council members like to see if they can manipulate the town ordinances. "Neighborhood, commercial, and professional district is established to provide a location for modest, well-designed commercial enterprises to serve the surrounding residential neighborhood." Doubt it. "As well as to provide services to the community." Maybe. "And to provide for the appropriate location and professional offices throughout the community. The intent of the district is to integrate limited commercial activity and professional offices with residential land uses in a climate favorable to both." Hardly think that's going to happen with a bunch of imported drug addicts to Fountain Hills. "Particular attention is to be paid to the interface between these uses within the same neighborhood." So they're not going to serve the surrounding neighborhood, I guarantee. I know most of the people down in the Monterey condos and townhouses and I didn't know any drug addicts down there. So we'll just check that box off, that's not happening. I don't know how many drug addicts these group think we have in Fountain Hills, but we already have Fountain Hills recovery, so do we need two? Do we need three, because there's Angel Heart sitting in the wings over there? And I can't see how any of these integrate with a climate favorable to both residents and the commercial -- surrounding commercial, so I just want to make my case for a case closed, no license to be given to these people in that location. And then I'd ask the same question. How many detox facilities do we need in Fountain Hills? Thanks. GRAY: Thank you. CAVANAUGH: I would say some of the same things, no doubt. But for the record, I TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 4 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 of 50 would like to repeat some of them. That Imani Wellness provides intensive outpatient program services to clients who struggle with mental health and substance abuse disorders. It's an intensive outpatient addiction program. And the treatment structure is such that they go there for treatment and it's allowing the person to live at home. Some begin with intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment. Or it could be a step down care, following inpatient treatment. And according to their own website, both can be life-changing to a person's recovery journey. I also want to reiterate what Larry says, that -- well, he didn't tell you, but the founder and the clinical director are mental health nurse practitioners. So that is very important because that's a clear step in outpatient drug treatment programs. The C1 office building in this Red Rock business center is located behind MCO Realty office near Desert Title, near our visitor center. And among other small businesses. And like he said, it was recently sold to this Imani Wellness. And C1 is zoned in such a manner as to serve the surrounding residential neighborhood. It's not meant to be detrimental in any way. And it does not include behavioral health. And what's happening in Fountain Hills? Why is there such a surge in behavioral health businesses from elsewhere attempting to set up shop in these nonconforming zones? And like he said, they're zoning indicates, they're outpatient treatment centers. And I don't understand even why the realtors are selling these places to these businesses. Are they completely unaware of our zoning ordinances here? I mean, it's their job as professionals to know this, I would think. And if they do know this and hope that they can get special use permits, that's just not the way to go about it. I don't know if we need some realtor education about our zoning. And I will end on this, that I'm not really sure what they plan to do. Maybe they're just buying up office space. But if they do want to practice behavioral health and import more and more people with substance abuse problems, that's not going to benefit our community. In fact, we don't even have a sufficient number of people who need this level of treatment. And like Larry also said, we have an ordinance just recently passed that covers most of this. And so I, too, would urge any denial of any future business application for behavioral health in this zone. Thank you. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 5 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 of 50 GRAY: Thank you. Okay. Let's move to agenda item 4, Consideration and possible action to approve the regular meeting minutes from the March 13th venue. Commissioners, any comments or a motion, please. Commissioner Dempster. DEMPSTER: I would like to make a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission, March 13th, 2023 meeting. COREY: Second. GRAY: Thank you. All in favor. ALL: Aye. WOODWARD: 7 - 0 GRAY: Thank you. Okay. Agenda item 5, Public hearing and consideration and possible action on Ordinance 23-06, the site plan review ordinance, repealing and replacing Section 2.04 Site Plan Review Regulations. Mr. Wesley. WESLEY: Commissioners, good evening. I hope we can go through this one very quickly. We reviewed this two months ago and you gave me some initial input at that time. We scheduled it for public hearing last month, but due to the lateness of the meeting, we continued it on to this one. So just quickly again, we are looking at going through each of the section in Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, which deals with the various procedures for rezone, site plans, special use permits, so forth. You've previously reviewed, and council's approved amendment with regard to the special use permit process. And this is the section that deals with site plans and how those are proposed. Overall, we're attempting to develop greater consistency with the different sections within this chapter so that it's easier to administer them. And for people looking for information to follow them and find what they're needed and what's needed with each one. So in Section 2.04 the Site Plan, section A of that deals with the purpose and applicability provisions. It has been amended to provide some additional reference to Chapter 19, the architectural review guidelines require site plan review prior to construction plan review and highlight the benefit of the reviewing of the compliance with zoning early on. And amended to include requirement for redevelopment on expanding or existing businesses. In Section 2.02, there's -- in what I provided to the Commission earlier, I failed to catch a TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 6 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 of 50 change to make it consistent with the special use permit, which I added here after our meeting and discussion a couple of months ago with regard to the electronic application submittals. And so that's been provided. Going on, too, some of the things that were discussed at your meeting a couple of months ago that we have changed. So in Section B 3 c vi and then in d v, vi, and xv, we added references as requested to some of the other sections of the code so it'd be easier to find where those provisions are located. In section C 1, we change the word "review" to "evaluate" to get rid of the duplication of the overuse of the word "review." In section F we added some language to clarify, the site plans or buildings which -- pre -- side plan review will require submission of site plan amendment. And then, add to G clarification that we had the special use permits that would include the Planning and Zoning it wasn't just going straight to council. So those are some of the things that the commissioners identified in your previous review as needed and some clarification. So we made those modifications. Any questions or comments that the Commission has with this Ordinance that's been revised? GRAY: Commissioner Watts. WATTS: Two things. In Section B, I think I'd suggest adding, "or authorized agent of the owner." Quite often the contractor or developer, whoever is actually doing the work isn't the actual owner and they're the agent. So adding that type of a verbiage gives you a little bit of latitude to allow for submission. WESLEY: Chairman and Commissioner, the way we address that is, if it's somebody acting on behalf of an owner, we still have them -- have the owner provide us a letter saying they've authorized the person. So we're still getting something from the owner. WATTS: Yeah. I just didn't see anything in there that suggested that, so. Okay. The other question I had was, I thought that in Section F 1 a, b, and c, it seemed to me that in order of egregiousness, so to speak, a seems to be the most minor and yet it's a 10 percent penalty, so to speak of -- for, if I added one piece of landscaping, the change in the footprint of the building, it could be nominal , it could be a small utility room. So it's pretty, pretty ticky-tack, in my estimation. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 7 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 of 50 The height of the building, I think, is a problem. But it seemed that the penalties that are imposed, even though, they are, I mean, they're half, is really what it comes down to for something that could be fairly minor. Do we really want to be that aggressive with penalties, so to speak? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner, so we're defined here -- a minor site plan, that could be reviewed administratively versus having to -- or that, because it's a minor, that we're not going to charge the full review fee because it's not going to involve so much change. And so there are things that are -- we will look at are even so minor than that that we'll say, no, you just go straight to the building permit and we won't even do the site plan modification. So I think that will really handle those really very minor things. But if you'd like us to go back and look at this and see if we can't maybe add a third category -- WATTS: It's just a suggestion. I mean, if you have your coffee in the morning, you're in a good mood, waive it by. And if you don't, maybe it's going to cost you a fortune. So I -- could be -- little facetiousness, maybe. So I think I'd like to see it -- GRAY: You apply it as a penalty. I see it as a discount. WATTS: It's half of -- they charge one half for amendments. And if you have a minor change of 10 percent in the landscaping, you have to pay ten -- one half of the original permit fee. That's how I read it. WESLEY: Site plan review fee. WATTS: Site plan -- okay, site plan review fee, right. So I -- if I was a contractor, I would not even submit it if I had a landscaping issue and I'm going to put a bush in or move something and just marginally change it. Then I'd let it up to site inspections. And I don't know that I would make a big stink out of the footprint if I was just going to add a utility room. But I think that some of those are a bit aggressive. WESLEY: It's a landscape area, not landscaping. So just changing out landscaping wouldn't matter if you're only changing landscape area. Reducing the amount of landscape area. WATTS: Still. WESLEY: I'm open for thoughts, arguments, support. GRAY: I don't see it as monumental as you do, but -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 8 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 of 50 WATTS: I don't know what the fee is. I think it changes based upon the actual development, doesn't it? The scope, size? WESLEY: Yeah. Chair, Commissioner, I'm sure if you remember but there is a base fee of an amount plus then so much per care over five cares but I don't remember what those numbers are without looking them up. I don't see them often enough to remember exactly what they are. But it does go up with the size of the site. WATTS: Um-hum. WESLEY: So another option here is, if it's a 50 percent change in landscape are versus a 10 percent, or make it 25 percent -- or if you want to increase those percentages, some of those are revised -- GRAY: Is review time tracked, John? I mean, could it be done on level of effort? WESLEY: I mean, that's certainly possible, Chairman. We don't really track our review time that closely currently. We require fees be paid up front before we do the review. COREY: So on that note, it may be where he is going with this is, does the fee -- do we need to have the fee -- I would almost rather than, let us know if there was the 10 percent change, but maybe not the fee. WESLEY: That's another option, we can discount it even more if it's a minor change. WESLEY: No fee or ten percent, half, or anything, whatever you'd like to do. GRAY: Site plans always done administratively or do they go third party? WESLEY: The planning portion of site planning has already administrated by staff to this point. GRAY: I don't know what you think but I'd be amenable to level of effort or at cost if done through a third party. WATTS: If you can stipulate what level of effort is, based on what -- an hourly rate, then, I'm fine with that. I just -- GRAY: How much coffee did you have. WATTS: Really, exactly. WOODWARD: Chairman, would you be interested in knowing what the fees are, charged? GRAY: Yes, ma'am. WOODWARD: So for commercial, industrial, and multifamily site plan review, it's TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 9 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 of 50 $680 for the first 5,000 square feet of the property. And then $130 for every 1,000 square feet thereafter. GRAY: Okay. So it's nominal in the grand scheme of things. WATTS: Well, if you're the contractor paying it, it's not nominal. It adds up. Each of those items add up. And it's -- when you walk up and you've got a 5 acre piece of property and, you know, I get to pay $300 because I want to move my landscaping around a bit. COREY: So I would say for the hundred bucks, it might be worth it for them to just let us know of the changes but are we really going to charge them that fee? Make it simple and not have that. WATTS: Well, if it was John making the decision, he wouldn't charge it, I'm sure. Again, it's just a comment. And it's just one of those things that jumped out at me and said, seemed like a penalty for what could be a very minor change. GRAY: So if we just take the first one, change in landscape area, open space of less than 10 percent, so at 11 percent, you're into full resubmission fees, right? WESLEY: Right. Again, there's no magic to these numbers -- GRAY: Yeah. WESLEY: -- just like a no -- GRAY: Then I go with Commissioner Watts. I can be okay with -- with nothing below 10 percent, but 10 percent being the cut off, then you go full fee above that. I don't have an objection to that. Unless it's done by third party and the town incurs costs for those reviews. COREY: And do we want to clarify if it's increasing or decreasing because if there increasing, their open space, obviously, we wouldn't -- we would encourage that, versus have them come and pay a fine for that, right? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner, I see where you're going with that, possibly, but anything that's -- the more there's something changing then on the side something has been paid -- area -- now, it's becoming landscaping area and so it's affecting parking and circulation. So we're looking at something with -- even though it's used in theory -- COREY: So if they had an opportunity to put a little more landscaping and they said, you know what, let's not do it, it's going to cost us a hundred bucks, let's just make an TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 10 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 of 50 extra parking space -- I don't know. Sounds kind of funny to me, but. GRAY: I think we're trying to create and make something out of something that's really simple. WATTS: What happens if it's more than 10 percent? GRAY: Full fee. WATTS: You go full fee? WESLEY: Full site plan review and full fee, yes. WATTS: For all three situations? WESLEY: Yes. WATTS: I think the landscaping, if it was -- I wouldn't even include the landscaping component because it's -- that's fairly minor. The building size, you know, the footprint, and the height, I think are the ones are more concerned about and to be, I guess, more tolerant of. They should have known that up front. But the landscaping can change, once you start doing infrastructure and your site work. Change marginally but, you know, 10 percent is pretty easy to get to. So I think I'd eliminate 10 percent -- GRAY: In change or in area change? Because this is just specific to area. WATTS: It's area. It depends on when the site guy is there and they're making modifications, changes, what they run into underground. The types of soils that they run into. That type of thing. So it could change. So I just don't think that a 10 percent threshold for landscaping is -- warrants a 50 percent, you know, call it a penalty for trying to accommodate the conditions of the site. But I'm fine with the 10 percent on the footprint and the 10 percent on the height. GRAY: And I'm not going to get in the way of it. If you feel strongly about that. WATTS: I qualified that. I said it's a suggestion, I think I said. How often does it happen? Do you have any idea, John? WESLEY: So under the current ordinance, it's one of the challenges, we don't have any provisions for how to handle modifications to site plans. And so basically everything is a new site plan. WATTS: So this is actually, you could consider it a savings if you had to go back in for a site plan review, you would save money -- WESLEY: That (indiscernible) today because you won't have to charge the full fee. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 11 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 of 50 GRAY: See how he just spun that psychology on you. WATTS: He did, he did. Just ruined my argument, so. GRAY: Well, your argument's valid. Your argument is valid. I just -- WESLEY: Mr. Chairman, and I agree, you know, changing that -- now that I look at it, up that one to 25 percent or 50 percent instead of 10 percent. I think they're -- WATTS: Then I'd go 25 -- support 25. I think 25 you could actually calculate. 10 percent, I think it would be a little bit of struggle. And I don't know if I was a contractor if I would come back in for the 10 percent and say, look if they see any -- and I don't think that the inspector may or may not catch it. Yeah, I don't know. But I think 25 percent would give you a lot more latitude. GRAY: Specifically, on F 1 a -- WATTS: Just on 1, yes. Yeah, 1 A. GRAY: I'm supportive of that. Commissioner Kovacevic, thoughts. KOVACEVIC: Yeah, I think 10 percent cuts it too narrow. I would support 25 percent. GRAY: Commissioner Watts, it's your motion. WATTS: I would move to approve with the consideration that -- should we put in -- question again. Should we make it clear that the owner's agent is responsible or allowed to submit on behalf or -- WESLEY: That's our standard procedure. WATTS: Is it. WESLEY: As long as we have something from the owners -- WATTS: Yeah. I would move to approve with the consider -- with the change in percentage for the landscaping component for 25 percent instead of 10. GRAY: Second, Commissioners? DAPAAH: I will second that. GRAY: All right. The motion from Commissioner Watts is for the recommendation for approval with the modification to 6.1 A to increase that to 25 percent. Seconded by Commissioner Dapaah. All in favor. ALL: Aye. WOODWARD: 7 - 0. GRAY: Thank you. Okay, moving on to number 6, Ordinance 23-05, Parking TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 12 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 of 50 Ordinance. Repealing and replacing Chapter 7, parking and unloading requirements. WESLEY: Again, we've been talking about this one for I think over a year. Kind of start and stopping with a little bit. We reviewed it couple months ago and the Commission was fairly satisfied with most things. We had to -- a few minor items the Commission wanted to -- some adjustments on, which we were prepared to talk about last month, again, until we took a little longer on the other agenda item. So I'll move through this fairly quickly. But certainly, you can slow me down where needed. The overall goal here was to remove some errors in consistencies between various portions of Chapter 7, Parking. To improve the overall readability and flow of the ordinance, updates and standards, and add a few new provisions where needed. This shows the existing or current layout of the ordinance versus the revised layout. And so, one of the discussions we had last time with regard to the introductory provisions was trying to allow a little bit more creativity and flexibility with regard to permeable paving and shared parking. So we added some additional language there in the purpose statements with regard to that, compared to what it had been in the previous draft. Section 7.02 C, this wording in this Section has been adjusted slightly to comfort with the new ordinance. And again, this section as we looked at it and talked about the engineer's ability to look at alternative paving, it was suggested we add some language there. And so we have that in revisions or use of alternative paving, but still not violate the county environmental ADEQ regulations. And then this Section we also added, with regard to maintenance of parking areas as wording that must be consistent with the approved plan. I think that came from a staff contact -- comments as I was reviewing this with our code officers, that having that reference back to original approval would be helpful in their enforcement capabilities. Going on in 7.03, which is General Regulations, again, this provides some of the basic paraments for all parking lots. And things here were moved around a little bit to -- as they apply to both standard residential and commercial parking lots, to keep things clear. Different illustrations were outdated as well. Section 7.04 now addresses design standards for residential uses. So this is up through four units on a property. We talked about this last time. One of the provisions being added is the requirement for covered parking spaces. And one of the impacts of this is TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 13 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 of 50 that may limit garage conversions if you don't have another place on site to have covered parking in a residential area, single family residential area. Section 7.05 deals with standards for multi-residents and non-residential uses. Again, most of the things were kept the same, but there were a few things that were added and things that we discussed previously. Again, requiring the covered parking for multifamily and for business office uses. One of the things that we discussed before is, in trying to look at the design of the parking lot, where we should have cross aisles and spaces would back into the entry drive. The draft ordinance had had a 50 foot separation, based on discussion from Council, and this shows what that was before -- or based on discussion from the Commission, Commission suggest we reduce that to 30 feet. And so that was done in revised Ordinance that you have. Going on in that one, again, the information with regard to landscaping was a little bit scattered in the previous ordinance, so we consolidated it into one place and updated some of the graphics provided with that. We also looked at the opportunity to better utilized the shared parking. And there's a provision for shared parking in the Town Center Code, so we decided to reference that in order to provide the same information. One of the comments that came up last time was that we didn't -- we covered driving ranges and maybe we didn't have quite enough spaces allowed for golf courses. So made this amendment after looking at several other ordinances to see how they handle them. So six spaces, separate tee, plus driving range, and driving ranges 2.5 per driving tee. So that addresses what those concerns were. Then going through, there were no other changes in any of the other updated parking standards that were discussed. The last section that we had, had some discussion, had to do with providing a requirement for getting some infrastructure in place, electrical for electric vehicle parking. And so again, after looking through a variety of other ordinances, they're not too many that cover this topic, but I did come up with this option that's included in the draft ordinance that would again -- it's mostly aimed at encouraging the -- in these situations we have 50 more parking spaces that some electrical vehicle capacity be put in place. In this case, minimum of ten required parking spaces. And this would be the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 14 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 14 of 50 working about wat they would include with their building plans, to show how they could then provide for that electrical service in the future. But it doesn't necessarily require anything be put in up front. I believe that was -- it's kind of the main one, as we talked about this one, is it something we really need to do at this time or not. Things like, being beneficial, but again, maybe a challenge, I think Commissioner Watts, you brought it up last time, you know, trying to calculate that electrical load and providing for it up front when you may or may not need it. It may be too much to ask. If you want to get -- if you want to include this, this is, I guess this current staff recommendation, if you want to include it is this type of language. But also, we don't have a concern, if you want to not include it in the ordinance. GRAY: Commissioner Corey. COREY: Yes, thank you. I wasn't sure if it was our turn yet. I would like to include this because I think, you know, we're planning, we should start to incorporate this kind of stuff. John, where did we come up with the 50? Just curious. Is that, like, an average -- is that the average parking lot size for a large business or something or? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Corey, I think I probably saw it in a couple other codes or something, in the range of 50. It's trying to look at something that would be a large enough development that the cost of doing this would start to make sense. Is that too high? Too low? Is it -- no rule, scientific basis define 50, so we're flexible to move that up or down depending upon how the Commission felt it should go. COREY: The way this is worded, if they came in -- if there was a new development with 40 spaces, would this apply? Or is the -- it's the 50 is the minimum? WESLEY: Um-hum. COREY: Okay. Yeah, I'm not sure. I'm just questioning if maybe it could be worded in a different way that doesn't -- this way it makes them get to that 50 minimum in order for this to be applicable. GRAY: You're suggesting the threshold be removed or lowered? COREY: Yeah. Because I'm trying to think about different business in town and 50 is a lot. How many places do we have where there's 50 spaces. WESLEY: If we go back up here to our table, just a second, let me just look, I can find it quickly. Standard office space is 1 per 250 square feet. So 50 times 250 is -- is 12,000 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 15 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 15 of 50 square foot office space. COREY: Okay. WESLEY: My quick math, is that correct? It would be that size of an office before they would be required to do this. So it would be a large office. Typical retail I think is 1 per -- yeah 1 per 350. So it's going to be a little bit larger developments. COREY: Okay. GRAY: I agree with Commissioner Corey. I mean, I like the intent behind it. I have a little bit different take. I think that the market will drive the placement of EV charging stations on its own. And I think it's an evolving market. We started at -- we started at garage chargers. Then we went to level 1 chargers. I think that's wat we got installed here in town. And now vehicles are requiring level 2 chargers. And God knows we're going to get to Level 3 or 4 or 5. I just think that. I just don't want to constrain what becomes a good business decision anyway. So I'm not opposed to keeping it in there. I just -- I wonder if we actually do ourselves a disservice by including it because the market should ultimately want -- should want to do that anyway at the point in time when that becomes legitimate or legitimized. Commissioner Watts. WATTS: Well, I'm of the opinion you got to start somewhere. So if you start at 50, it is a rather large, you know, you'd preclude somebody like a Walgreens or CVS. I don't think they quite hit 50. They'd probably, something slight smaller than that. So maybe, maybe 40. But I think if you put a proviso in there that said, there's an opportunity for waiver. Because if you had a large building and it was simply storage and you've got two or three people that are working storage, then you don't have the need for 50 or for 5 or even 4 if you put 40 in there instead. So I think you have to look at it from a commonsense standpoint. And I think this is going to be changing. It's going to be real dynamic over time. So it's going to grow. Start somewhere. Maybe move it down to 40 with that proviso that said you've got an opportunity for waiver if you can justify it. You can provide some validation. GRAY: Well, on that basis, why not eliminate the threshold altogether and just go to a ratio like we do with the rest of our requirements? You got 10 spaces, you provide one EV charging point. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 16 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 16 of 50 COREY: It's kind of along the lines I was thinking. GRAY: Yeah. It gets what you're looking for. It scales the works. I just think we have to be careful that the technology and the need is going to outpace our words here. So we need to be able to -- we need to allow you the flexibility to apply what's relevant five years from now. COREY: It's not a requirement, the 1 for 10, but it's the recommendation. WESLEY: So the requirement -- and two, really is that there are construction documents provide for it put in the equipment that doesn't necessarily require them to install it until they have an actual need for it. Have a plan for it up front. COREY: Yeah. I just want to share. I had a friend visit me from California recently and we went to Lunch at Euro and he has Tesla. And there's no place for him to charge it. And he was heading back to California after breakfast. We had to leave Fountain Hills and go to Kierland Commons and walk around just so he could charge his car to be able to get back home. It's so inconvenient. He should have been able to do it right here. But we only have two level 1 chargers and there's no place for him to possibly even charge. So just a comment. I don't think it goes here but just something to think about, you know. WESLEY: What is the final thought here for this Commission? WATTS: I don't know how you can create a schedule at this point. I think you've got to put something in there. Maybe just the 10 percent of the site's work, the allocated spaces, 10 percent will be required for -- but I still think you need that provision in there that says there's a waiver based upon the practicality of the parking spaces that are actually going to be used. GRAY: Sure. WATTS: So that's one comment. I had one other comment before we go too far. And that is, how do we notify those that have visibility obstructions today. We've addressed it in the code, the regulations. How do we advise the infractor? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner, as we identify -- our code enforcement officers will go by the property and talk to property owner. WATTS: And they give them a grace period to rectify it? WESLEY: Yes. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 17 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 17 of 50 WATTS: Okay. GRAY: Commissioner Kovacevic, any input? KOVACEVIC: Yeah. I just -- I know when we looked at it about five years ago, I want to say, shopping center in North Scottsdale, I know one thing, to put in Tesla charger, the Tesla brand chargers, you had to pay Tesla to get them into your parking lot. Now, there were other third party vendors that would pay you to put their chargers in the parking lot. But you had to put in the infrastructure, which was, you know, it could be expensive, it could be very inexpensive, depending on how close to the power source you happened to be. What I don't want us to -- I don't think that the parking should drive the construction or the feasibility of building the building. And so I would prefer to see some minimum level before the charging stations were required. And I also agree with Chairman Gray that the economics will drive it at, you know, at some point if the office building, if enough people are driving electric cars, that the office building, that that's a real benefit for people to lease space in the office building, then the owner of the office building will put it there whether we require it or not. So I'm really okay with being silent on it. GRAY: And I think that's where I'm also comfortable. As long as there's some wiggle room for staff within the language, I guess the language doesn't bother me. But I'm kind of in that same vein of the market will drive it. And this language to me is more about master plan development, you know, anchor type scenarios and/or public development. You know, it's more guidelines for plat 208 and, you know, Fountain Hills to develop over time. So I'm indifferent. WATTS: I still think you got to start somewhere. I think you have to have something that it -- because you don't have to put the charging stations in. You have to put the structure in for the charging stations so when they requirement is there, you have the ability without tearing anything up. It actually is a benefit to the owner, long term, because you've got the underground in. I don't think the calculations are right at a 40 amp circuit being nearby. They may support one unit. But it's not going to support multiples. So just advising a contractor upfront to me seems to be more prudent. I'd like something in there to establish a baseline. And then, let's fix the baseline as things continue to change. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 18 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 18 of 50 SCHLOSSBERG: I'll agree. I happen to have an EV and I can talk to several points. The charging stations we have in town, honestly, are a joke. And it would take hours to charge, even marginally charge a car. So putting infrastructure in that might not even be worthwhile, as you're saying, doesn't necessarily make sense. It needs to be a supercharger, which is what Tesla has, or like an Electrify America Charger. And I don't know what's involved in the conduit to be able to wire it -- WATTS: It's the same. SCHLOSSBERG: -- it is the same, so. That's kind of where I am on it as well. GRAY: 40 to 48 amps. SCHLOSSBERG: Per unit. GRAY: Per unit. Well, Commissioners, a motion? COREY: I would just say one last comment. I think having it in here shows that we're aware of it and we're thinking about these things and we're trying to be inclusive of having this kind of infrastructure, so -- SCHLOSSBERG: For sure. COREY: Yeah. GRAY: And I'm fine with it with staff discretion. Your motion. Oh, sorry, I guess I should ask Paula, do we have any speaker cards? WOODWARD: No Chairman. GRAY: Sorry. Got excited there for a second. Agenda item 6, 23-05. COREY: All right. I'm looking for 23-05. Okay. So I'll guess we'll -- I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the Ordinance 23-05, the parking requirements with the amendment of removing the 50 minimum threshold parking lot size. GRAY: Staff discretion. COREY: With staff discretion. Thank you. GRAY: A second Commissioners? DAPAAH: Second. GRAY: Any Amendments. Everybody good? Okay. Commissioner Corey's motion on Ordinance 23-06 is to forward a recommendation to approve with the modification to allow for staff discretion and to remove the minimum space threshold from the language. Let's do a roll call vote, Paula. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 19 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 19 of 50 WOODWARD: Commissioner Corey. COREY: Yes. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dapaah. DAPAAH: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Dempster. DEMPSTER: Aye. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kovacevic. KOVACEVIC: Nay WOODWARD: Commissioner Watts. WATTS: Aye. WOODWARD: Vice Chairman Schlossberg. SCHLOSSBERG: Aye. WOODWARD: Chairman Gray. GRAY: Aye. WOODWARD: 6 - 1. GRAY: Thank you, Paula. Okay. Agenda item 7. Another public hearing and consideration and possible action on amendments to the Zoning Ordnance Chapter 6, Sign Regulations. WESLEY: Okay. Chairman and Commissioners, The Town Council has asked staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider possible amendments to the sign ordinance. The Town Council has through some input and discussion at the council retreat a couple of months ago identified some things they believe might be beneficial to make as amendments to our current sign regulations. Their goal is to remove some obstacles or impediments that might happen with businesses that could be more successful if they had opportunities for some better signage. Particularly in terms of some of the temporary signage options that are available. So I have received and included in the draft that's been provided to you that's in the report and discussion some suggestions, recommendations from the Town Council. In addition to that, staff has worked with the Ordinance and looked through the suggestions. We've identified a few things that we think you ought to consider also. As you go through this, and sort of the public may have some -- Commission may have TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 20 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 20 of 50 some ideas, too, as long as we're making changes. So what we have here to start with this evening are some of those things that have already been identified, but I'll be seeking your further direction for any additional modifications or adjustments from where we're at. And so I'll be going through each section. Most of them fairly quickly where there have not been any identified changes. But bringing them all up because the entire code has been put out there as a possibility for modification, so I don't want to miss anything if somebody has comments. So Section 6.01 of the Ordinance is introductory chapter. This slide lists the topics covered in this particular chapter. We have not identified any proposed changes in this particular section. And so Commissioners, as you have looked at it, have you seen anything that you think should be considered for amendment or modification in Section 6.01? Hearing none, okay. We can move on to the signing Section 6.02, Definitions chapter of the Ordinance. And here we have one fairly simple and very good suggestion that was made. Concern was is, somebody not really familiar with the sign ordinance as reading through this and they see a definition, in this case for awning or canopy sign and they read that and they don't realize they're more detailed regulations elsewhere and they think that's it. So for each of these sign types, I'll just use this simple one right here as an example, but for each one, we've added a reference to where you go in the later part of the code where they see the details on that sign type. So that's the suggestions and only modification for each of the sign types at this point in Section 6.02. Any questions, comments with that? Okay. Section 6.03 -- let me turn some pages here so I can keep up. Section 6.03 deals with the building permits and fees. And here, as staff was going back through this, Section 6.03 B is about building permit are not required for certain things. They're not required for temporary signs. Building permits aren't required for banner signs either. So that was -- we think that should come out because permits are required for banner signs but not a building permit. So just making that clarification by taking out the "except banner sign." That's our only suggested change in 6.03. Anybody have anything else they want to bring up with 6.03? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 21 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 21 of 50 Okay. And 6.04 deal with violations and penalties. We have not identified any particular changes there. Anybody have any questions, comments on 6.05 -- 6.04? 6.05, Enforcement and Remedies, no proposed changes in this section. Commissioners, anything you've identified? Okay. 6.06, Sign Plans. This allows for some flexibility and modification of the requirements. If somebody wants to submit a sign plan. And we again, have not identified any changes to this section. Any from the Commissioners in this section? I'm going to slow down here in just a second. Okay. 6.07, General Regulations. So this section provides a lot of background information about different issues related to signs. On this slide you see the different topics covered in this particular section. And there are several modifications that are proposed as we go through this Section. So the first one is in Section 6.07 B 1. Section 6.07 B deals with sign location and prohibited locations more particularly. Because of some changes being proposed later on in the ordinance in 6.08 with regard to signs, temporary signs in the right-of-way, you know, it was felt some slight changes were helpful here to work better with the language later on in terms of the exceptions, or what the basic requirement is, that signs be placed on the property where the business is versus being offsite. But then explaining the exceptions that would be allowed. GRAY: I don't know if here is the proper place to talk about it or later. But I guess I, if we're going to modify this, I would be in favor of a carve out for adjacent right-of-way but not the -- not the removed right-of-way. And I think the Laser Drive example was made. You want to talk about that later or here? Later, okay. WESLEY: Later -- different types. So hold on to that. GRAY: Commissioner Dempster. DEMPSTER: Thank you. John, is this the area where -- I couldn't tell if this is just resident, commercial, but for the homeowner that wants to sell their house and put a sign up in the right-of-way. WESLEY: So this starts it. But that, again, will be when we specifically talk about the post-and-board signs. DEMPSTER: Okay. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 22 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 22 of 50 WESLEY: And what's allows are there. I assume that's what you're -- DEMPSTER: Yes. WESLEY: -- referring to, is that type of sign. DEMPSTER: Thank you. WESLEY: So this doesn't really change much but the feeling was this slight readjustment of the language we think will make it more clear later on. Okay. So the next part of the section, Section 6.07 B 2 describes prohibitive locations for signs. And the concern here was that it was a lot of technical language that was maybe hard to follow. Things kind of seemed to bounce around a little bit in terms of the types of locations. And so what we've done here to try to clarify this a little bit more is to group the prohibitive locations into the types listed so that then you can see them a little bit better and how they work together. There's nothing changed in any of these. It's just reordering them. There might be some slight wording changes because of the way the order was changed, but really no difference in the regulations, except for the very last one. And that's -- currently the code says, "Temporary signs within the Shae Boulevard right-of-way are prohibited." This starts to allow the except that we'll talk about again a little bit more in detail when we get to specific signs types. Any questions on these changes in 6.07? Let's see -- well, I've already covered this? Oh, yes we did, also look at adding one more provision in here in 6.02 A I. As we learned in the last election cycle, there's a lot of confusion between our local ordinance and the state statutes and what they allow for political signs, which are -- start as a challenge because they still refer to political signs, which is regulation by content, which we really can't do. But to try to help clarify it a little bit, we thought if we added this other provision more directly in here that during election times, that those signs would be allowed as provided for in the state statutes. GRAY: Commissioner Watts. WATTS: John, what is the definition of stop and start times? 30 days before? 60? 90? I know it's -- I think you have to clean them up after 14 days after the election, I think. WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Watts, as I recall, it's 70 days prior to the primary. I think it's changes a little bit, but it used to be 60, now it's 70 days prior to the primary. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 23 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 23 of 50 And then 15 days after the general election, I believe are the dates. WATTS: Okay. Do we stipulate that anywhere in here or is it just -- WESLEY: Just by referencing state statutes -- WATTS: Okay. WESLEY: -- that way if it changes in the state statute, we're still good. WATTS: All right. Thank you. GRAY: So this modification is opening up what are currently sign-free zones during the -- during that window of time? WESLEY: Sign-free zones would still be sign-free zones. Sign-free zones may change. There's been some efforts on the state legislature to modify those in what they can be, maybe, coming back to change those at some point. Let me go back and find the actual place in here. Right, so it's -- again, in 6.07 B 2 A i 3, so that section is, "Signs are prohibited for the following locations. Prohibited in town, rights-of-way, or public property, except, then as allowed by state statutes during elections or the town sign-free zone." Any questions? Okay with that? Okay. Let's see here. Yeah, already covered this one. Says change to except as provided. Share right-of-way -- Shae Boulevard right-of-way. So again, we talked about this a bit more specific later, but I just wanted to cover here as we are looking for these opportunities to help businesses with their signage. The reasons why we have limited the temporary signs on Shae Boulevard. There's been three main reasons -- or four. The aesthetic reason. Maintain the beauty of this corridor through town, but more specifically for some safety reasons. The signs, they are placed on or maybe no very securely in the right-of-way, so there's some danger as cars whiz by at 50-plus miles per hour or other wind conditions of blowing the signs into the right-of-way. Most of these signs are smaller signs and so the printing on them is fairly small. They're meant to be viewed at slow speeds, or even more particularly by pedestrians. And so a car going that fast, a driver will have a hard time reading the signs without potentially slowing down. And then also, a person placing these signs by the roadway with the high traffic speeds. So again, those being the reasons why we've had the provisions on Shae Boulevard. We TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 24 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 24 of 50 just wanted to keep those in mind as we look at the allowances that are being considered at this time. In 607.E, did it for some clarity and consistency. Added in this Chapter to a couple of provisions. And then also in E 12, we're not sure why we had the "except as specifically permitted," because they're never specifically permitted on somebody's property without the property owner's -- you can have them in the right-of-way adjacent to the -- not on the property. So suggest we take out that language. So in 6.07, General Regulations, any other things any Commissioners have identified that you want to talk about? With that, we're going to get into the more specific sign types and the proposals there that have been discussed. So Section 6.08 deals with all the specific regulations for the different sign types starting in A. So number 1, and that is the A-frame signs. So we had this, several suggestions here for modifications. Currently, we allow one sign, one A-frame sign per business. It's suggested we increase that to two at one per entry. We also suggested that currently the largest sign is 6 square feet. That increasing it to two, we don't necessarily double that to allowing you 12 square feet, but that we -- if you're going to have a second sign, it's got to be a little bit smaller so that the aggregate between the two is either 8 or 9 square feet, we discussed at the council. As I look back at standard A-frame sign sizes out there, it seems like the extra 3 square feet is more of a standard size. And so staff would suggest doing 9 as aggregate. Next item was again for commercial areas along Shae to allow signs in the right-of-way adjacent to commercial areas. Council discussed allowing the A-frame signs within 90 feet of the property in commercial areas. And up to 1,000 feet in industrial areas. We'll come back and talk about those two things in just a moment. And then to allow them on sidewalks as long as there was at least 4 foot clearance around the sign and 2 foot from curb. Currently it's 3 foot from the curb. And that the sign be removed when business is closed. So those are the basic changes that were proposed as we discussed this with Council with regard to A-frame signs. Before we go on to some of the next examples that I have, any other things with regard to A-frame sings? Any of the Commissioners have identified that -- GRAY: Just an opinion. I think that the provision for A-frames on sidewalks should not TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 25 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 25 of 50 be a provision at all. I just -- I think get them into the softscape or elsewhere but not on the sidewalk, even if there is 4-foot clearance. And then just a facetious comment. And A-frame is technically two signs. So each A-frame is 12 square feet on its own, right? WESLEY: They're back to back, still count as one. Certain angle that's needed between them before it -- GRAY: Is that going to be your comment? WESLEY: No, it's an interesting comment. GRAY: Technically, I'm right. WESLEY: Chairman, with regard to on the sidewalk. I can understand that in maybe a more suburban location. But when we're downtown, the town center area, a lot of time sidewalk is the place it needs to be -- sidewalk is usually mostly wider to accommodate that. GRAY: So the reason I don't like it is, if you trip into one, you're going to go over the top of the A-frame sign and it's going to collapse as you're going over it and you're going to land flat. I mean, I'm not one to be overly safe and cautious here, but I just -- I don't agree with putting signs out on -- if a sidewalk was placed, a sidewalk is placed for walking, it's not a place for signage. That's just my thought. Commissioner Dempster. DEMPSTER: Just to comment on that. When you walk down the Avenue of the Fountains, that whole area, and it's, I don't know, I've never measured it, it's close to 8 feet, probably 6 to 8 feet with -- that's all sidewalk. And that's the only available space for business to put an A-frame sign. So I don't like signs on the sidewalk either. But there's plenty of room. And with some of the nooks and things that -- they can be placed in a very safe manner. But just for those businesses on the Avenue, I think that's important to have. GRAY: Commissioner Corey. COREY: Thank you. And yeah, I was just going to call out again. So if I'm understanding this correctly, it says "allow in right-of-way, including Shae," is the amendment. Okay, but I think the points that we brought up with the safety on Shae is really important. And I know that I've done, like, cleanup on Shae with cleaning trash and what not and just trying to cross the road is very dangerous. So that, in combination with, "the signs must be removed at the end of the day when the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 26 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 26 of 50 business is closed," at that time, it could get a little dark, too. So I think there's a lot of safety issues there. I don't know about Shae right-of-way. And I would also include, maybe, I mean, there's a lot of place along Saguaro that aren't really safe to be walking in the middle of that either. So Shae for sure. GRAY: So John, I'll amend my comment after Commissioner Dempster's feedback to say I'm not in favor of A-frames in the walking path on a sidewalk but if the condition is that there's a sidewalk and then it butts out around a tree well or there's pockets, I'm all for that. But not in the primary walking path of a sidewalk, even if it is 6 or 8 feet wide. WESLEY: Let's look at some examples here of distances. So here's -- we kind of started as we talked about this with Counsel and hadn't had a whole lot of time to look at it beyond this at that point. So here's an example. On the Avenue, you've got this building back in the back. And if they wanted to have an A-frame sign really out on the Avenue so that it's visible to somebody walking on the Avenue to help direct them to their business back there, that building is about 85 feet, plus or minus, back. So that's where we came up the 90 feet. That's kind of a starting number. See a similar thing over on Parkview where we've the businesses set back. There's the parking between them and getting out to Parkview. And those are about the same distances from those businesses to get something out into the right-of-way. So that, again, is 85, 90 feet is kind of that minimum distance if we're going to let them go out through the right-of-way. Again, at that point, you're not on premise. You're off premise because you're in the right-of-way. So then some other examples. Another spot that may benefit from having some additional signage out at the Fry's (ph.) on West Shae. Given the topography and that site wall that's along Shae, in order to get something at where motorists can see it, you're going to need to be at least 125 feet from the property line if you want to get over to the various intersection. You've got greater distances, but certainly at least 125 feet out to get past that wall so a sign can be visible. Another example, commercial center along Saguaro Boulevard here, that back building. If it wants to get -- well, first of all, again, by the code, you can -- when you're in the common commercial zone as this is, any business within that common commercial area can put a sign anywhere in the common area. So right behind the property line, along the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 27 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 27 of 50 right-of-way would be fine for that business in the back. But if they really need to be out closer to the sidewalk or on the sidewalk with their sign so it could be visible, now we're talking about 280 feet for that back property to be able to get their sign out right along the street. Same way, if you go up this commercial area at that Glenbrook and Fountain Hills Boulevard, pick some of those further-back businesses, and you can see the distances out to the corner up at Fountain Hills Boulevard. So if we want to be able to accommodate businesses in that location and help them be more successful and get signage out where people can see it, you can see the types of distances that we need to include in the ordinance to allow for that. 90 feet really won't get them what they would be after. So now we're going to look at a couple different situations here with the Target Center. Again, leave a little bit more closely than that. About three different zones we're going to look at. Let me see here. We've got -- well, the purples are property lines. So here is the property line for these businesses in here. And so if we're talking distances from the property line, we're talking about what can happen there, what can happen there, what can happen there, based on different scenarios. So again, from the property corner here, if we went out 90 feet, these businesses, all these businesses back in here, there are about 17 of them, could put some signs right here just past the driveway into the bank. We wanted to allow them to go all out here to this corner. We'd need to go out to about 195 feet. Or if we came over to this location in through here. That's the shortest, about 130 feet, again, similar to what we had over there at the Fry's parking lot. If we were allowing that kind of distance they could be putting sings in there to help get people into that driveway. And so here's some examples of what that could look like, first over at the corner with that number of businesses, if they were putting out signs. This one is the driveway going into the bank. And this one's up at the corner itself. Then if we go on over to the area here along the middle, then signs could be out along the sidewalk there. GRAY: The sidewalk's not 6-feet wide. WESLEY: It's 8-feet wide. GRAY: Is it? TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 28 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 28 of 50 WESLEY: Yes. GRAY: That's terrible. WESLEY: And then we get on over again across the corner of that property comes up into here. So measuring from there, here's kind of a 90-foot area from that corner where signs could go. Or if there's an interest in giving an opportunity to get signs over here to the main driveway, we'd be talking about a 195 to 270 feet. And here's, again, what those could look like, This one's along this main area in here. And the other's kind of at the corner. Any comments, questions on those? I'm going to go back to one that you may not have noticed here. And that's this sign. That sign. This is challenging to understand but we can't review content. If we put in a provision such as this and we say you can put it 90 feet from your business, if we can read the sign so we can identify the exact business, then we're free to measure that distance and see if they're within than distance. Otherwise, we can't really judge the content of a sign. So while it's not likely, again, people aren't really just going to go out and create crazy signs to put out and use up their sign allowance to advertise, you know, whatever. But they could. Or in this example, somebody doing the garage sale, open house, could take advantage of the fact we can't really judge content and put those signs in with the others. So again, I don't know if that's a reason not to approve any of these things we're talking about. But I just want to make sure the Commission is aware of some of the impacts or some of the code challenges we may have and enforcement going forward with the provisions that are being considered. GRAY: So I'll take the first stab here and we can get the conversation going. But I just have a macro-statement. And I think it's -- we're trying to be all things to all businesses. And if a -- whatever happened to business complexes putting out their monument signs out at the street that says, hey I've got Farmers Insurance inside this building. Or you know, business A, B, C, D, or E, that's a -- Commissioner Kovacevic's responsibility as a -- as, you know, someone in that industry to bring that development and deploy that as a part of the asset. Some businesses at some locations, and a lot of these in these examples in the last few slides -- if your business needs the visibility and a street presence, it's probably not the location for your business. So we don't need to -- this is TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 29 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 29 of 50 my opinion, right, but we don't need to accommodate the $12 a square foot rent business way back on Laser Drive with street-front visibility on Shae. Because if that business needs that, if that business is in the business of selling clothing or shoes or whatever it is, then they go up in the Bashes Complex. They go where they get that foot traffic. They go where they get that visibility. They go where they get that branding with the location and it comes as a component of the square foot that they ultimately pay. So I wholeheartedly disagree with trying to be all things to all businesses. Now, having said that, where I think the line is for me is to say, if I can visibly see your front door from where that A-frame sign is placed, and it's within whatever we said, 75 feet or 90 feet, then I'm good with it. I think I can deal with that. But to have to be 200 feet away and go around the corner, it's never going to happen. And we're just opening the door to something that's in nobody's interest I think. So those are my thoughts. Commissioner Watts. WATTS: So first I agree with you that the A-frame, to me is two signs, you know, we may have to classify it differently, but seems like it's two signs. In that spirit, though, does that eliminate a second sign because every A-frame is more than the -- if we go with 9 feet, does that eliminate the second sign? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Watt, Section 6.07 describes how we measure signs and calculate the area and basically it says if they're parallel faces, we don't count as two signs. They have to be a certain angle between the signs this way before we count them as two signs. WATTS: But if it's 3 x 3, does that eliminate the second sign? If an A-frame, both sides are 3 x 3, it's 9 square feet per sign. WESLEY: I believe one sign can be no larger than 6, still. WATTS: Okay. So it would eliminate the second sign, though, from an ingress and egress. WESLEY: So if you have one at 6, you can have another one at 3 square feet. WATT: Oh, to get to the 9. WESLEY: It's aggregate is 9. WATTS: Okay. Secondly, I think when permits are polled, there is a cost for signs that are on the buildings already. Does that count as a sign? Targets? Fields? Fells? Streets TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 30 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 30 of 50 of New York? They all have signs out front and there's a cost for those. Does that preclude them from being able to put up an A-frame or any other sign, other than maybe a monument sign out on the rights-of-way? WESLEY: As the ordinance is currently crafted, did not. They're all considered independently. WATTS: But we have a two sign, well, we do have a two sign -- we have a square footage limit, too. And each of those would be the large than the square footage allowed. So would it by default preclude them from a sign -- an A-frame? WESLEY: Not the way it's currently worded, no. WATTS: Really. And, jeez, I hate the clutter that's sitting there on the corner, but it seems to me that the signs generally related to businesses are geared more towards small businesses as opposed to larger businesses that have their own marketing, they have their own flyers, they do a lot of advertising and so on. How about distance between signs? Can we set a distance between signs? We're 90 feet from the property line, or whatever we come up with. Could we put distance between them so it doesn't get so cluttered? WESLEY: Chair, Commissioner Watts, we're actually going to talk about that a little bit later. We have a current provision in the ordinance that addresses that, but it's a challenge, particularly in a common commercial center such as this to implement it or to enforce it. You come out here and we say you're supposed to be, you know, 20 feet between signs and you have three signs and their 5 feet apart. Well, who put the one out first. So which one created the violation. Okay, we've got to take them all in and go talk to all three and whatever and anyway, it just become difficult to enforce. WATTS: I brought the wrong notes, so I'll stop right there. Thank you. GRAY: Commissioner Dempster. DEMPSTER: May I ask, too, about the signs will need to be removed when the business is closed. I would think that would be difficult to enforce as well if different hours of operation. WESLEY: Chairman, yes that would be a challenge to code staff to be out those hours to ensure that it happens. Could be addressed over time, I think, as we would get complaints about it, to know which businesses and then go to try follow up with. We do it currently, I guess, same thing with lighting complaints. We get those, so good officers TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 31 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 31 of 50 come in when it's dark, which in the summer is late hours for them. So a similar thing could happen. GRAY: Commissioner Corey. COREY: I was just going to say I think could help to ensure that the signs that do end up out there are purposeful and not just left behind, you know. So when we say the business is closed, it's closed for the day. I don't know if we need to clarify that or not. We went out of business, so -- is there more to this, John? I had a couple of other comments but I don't want to touch them unless we're continuing. WESLEY: So the next thing I have, which is just a -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- the similar thing down here on Laser Drive. The Chairman's kind of brought this up before already, what was discussed at the Council meeting was 1,000 feet. But when we came back and actually measured it to get that rear property all the way out to something a little bit visible and technology would really be 1,250. And just as a point of information, there are 21 businesses currently along that street. And here's the area at the end of the street where, you know, potential signs could go that limited -- again, it's unlikely that more than a few of the businesses would put signs out at the same time. It's not really likely to get as cluttered as some of these images were put out look. So I don't want to be overly dramatic or seem like I'm trying to thwart the idea. But I did want the commission to be aware of the potential that's there as you're giving consideration for this. With that, I think it's -- from there, I just get in, again, repeat the numbers in case we need them again and get some of the challenges that we see that may come from the changes. COREY: Okay. Thank you. You know, I try to think about this. I don't own a business but if I did, I try to think about it from their perspective, you know, and I think that the signs, if you're walking, if you're a pedestrian, if you're on foot, that kind of bring a sense of community and I understand that. And I hope that people also consider what it's going to make the town look like if there's too many. So I really hope that we can find a good balance here. I had a question around illumination. Can I ask that or -- WESLEY: Sure. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 32 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 32 of 50 COREY: -- okay. So signs shall be illuminated only during the hours that the associated establishment is up for -- is open for business. I had this note from last time, so I don't know if that was changed. But that is in here, right? WESLEY: So with regard to electronic message center signs, we'll get to, we have that discussion to have. But I don't recall it's anyplace else. COREY: Okay. Maybe I'll clarify, so is that in this? That's a different area? It's a different section? WESLEY: Yes -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- have to go back in the 6.07 for the general illumination requirements. Temporary signs are not allowed to be illuminated at all. And then we have the provision for electronic message center signs and when they can be on and off. But for just a general wall sign, I don't recall if there's anything that limits those. COREY: Okay. Well, I see -- I don't know what section that is, "When a business is closed, a sign may continue to be lit but may only display a static message, except on the weekend." WESLEY: Right. That's the electronic message center sign. We'll get there in a little while. COREY: Okay. And then it was no later than sunset, I believe, for removal of the temporary signs. Is that still in there? WESLEY: So with regard to the -- again, we'll talk about each of these individually, both the -- COREY: Okay. WESLEY: -- A-frame, that's when the business was closed, they're supposed to be removed. COREY: But if they close after sunset, maybe it should be sunset or closure because what if -- if it's dark and they're out there trying to collect their signs, that could be a safety issue. WESLEY: Then I think we'd have to talk again about different areas, because if you're in the town center area, you've got more light along the -- COREY: I see. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 33 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 33 of 50 WESLEY: -- sidewalk and a pedestrian setting where people are still reading the signs. COREY: It's a tough one. And then are we going to talk about the electronic message signs later as well? WESLEY: We'll get there. COREY: Okay. Thank you. GRAY: Anything else on these? Again, I don't expect that we will necessarily get the answers tonight, but certainly want to see what comments you have and questions and direction you want to give us for adjustments if any to what's been proposed, so. Anything else at this time? Okay. WESLEY: So moving on through Section 6.08 like the other section, we'll just touch on each of these. Most of them we don't have any comments, but just to see if anybody else did. So 6.08 A 2 is on canopy signs. 3 is balloons, we had no proposed changes to those sections. I don't see anybody. Okay. Banner signs is next in 6.08 A 4. So some suggested changes here, mostly about increasing some of the display time. Currently, they're limited to 30 days in a calendar year. They don't all have to be at once. It could be 10 days here and 10 days there. A permit is required so we can track the number of days. The recommendation is that we increase that to 90 days per calendar year. And then add a seasonable waiver for nonresidential uses in residential districts. So I think I put in the staff report a list of what those uses could be. The only one we really have or haven't any degree is churches. And we do know that church's often have seasonal kind of activities, whether it's Christmas program or the summer vacation school type things that they, like, advertise for through temporary signage. A number of churches in town have permanent frames out along the street where those temporary banner signs can be added. Certainly the current code has been a bit restrictive on that. And so that's the idea there. The way it was worded in the Counsel's discussion was providing a waiver. My interpretation of that way, we typically do that is to administrative temporary use permit process to be able to track that type of waiver. Another suggestion or recommendation that was made through the Council is if it's a new business, it might not be ready to invest in the cost of permanent signage. That we allow for a banner sign for a longer period of time. Discussion was for anything from 180 days TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 34 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 34 of 50 to a year, 364, 365 days. And so we're looking for direction on how long that would be. GRAY: I'm supportive of that but I think that on the new business, in the new business area, I think we might consider requiring a change in messaging across that period of time. The now open sign for 365 days is -- yeah, it's almost kind of like helping a business with its marketing by saying, hey, change your messaging over. Just a thought. You know, saying, you can throw the banner up for 365 days but over that 365 days, the message needs to change at least one time or two times. Commissioner Watts. WATTS: I'm opposed to 365. I think 180 days is more than sufficient for new business to establish itself if it hasn't established -- I'm not sure it's 300 -- an additional 185 days is going to do much for them. I'd also like to know what the length of the waiver is. What's the time on the wavier? GRAY: Your mic's not on. WATTS: Again? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The red one. GRAY: He doesn't have a red one. WATTS: Well, nice try. Nothing's working. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There you go. WATTS: Now there is -- I don't know. All right. Anyway, what's the length of the waiver? Okay, you -- what's the length of the waiver, John? WESLEY: That wasn't specified. WATTS: Okay. Shouldn't there be a duration? WESLEY: We couldn't do that by prescribing the maximum waiver lengths here? Or we could just let it be up to the individual situation that's up to the Commission, hopefully the Counsel and what they adopt. WATTS: And what constitutes a seasonable waiver? Because if I'm Hallmark, I've got one every month. WESLEY: That's a good question. By any definition as we work on this. GRAY: They're not in business anymore. WATTS: I still buy Hallmarks from them. Oh, so anyway, 180 days is what I would support. And 90 calendar days a year in addition to the seasonal waivers without them TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 35 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 35 of 50 being define just seems to me to be problematic. So I'd be concerned about that. DEMPSTER: Just a comment on the seasonality. Because our residents, we have many winter residents. I would actually be in favor of a longer period of time to have a sign. And I know there was some discussion about the maintenance because a banner sign could -- also pretty ratty after a long period of time as well. But in fairness, because of the seasonality of our residents, I (audio interference) -- what's happening. Did you catch that? With maintenance and a longer period of time. COREY: Can you clarify a longer period of time? Longer than 180 -- 180 days? DEMPSTER: Yes. Longer than 180 because if someone opens a business in June and they have to take their sign down, you know, they'll miss the seasonal folks that come in February or March. So longer than 180 days. COREY: I mean, it's a good point that you raise, but that's like six months. So they would still have enough time to get them through the end of November. Hopefully, I think people are back by then. I'm not arguing with you I'm just considering that. GRAY: Clear as mud? WESLEY: Absolutely, as always. WATTS: So I'm not clear. WESLEY: No, I'm not either. WATTS: We were talking about, Commissioner Dempster was talking about seasonal waivers but you were really talking about new businesses having a longer duration than 180 days? DEMPSTER: I was talking about seasonality of our residents, but in regards to banners. WATTS: Okay. DEMPSTER: So we were talking about banners and I stated that having them up for a longer period of time would accommodate our seasonality of our residents. And also would like to see a provision about general maintenance, having a sign up for an extended period of time. GRAY: That's why I like the messaging refresh, is that kind of -- it does allow that period of time, but it's, you know, now open for 365 days is tired. I'm already tired, you know. WESLEY: Okay. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 36 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 36 of 50 WATTS: So where do we land? Anywhere? Or are we just -- is comments where -- food for thought and you're going to consider each of these? GRAY: It's more (indiscernible) comments, I think. WATTS: Okay. GRAY: Go ahead. WESLEY: Just jumping ahead a little bit but what will happen from here is, I'll go through and make changes that are clear changes. Otherwise, some of these things are still open. Then a report will come back with some of your discussion, and here are some additional options to consider based on your discussion. And sometime, either the next meeting or after, you are going to have to come to a conclusion but you don't have to make it tonight. So moving on then in 6.08, here's, again, a list of some of the sections in line of types of signs. There are no proposed changes from the Council or staff on any of these sections. Any comments or suggestions on any of these sections from any of the Commission? DAPAAH: Yeah, John, under the section on balloons. You made mention of it not being any higher than 6 feet from the ground. I've seen balloons hanging -- that were mounted up on top of roofs right down here on Avenue of the Fountains on Park Place. They were running a special or whatever and hung a balloon up, they literally went up to their roof and hung it up with -- should we have something in here stating something to that effect? Was that something that is allowed or -- WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Dapaah, I guess I'd have to see it to know for sure, but from the sounds of it, it sounds like something that would have been in violation. DAPAAH: Okay. WESLEY: If it's happening currently, however, we're not doing any kind of enforcement of the currently assigned provisions -- DAPAAH: Yeah. WESLEY: -- until we get it redone. DAPAAH: All right. Thank you. WESLEY: Next in line here we have the sections of the code that currently have no provisions but Commissioner Dempster, I believe you might have some comments or questions with regard to number 12, post and board signs, so. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 37 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 37 of 50 DEMPSTER: Yes. I think we need to include this in the ordinance for our residence here that decide to sell their home. They should be allowed to have a post and board sign stating their home is for sale. WESLEY: Right, which we do back -- I guess -- DEMPSTER: Well, but -- WESLEY: -- the current provisions doesn't allow it to be in -- DAPAAH: -- not in the right-of-way because no one knows where the right-of-way is. WESLEY: Right. DEMPSTER: So it has to be more friendly for the homeowner. WESLEY: Okay. Comments, questions there? Okay. That was easy enough. Then we get to yard signs is the next one with some changes. So again, these are your pretty typical political sign, that's one way to look at it. Contractor comes and does some work in your yard or whatever and they leave a little yard sign, little pegs that go into the ground. That's one of the main differences between an A-frame and a yard sign is these actually penetrate the ground versus sitting on top of the ground. So here it was suggested, currently the code is one per lot. And the suggestion was we change that to two per lot. As we're talking about efforts to assist businesses and commercial areas, you might have a lot of businesses on one lot as we just saw I in a couple of situations. And if you're allowed, whether it's one or two or three per lot, if you got two businesses, which businesses get to do that. So this hasn't come up before, but I'm wondering if we should modify this in commercial areas. So make the distinction residential areas two for lot and commercial areas it's one per business, two per business, whatever the Commission wants to recommend on that. DEMPSTER: I like the idea of separating residential and business. And on a side note, a question. What would take precedent in an HOA that as rules about this versus the town? Would the HOA rules supersede what the town states? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Dempster, yes, the HOA rules could supersede, but they have to enforce, the town wouldn't. DEMPSTER: Right. Thank you. And this would be a temporary sign advertising the business or -- WESLEY: Could have any message it wants. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 38 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 38 of 50 DEMPSTER: Okay. Well, right. But a temporary sign? WESLEY: We're talking yard signs currently. DEMPSTER: Okay. Thank you. WESLEY: The council didn't specifically discuss it this way but I went ahead and amended the ordinance to be similar to the A-frames in terms of the separation from the property lines and so forth. That may be overstepping what the council was looking at. But the gist of the discussion sounded to me like I order to provide as much opportunity to assist businesses as we could, I included the same types of language here in terms of the 90 feet from the property line for a commercial, 1,000 feet from industrial zoned property. So it's depending on what we do with the other, we may or may not want to do the same thing here. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. I agree in theory. WESLEY: Okay. Now we get to electronic message centers. So this is section 6.08 B of the Ordinance. So a few changes were suggested here. Currently the code requires that there be an 8 second hold for any sign message before you change a message. That's to try to avoid animation and something holds a driver going by at whatever speed gets a chance to see it, not distracted by a lot of changes. The proposal is that we reduce that to 4 seconds. So I looked around at other codes, they do vary somewhat. I have seen some less than 8, but most of them seem to be around that 8 second kind of timeframe. But they're starting to go no set standard or a reason why it couldn't be reduced to the 4. One of the challenging pieces we had from the previous code, because it was based on a message and how to handle the message when a business was closed. We came up with language, which in the current code, when a business is closed, a sign may be continued to be lit but display only a static message. That's been a little bit of a challenge with one particular entity. And that's been the Chamber of Commerce. They represent a lot of businesses in town that are open a lot of times. And while they came into an off-premises advertising their events going on and so forth that they're trying to assist with in part of what they're doing, even though their office is closed. They have those activities. So that has already been a bit of a challenge. The suggestion here was to add, except on the weekend. So a business may be closed on TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 39 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 39 of 50 the weekend, could still advertise. So that's what we put in here, but I believe I put in the staff report, staff's not sure exactly what all that would mean. When does the weekend start and stop. What about a holiday? Should that be included in addition to weekends? Looking for some further ideas and direction from the Commission on how we might handle that one to achieve the goal there. I think we'll wait for the next bullet point to amend that discussion because it takes us in a different direction. Any comments there or other ideas or comments about electronic message centers and regulations? GRAY: What drove the message, interval reduction? WESLEY: Just an opportunity to get more messages out there, I believe. GRAY: I guess I'm in favor of holding at the 8. And then on the second point, I'd actually go the opposite direction. I would say the message board needs to go dark at the -- coinciding with the end of business hours for the zoning district. If it's a 10 p.m., close of business doors, to me the message board needs to go dark. No static message. Commissioner Dempster. DEMPSTER: Do you have a comment on Chairman Grace? I have this -- WESLEY: I do. COREY: And I think we have -- what are we referring to here? We have how many in town, two? We have the theater -- WESLEY: No. We have about a half dozen. COREY: Oh, do we. WESLEY: We just had a new one just turn on today. COREY: A new one at MCO. Okay. DEMPSTER: And the church. COREY: I think it's just important to consider, you know, what these are going to look like at night and I was recently at the Chamber and I was blinded by the light. It was so bright that it just, you know, it just kind of distracted everything around. So I think we just have to be really careful if we start to allow more and more of these, you know, what that impact can be. WESLEY: Chairman -- DEMPSTER: I -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 40 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 40 of 50 WESLEY: Before you make your comment for just a second. I want to -- DEMPSTER: -- sure. WESLEY: -- one of the questions or issues that we wrap up with before we did this is other businesses that have wall signs that are lit, we don't require them to be turned off at night. And so, you know, that may do it, but they're not required to be turned off. And so signaling these out versus those was an equity question that we had. GRAY: I see them as different. DEMPSTER: My comment has to deal with Dark Skys. And I know you contacted them but these are not Dark Sky compliant, correct? WESLEY: Yes, they are. DEMPSTER: They are? WESLEY: Yes. The values are put on the -- the light levels we changed, day versus night and the night-time levels are Dark Sky compliant. Now they can't seem very bright as Commissioner Corey just pointed out. We've had the Chamber sign monitored several times for their compliance and it is compliant. GRAY: Commissioner Watts. WATTS: I think I'm in agreement with the 8 seconds. If we look at the flashing stop signs, they're designed to get your attention. But they're a distraction at the same time. And if I'm driving down the road, I don't really want a distraction, to have something catch my attention so that I'm not paying attention to traffic as much. So the proximity of the stop signs is one thing and the flashing. But I'm a proponent of sitting with the 8 seconds. And is the building code establish a specific lumen output on the lights? WESLEY: The zoning ordinance does. WATTS: The zoning does? WESLEY: Yes. WATTS: Okay. Yeah, as long as it's compliant. But, yeah, 8 seconds. WESLEY: So Commissioner Corey, going back to one of your comments, the other thing that came up at the Commission was, yes, maybe we want to make these adjustments that are existing, but maybe also want to prohibit any additional signs. And so that's kind of the next piece of that that we had to discuss. I guess I got a little bit TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 41 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 41 of 50 ahead of myself there a little bit here again, some of the comments we had. If we were to do that, we'd have to think about how we handle electronic fuel message signs. Because those are basically electronic message signs. They display one message. Currently there's only one in town. But otherwise, if we were to make that change, staff would propose that we do two things to the code. One is to go into 6.07 C, add a new number 4, you know, this is the section on nonconforming signs, to make existing signs non-conforming and they can continue as those nonconforming signs and then add electronic message centers to the list of prohibited signs in 6.07 E. So that's what we would do if the Commission and Council want to go that way, to prohibit future signs. GRAY: I have no opinion. COREY: I do have an opinion that I think that is something we should look into because over time, if we have more of these come into town it's not going to be -- I don't think it's the direction that we want our town to head into when you, you know, for a business it's great because you're getting more visibility and people are able to see your sign. It's lit up and you can do some very creative things with it. But from as aesthetic standpoint, for residents and other people that may not own businesses, there's other, I think there's many other more creative and beautiful ways to highlight a business and to advertise a business. And I would just really like us to consider not having provisions and to allow more of these to come into town. And if we have an opportunity now to say that this is the limit, then I think we should. DEMPSTER: I agree with Commissioner Corey as far as the aesthetic and I think about the town of Carefree, you know, you drive by and they don't have any neon sing and it does create a certain look. On the other hand, I think that, you know, visibility for businesses is extremely important but when I see some of these signs, it tells me the time of day and it tells me the weather and I don't need an illuminated sign to tell me the weather and the time. So my two cents. COREY: Yeah. Just something else to consider, like, whose the audience of these signs? So I could see if we were in a place where there's a lot more transient people that were kind of coming and going from different places and it was new to them to see that. Oh, wow, look what they have to offer, I should take a look at that. But we all live here. And TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 42 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 42 of 50 we know what they offer. Like when I drive by the theater sign or the Chamber sign, I'm not looking at it because I know what's going on. So, you know, something else to think about. WESLEY: Any thoughts or comments here? GRAY: So I didn't -- nobody objected to the -- or nobody commented I should say on turning signs off at the end of the business hours for that commercial district. I'm just curious if anybody else has thoughts on that? I actually really like that -- static message, scrolling message, no message, I'm -- there' s no businesses open, especially in C0, C1, even C2 environments. There's no reason those signs need to be illuminated. WESLEY: Okay. So one of the signs we have is for church. I'm not sure -- GRAY: It does time and weather -- WESLEY: -- when and when they're open. Just as an example, you know, what their hours -- GRAY: Well, but I'm not saying it has to coincide with the businesses hours. I'm saying with the zoning restrictions, you know, start to finish of the business day. So what's C1 is -- WESLEY: C1 and C2 are the only ones that have the hours. Nothing else has hours attached to it. GRAY: Okay, then I'm -- WESLEY: You have that church sign in residential. GRAY: I don't think they need to stay on past the C1, 11 p.m. or 10 p.m., whatever it is. WATTS: There's no traffic con the road anyway. You know, about after 8 o'clock. Initially, I was a proponent of prohibiting any additional electronic signs, but I think kind of a middle ground is to say the hours, if you restrict them even 8 o'clock, I mean, how many people are in town after 8 o'clock driving? The streets roll up around here. There's no activity. So stop them from 8 o'clock until 6 in the morning, anyway. GRAY: Yeah. And add to that, Dark Skys. No street lights. You don't need distractions after dark around here. You need to be looking ahead. DEMPSTER: I don't dislike that idea, but there's a part of me that feels like that's controlling content and, you know, we're turning off their content. I don't know, if that falls under that category, but -- TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 43 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 43 of 50 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You have to pick up you're A-frame. DEMPSTER: I have to pick up my A-Frame, yes. Just -- WATTS: But the reality is, they're not even there. Those businesses have all closed. So even if you tied it to closing, it would be sequential. Some businesses would be closing, they'd be shutting their signs down and you may have kind of a median number of 8 o'clock, maybe it's 8:15, but, you know, fundamentally, I don't think there's much traffic after about 8 o'clock. SCHLOSSBERG: I'll agree with my Commissioner to the right here. This is tough for me as a business owner, also, that has a sign that illuminated at night and stays on all night. But I do have compassion and I've read all the comments. But I think on this particular -- with the electronic sign, I think that would be just fine to have those off, depending upon what the time is because -- I'm in agreement with it, nobody's out at night, not even me. And yeah, I don't think that would be a big deal. WESLEY: Okay. So what I'm hearing is if relates to the time, then maybe the issue of the business being closed for on the weekends, go ahead and have it illuminated during the day on the weekends as long we turn them off at night from whatever time we come up with, 8 o'clock, 10 o'clock, 12 o'clock, until 6, 7 in the morning. We'll look at something along that line to bring back to you then. So we mentioned this earlier. KOVACEVIC: I'm sorry, I just want to reinforce the most important thing to me here would be the 8 second, too. I really don't want to see that cut to 4. And I'm okay with the rest of the direction. I've only heard Commissioner Gray and Watts talks about the 8 seconds and I would throw my hat into that ring, too. WESLEY: So the next thing I have on my list is Section 6.08 C 1 with regard to the temporary sign allowances. We we've touches on this briefly earlier, Chairman, with regard to provisions to control the aggregate number and size of sings. So this is what we have currently in the code, but it's been a challenge to try to enforce. In fact, we haven't used it at all because it's really -- it would work if you had one business on one property. But we have multiple businesses on one property, such as over here at Fountain Plaza side. Then each business needs it's sign along Saguaro to try to then get the separations and limit the numbers and who's signs is here and which is first and so forth. It's really TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 44 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 44 of 50 been -- at least this way of doing it has been impossible to do. So we're proposing at this point to remove this from the ordinance. But we could look at, a we limit these other changes, if Commission wants to keep this and look for ways to tweak it to try to limit clutter, we could see if there are some other options, but it's very challenging to enforce. GRAY: I think this is where we transpose, and I don't begin to understand how we do it, but I'm -- I guess I'm in agreement with deletion of this but in replacement, this is where we really push for development monument signage. WESLEY: So along that line, Chairman, when we did this code, we did increase the allowance for monument signate with that idea in mind. If we can increase that, then maybe there'd be less need for temporary signs. We have talked about it, we skipped over it, nobody brought it up as we went past it. We could look at -- do we need even more of that potentially as a way to facilitate the necessary signage. The challenge, of course, with that is that's a lot more expensive than these alternatives. GRAY: Agreed. But it's the tasteful way to advertise. WATTS: I think you get into potentially some problems because of the size and the obstruction that -- if it conflicts a bit with line of sight again. So you have to be careful about that. But -- are all of the signs that we're talking about, do they require a permit or they're just ad hoc, they can put out the signs? WESLEY: Chairman, Commissioner Watts, currently the only temporary sign that require a permit as a banner sign. WATTS: Okay. WESLEY: We previously had, prior to my being with the town, permit requirements, A- frame signs. And they were in place for a number of years and became increasingly difficult to implement and to monitor and whatever, what all the challenges were. But it may be an option we'd want to look at again to help keep rogue signs out where they don't belong or -- WATTS: It does seem like you have to have some mechanism to be able to enforce. And there's nothing here. So if you had a permit while its owner is on -- the person putting the sign out, if you had an annual permit so to speak, and then you would have some, just like we have on the building permit, you can call in and you can pull a permit TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 45 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 45 of 50 over the internet, you could call in and trigger your sign permit. But you're going to have this period of time. And then the compliance officer could look at it and say, okay, he was here, he was here, he was here, he wasn't here. That sort of thing. I don't want to make it more onerous, but finding a simple mechanism for enforcement. Because right now, what we're talking about, we've got no way to measure or manage. WESLEY: But typically what happens with that, Commissioner Watts, is they get some kind of decal. The put the decal on the sign. Then the code officer -- it's about decal -- it's about decal and go from there. Sign that decal then they deal with that. WATTS: But you still don't have the time component. So when you have the proliferation of signs, you don't have who was here first. You would if you had an online mechanism to say, here's my time period where I'm going to put it in and I'm going to trigger it to that point, so. WESLEY: Sounds good. That may still be a bit of a challenge because a lot of them put them on every day. WATTS: Right. WESLEY: Anyway -- WATTS: Something to think about. WESLEY: Right. So are we reluctant to go there again based on the challenges we've had in the past but I thought that maybe a direction we're going to need to go. We can look at that if the Commission would like for us and bring back some ideas with regard to permits. DAPAAH: John, I'm just curious about this. That large screen sitting on the corner of Beeline and Shae, is that within the Town limits? Okay. WESLEY: Okay. Last one. 6.08 D, basically residential directional signs is what they were originally called. They changed the name a little bit. This has to do with replacement for garage sale or open house kind of signs. You can see the proposed changes that were suggested there. The main thing is to increase the number allowed from one on the lot plus three to one on the lot plus five to provide more opportunity. And then currently they are limited to daylight hours and only on weekends. And the proposal was to take that out so that they can be out anytime and in the right-of-way except for Shae Boulevard, and 2 feet from the curb instead of 3 feet from the curb. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 46 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 46 of 50 DEMPSTER: I am definitely in favor of the increase from three to five here in town for open house signs. GRAY: I think this is the one area of signage that's well policed anyway. So I'm not concerned here. WATTS: I'm not concerned, other than proximity. You know, if there's one on every corner and there's garage sales that compete and there's houses that are for sale. If we had some distance requirement between the open house signs, then to me, that would make a little bit more sense for, you don't get that clutter going on. Just like we have on Shae, like we were looking at earlier. DEMPSTER: Those weren't real pictures. WATTS: I know they weren't. DEMPSTER: Okay. WATTS: I know they weren't. Are you testing? I mean, it's okay. DEMPSTER: Just saying. But the reality is, we don't often have a lot of sign clutter. And here's the test. This sign ordinance was repealed in January. And so it was a free for all for months. And during our busiest time. And we didn't, in my opinion, and I do drive around, I do have open houses and attend them. And I didn't see a huge amount of, I mean, there's always going to be someone that's going to put it on the median. They don't know the town, they don't know our ordinance, they come from out of town or whatever the case may be. But I didn't see a lot of clutter and a lot of breaking the potential rules or whatever. WATTS: I think I disagree a little bit. I didn't see a quantum leap, but I've seen an increase in the proliferation of signs. So I don't know that the for sale signs or the open house signs are going to be the problem there. So I, you know, three, five -- I can see where you're back in further in town coming of off Shae, then five makes a lot of sense if you're close. But I don't think you can discriminate and say, well you can have three and you can have five, so -- but I'd go with the five, I'd be fine with that. WESLEY: Okay. Anybody else? COREY: No. But I just want to comment. It is an interesting point that I hadn't considered just until Susan brought it up that realtors can come in from out of town and not know what our ordinance is and just put them wherever they want, so I would say we TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 47 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 47 of 50 probably wouldn't want to be too different from what other towns typically do. GRAY: Susan, does it help to say three from two different directions, does that help mitigate Commissioner Watt's perspective? DEMPSTER: I don't think so because -- so recently I had a listing on Cholula, way up in North Heights. So you go from Palisades and Golden Eagle, that corner. You have to turn on Sierra Madre. You have to -- I mean there are so many turns, it's not possible to properly provide direction to someone that's looking for the location. And that would be just trying to get the quickest way. And you could go Sunridge, but even if you come down Sunridge and it's, you have to have some along the way so people don't kind of go off in a different direction not knowing where they're supposed to turn. Just the practicality of how it's spread out. Things are -- WATTS: I think as we talked about it. It's going to come down to commonsense. No realtor is going to put out more signs than is necessary to get traffic there. Not generally speaking. So if it becomes a problem -- let's not fight something that isn't a problem today and wait until becomes a problem and then address it. DEMPSTER: And may I mention, we do have Rebecca Grossman (ph.) with SAAR, Scottsdale Arizona Association of Realtors, has been so supportive with this and when agents talk with her, she does educate the agents. So we do have some assistance there. WESLEY: Okay. Anything else on this one. We're almost done. I just have a reminder again that we can't really regulate the message that are on the yard signs. They get out on the right-of-way, at least in theory, advertising yard sales or open houses. Most people are pretty good about it. So with that, we're done with this review. We will take these comments and before we totally end this session, because we're going to need a motion from you to continue it, the question is to when, whether it will be your May or your June meeting. We'll talk about this a little bit when we get down to that item, like we usually do. But we have four or five items already for your May meeting in terms of rezoning special use permit applications. Although I'm not sure how much you'd want to do. We could continue it to the May meeting and then just continue it from then if it's too much would be one approach. Or go ahead and continue it to June. Up to you. Up to you. The longer we do it, the more time we'll have to respond to comments. But several of these are going to TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 48 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 48 of 50 take two or three meetings to kind of talk through before we're really going to get to final decisions -- argue it the other way, so assume we kind of tackling it the better, but -- GRAY: I think we would just motion to continue to May but give staff discretion to push that out to June if -- WESLEY: Yeah. Once we do that, we'll need to have it on the agenda. It may be with another continuance. GRAY: And you could just request a continuance at that point if needed. Would you prefer that or just prefer to go June? WESLEY: That probably is better, that we do it that way so that that way we can continue the discussion, even if it's just a few pieces of the whole thing. GRAY: Okay. I'll go ahead and just make the motion then. Agenda item -- WESLEY: Sorry, Chair, for interrupting you again, could you check to see if we have any comment cards? GRAY: Do we have any comment cards? WOODWARD: No, Chairman. GRAY: Thanks, John. Okay. Go ahead and make the motion to continue agenda item 7, amending Chapter 6, signs regulations to the May Planning and Zoning venue. Second Commissioners. WATTS: Second. GRAY: All in favor. ALL: Aye. WOODWARD: 7 - 0. GRAY: Thank you. 8, Commission Discussion/Request for Research to Staff. WESLEY: We had one item on here that we need to see if you want us to research or not or work on. We had a recent inquiry for a business license for a tattoo shop, parlor in town. It's not a specifically listed use in our zoning ordinance. I could go -- only administrative fairly easy, determine it's a C2 use and we could proceed with that in mind. But given some of the general concerns we've had in town about various uses, I wanted to at least come here and see if the Commission felt this was something that ought to have more regulation than that. I've done some look at other communities. Mostly don't find any regulations that other communities have for this TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 49 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 49 of 50 particular industry. There are a few that have some minor qualifiers. So the option would be make it a special use permit, given some criteria, whatever those may be. Or even by right with some criteria, make it with that. Just want to test the waters here. GRAY: I didn't know you were branching out. Really good for you. Commissioner Dapaah. DAPAAH: What are the normal hours of business for tattoo parlors? I don't know, I've never -- WESLEY: Commissioner Dapaah, I would think most of them are, maybe mid-morning to late evening kind of operation, but -- DAPAAH: Okay. So it's never 24 hours? It's never opened on a -- WESLEY: It would never be 24 hours. I would say it would be -- unlikely to be 24 hours in a community such as this, but -- GRAY: Mr. Watts. WATTS: I thinks it's going to be hard pressed to allow a rifle range in town and not a tattoo shop, so I think, from an administrative standpoint, simplest thing is to use your staff discretion and if it fits, because if it doesn't, then it's going to be -- it's not going to be compliant with other issues. It's not going to be, like -- and I hate to specify parts of town, other parts of other cities, but there's some rough neighborhoods that there's tattoo shops. But on the other hand, there's some really elegant tattoo shops and they're nice. So what we going to do? A hookah shop is not going to be approved or a tattoo shop, what -- I think it's administrative. GRAY: I would agree. We have a lot of smoking vape shops. WESLEY: Okay. Thank you. SCHLOSSBERG: And a question if we're still on the research part, the hotel, whatever it's called, Fountain Side Hotel, is that coming to us? WESLEY: Yes, it is. SCHLOSSBERG: It is. Okay, that was my question. WESLEY: It's on the May agenda. SCHLOSSBERG: On the May agenda. Okay, thanks. GRAY: How do we get involved in town logo design? Can that come through the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Page 50 of 50 APRIL 10, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 50 of 50 Zoning Commission? Can it, please? Scott has impeccable taste. We've got two guys up here in designer shirts. DEMPSTER: Or how about realtor education. I think we might need realtor education, too. GRAY: Shall we keep going. I'm kind of serious, though. I'd like -- I'd like that logo to come through the Zoning Commission. All right. Summary of Commissioner's request from John. WESLEY: I didn't hear you. I was about to jump to 10 because I was going to combine those report. So I just kind indicated a moment ago and by share, so what items that you'll have next month if everything continues as currently anticipated, Plaza Fountain Side Hotel being rezoned to C2 as a special use permit to make it apartments. And then I also have a special use permit for multi-family at the southeast corner for Glenbrook and Fountain Hills Boulevard, that vacant corner lot for ten units. Farhad as a special use permit for a cell tower. That will be -- oh, that's not one. A special use permit for elderly care facility. And rezone for some property on Tombstone where they -- residential lot, they want a little bit bigger house than would fit on the lot and they couldn't do that without buying more land. So they did that, the piece they bought needs to zoned the same as the rest of the lot to make it work. So those are your two items. And hopefully, the annual report for the general plan. GRAY: So signs are going to June? Okay. We're adjourned. Thanks John. WESLEY: Thank you. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:14 p.m.] ITEM 5. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/08/2023 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Planner Staff Contact Information: Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Planner Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Zone Change for a dual-zoned parcel from R1-35H and OSR to a uniformly zoned R1-35H parcel, located at 16134 E. Tombstone Ave. in Firerock Parcel F, Lot 5 (APN 176-11-069). RZ23-000001 Staff Summary (Background) Wellborn Ventures is requesting a zone change for a 0.86-acre dual-zoned property from R1-35H and OSR to a uniformly zoned R1-35H property. The property was replatted in March 2023 to expand the lot from 29,548 sq. ft. to 37,284 sq. ft. as part of a transfer of ownership with the Firerock Country Club. This was the first step in a process to make way for some proposed additions to the existing home without exceeding the 20% lot coverage limit for the lot, including a garage addition, a first-floor laundry room addition and a second floor addition. However, the lot coverage allowed by the zoning ordinance assumes that the property is uniformly zoned. Under current zoning conditions, construction on the R1-35H portion of the lot is precluded because the coverage limit has already been exceeded. Although the subject property is one tax parcel, the added area portion is still zoned for Open Space Recreation (OSR). This zone change request is to remediate the split-zone configuration into one uniformly zoned R1-35H property. Citizen Participation Early in the review process, the applicant notified neighboring landowners within 300 feet of the subject property of their filing for the zone change. Letters were sent out informing the neighborhood of their intent to establish a consistent zoning designating throughout the property. To this date, the applicant received one positive letter in response to the proposal. A Citizen Participation Plan and corresponding Report is attached to this staff report. Analysis The zone change would be to unify the zoning throughout the property to allow the proposed additions. Should the zone change be approved, the applicant is expected to submit a building permit application for the proposed additions. The zone change would still be consistent with the Large Lot Residential of the area as designated by the 2020 General Plan. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Zoning Ordinance Section 2.01 Zoning Ordinance Chapter 10, Single Family Residential Zoning Districts 2020 General Plan, Thriving Neighborhoods and Character Areas Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff supports a recommendation for approval of this zone change request as presented. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the zone change request as presented. Attachments Case Map  Narrative  Zone Change Exhibit  Citizen Participation Plan  Citizen Participation Report  CASE: RZ23-001 SITE / ADDRESS: 16134 E. Tombstone Ave. APN 176-11-731 REQUEST: Zone Change for a dual-zoned parcel from R1-35H and OSR to a uniformly zoned R1- 35H parcel, located at 16134 E. Tombstone Ave. in Firerock Parcel F, Lot 5 Site Location 7548415.3 Zone Change Narrative March 10, 2023 Property: 16134 E Tombstone Avenue Fountain Hills, AZ Lot 5A, APN # 176-11-069 This property consists of approximately 37,284 sf. The property has a residential home existing on the property. The property currently has two separate zones that exist within a single lot (OSR and R1-35H). A small portion of the property (Approx. 7,754 sf) on the north side currently has a planning zone designation as “OSR” and the southern larger portion of the property (Approx. 29,530 sf) has a designation as “R1-35H”. The owner wishes to change the zoning to reflect consistency within the lot as residential and consistency with surrounding lots. This portion of the property will have no physical change. The application requests the entire lot be consistently zoned Residential Single Family/Low “R1-35H”. This zone change request will not change the use or appearance of the area currently designated as “OSR”. The restrictions for open space will remain in place therefore maintaining consistency with the General Plan. APN Property Address Owners Mailing Address 176-11-070 16146 E Tombstone Ave. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Papanikolas Living Trust 16146 E Tombstone Ave. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 176-11-074 N/A Firerock Community Assosiation 8360 E Via De Ventura Ste L 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 176-11-072 16152 E Saguaro Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Crus Michael/Francie 6942 S 855 E Midvale, UT 84047 176-11-073 16164 E Saguaro Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Robert and Pamela Lee Family Trust 16164 E Saguaro Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 176-09-384 16210 E Tombstone ave. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Stricker Family Trust 16210 E Tombstone ave. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 176-09-520 16145 E Tombstone Ave Fountain Hills, Az 85268 Jeffrey Moore 16135 E Tombstone Ave Fountain Hills, Az 85268 176-09-519 16135 E Tombstone Ave Fountain Hills, Az 85268 Jeffrey Moore 16135 E Tombstone Ave Fountain Hills, Az 85268 176-09-162 16123 E tombstone Ave. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Edward Roh and Kim Roh 16123 E tombstone Ave. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 176-11-067 16110 E Tombstone Ave. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Gordic Family Trust 781 N Explorer Dr. Gilbert, AZ 85234 176-11-068 16122 E Tombstone Ave. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Viking Construction LLC 2605 W Hayden Ave. Hayden, ID 83835 176-11-030E N/A Firerock Country Club 9281 N Shadow Ridge Trl. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 176-11-144 9735 N Red Bluff Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 SG Blasting LLC 1544 Valley Bluff Dr Minot,ND 58701 176-11-143 9745 N Red Bluff Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Warren Family Trust 9745 N Red Bluff Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 176-11-142 9755 N Red Bluff Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Ruple Scott/Hessian Ruple Deah 9755 N Red Bluff Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 16134 E Tombstone Ave. Community Plan Contacts Community Plan: The applicant plans to send out a letter to each of the above interested parties within the public hearing noticearea. The letter will state: " You are recieving this letter because your property is within the public hearing notice area for a minor zone chage application located at the property 16134 E Tombstone Ave. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268. The current propery has a portion within the property lines that is zoned OSR "Open Space" and the owner is applying to change this to Residential Single Family "R1-35H" in order for the property to have a consistent zoning within its limits. For any updates and questions you may contact Darren Welborn via email at Darren@welbornventures.com. " The letter will include the submitted site plan. Applicant will submit this community plan along with the contact list to the City of Fountain Hills. Community Outreach Response Report Date: 05-01-2023 Report of Community Involvement: Overall, there were not many parties reaching out with questions or concerns. A few neighbors had asked about some details of what the remodel would entail. We had one neighbor reach out via the community notice we sent out asking if the garbage cans would have an enclosure or be located in the garage. Since currently they are visible on the side of the house. (see below email) Our response stated that the added garage space will now allow the resident to store the garbage/recycling containers inside and out of view from the street. The neighbor seemed happy with the response and the level of communication that we were providing to the neighbors in the affected area of the zone change. This was the extent of the questions/concerns we received from the neighborhood. All questions were answered and further details of the planned remodel were provided to neighbors who had asked about it. We will continue to provide the neighborhood answers to any questions/concerns that may come up as the process continues. From:kimroh@cox.net To:Austin Welborn Subject:Zone change request Date:Monday, May 1, 2023 9:35:20 AM Austin – I’m your neighbor across the street and to the West of your property. We bought the home from the Ward’s a little over 2 years ago and I met Darren shortly after we moved in. My husband, Ed and I are long time Fountain Hills residents, close to 30 years. We did get the notification of the Zone change request from the town and appreciate that you also dropped off a copy in our mailbox. One of the best ways to have good neighbors is to communicate! My understanding is that this request will allow you to add an additional garage space and a 2nd floor living space. You have a beautiful home, so I’m confident that your plans will be well executed to compliment the existing property. My only question is regarding the garbage cans – will you have a place to roll them back behind an enclosure or into the garage? I know it’s minor, but thought I’d ask. If you do have any questions for me or need to reach me, you can always call or text me on my cell phone, 602-300- 2561. Warm regards, Kim Roh ITEM 6. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/08/2023 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Planner Staff Contact Information: Farhad Tavassoli, Senior Planner Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: SPECIAL USE PERMIT request to allow 16 licensed beds at a home for the aged on a 0.37-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Palisades Blvd. and Westby Drive (16602 E. Palisades Blvd.: APN 176-05-993) in the R-3 Multifamily Zoning District. SUP23-000002 Staff Summary (Background) The owner of the Fountain Manor assisted living home has filed for a special use permit (SUP) to increase the number of licensed beds from 10 to 16. The facility has been operating as a 4,259 sq. ft., state-licensed, assisted living home since 2005 with a total of 10 patient beds and 2 to 3 live-in caregivers. The Town has allowed these facilities, now known as community residences, by right in all residential zoning districts so long subject to certain limitations and requirements. The requested increase to 16 beds moves this out of the community residences category would require a special use permit, as the operation would be characteristically commercial in nature. Furthermore, a facility containing more than 10 beds must meet different licensing prerequisites by the state Department of Health. One such prerequisite is approval for the use from the governing municipality. The home currently consists of 7 bedrooms, a den, living room, family room and a study room. The home originally had a garage, but that was converted to one of the bedrooms.The increase of 6 beds does not entail an expanded building footprint, but does require an expanded parking area to accommodate the increase to 3 or 4 live-in caregivers, depending of the level of care needed. Access to the home is provided by a 17-foot wide (approx.) driveway from Westby Drive. The driveway currently has enough space for at least 2 parked vehicles. The driveway would be expanded to include 4 marked parking stalls, including one ADA stall. Parking is currently allowed along Westby Drive, should there be any need for additional short-term parking. Citizen Participation The applicant held a virtual meeting on March 7, 2023 at 5:30 p.m., following their posting of notification letters on February 20. The meeting was attended by one person, who was concerned that the building footprint would increase, which it is not. They also received three emails of opposition. Staff also received three letters of opposition. In addition, staff received two phone calls from residents expressing their opposition. Attached for your review are the applicant’s Citizen Participation Plan, Citizen Participation Report, and all emails received in regards by both the applicant and Town staff in Citizen Participation Report, and all emails received in regards by both the applicant and Town staff in regards to the SUP request. Concerns summarized include increased traffic, parking on the street and neighborhood safety. Analysis The zoning ordinance Section 11.03 allows consideration of certain uses within the multi-family zoning districts with approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP).  Section 2.02 of the zoning ordinance establishes the process and criteria for consideration of a SUP.  Section 2.02 F. 1. d. of the Zoning Ordinance states:   d. In order to recommend approval of any use permit, the findings of the Commission must be that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor shall it be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. The Town Council may consider additional details such as visitation hours, traffic impacts, separation from neighboring uses. The property is located in the Neighborhoods character area, under the subarea of "urban residential", an area characterized by a mix of multi-family and small single-family residential development. Such areas "may also contain schools, churches, parks, small office and retail uses at collector and arterial intersections, and other neighborhood serving uses" and are "typically located at arterial and collector intersections." The property is adjacent to Palisades Blvd, an arterial, and is surrounded by mostly commercial and multi-family development. Although Westby Dr. is a local street, it serves a number of condominium homes to the north of the subject property. Given its proximity to Palisades Blvd and neighboring land uses, it is staff's opinion that the bed increase would have minimal impact to the neighboring properties. Furthermore, the applicant will be expanding its on-site parking area to accommodate the increase of live-in caregivers. There will be no expansion to the existing building footprint.   Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Zoning Ordinance Section 2.02 - Special Use Permits Zoning Ordinance Section 2.08 Citizen Participation Zoning Ordinance Section 11.03, Uses Subject to Special Use Permit in an M-1, M-2, M-3, R-3, R-4, and R-5 Zoning District General Plan 2020, Section III: Thriving Environment General Plan 2020 Character Areas, Table 1 Character Area Plan   Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff Recommendation(s) Staff supports a recommendation for approval of this Special Use Permit. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the Special Use Permit to allow a home for the aged at 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. Attachments Case Map  Project Narrative  Site Plan  Citizen Participation Plan  Citizen Participation Report  Good Neighbor Statement  Emails of Opposition  CASE: SP23-002 SITE / ADDRESS: 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. APN 176-05-993 REQUEST: SPECIAL USE PERMIT request to allow 16 licensed beds at a home for the aged on a 0.37-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Palisades Blvd.and Westby Drive (16602 E.Palisades Blvd.:APN 176-05-993) in the R-3 Multifamily Zoning District. Site Location KONTEXTURE architecture | interiors | urban planning 3334 N. 20th Street, Phoenix AZ 85016 T:602.875.6221 F:602.875.6239 www.kontexture.com February 9th, 2023 Project Narrative RE: Fountain View Manor ALH 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 The proposed project at 16602 E. Palisades Blvd., Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 is a single-family residence operating as an Assisted Living Home for the Elderly. We are looking to increase the number of residents from 10 residents to 16, while keeping the residential status and feel of the home. We are providing additional parking to meet the requirements of one parking spot for every four residents. All the residents currently housed are elderly and most of them need assistance with their daily living tasks. The proposed Special Use Permit request is necessary in order to provide the same opportunity to more elderly individuals needing care. Increasing the number of residents will not adversely impact the community since the it will keep it’s residential function and appearance. If you have any questions or comments regarding this design narrative, please contact Daniel Istrate, AIA at 602.875.6231 or daniel.istrate@kontexture.com or Denisa Istrate at 602.875.6235 or denisa.istrate@kontexture.com. Sincerely, KONTEXTURE Denisa Istrate E PALISADES BLVD. R.O.W. 55' - 0" E WESTBY DR. R.O.W. 30' - 0" APN: 176-05-993 R-3 N 69º 21' 52" W 125' N 20º 38' 08" E 110' N 69º 21' 52" W 144.70' N 20º 38' 08" E 75' N 02º 19' 24" E 15' N 2 4 º 3 6 ' 4 3 " W 2 8 . 2 7' BUILDING SETBACK 30' - 0" BUILDING SETBACK 30' - 0" BUILDING SETBACK 10' - 0" BUILDING SETBACK 30' - 0" APN: 176-05-994 APN: 176-05-695 27' - 6" COVERED PATIO 364 SF RESIDENCE 4,229 SF COVERED ENTRY 133 SF EXIST. GATE 7' - 6" 7' - 9" 21' - 3" 19' - 6" 18' - 5" EXIST. GATE 103 TYP 363 TYP 103 TYP 104 TYP 155 155 TYP TYP 104 TYP 104 TYP 103 TYP 103 122 150 TYP 150 TYP 155 TYP W 141 TYP S107 TYP 70' - 1" 76' - 8" 46' - 8" 46' - 5" 31' - 6" 45' - 2" MECH ROOM 45 SF 158 1 2 3 122 1 1 10' - 0" 11' - 0" 18' - 0" 4 10' - 0 "1 1' - 0"5' - 0" 1 8 ' - 0" 113 1 159 159 160 17' - 0" ISTRATE DANIEL 53898 ............. A. S.U. ARIZON . Dat e Signed .O N TAC TEFITI RC IHEC E RED A R T CE STGEIR AEXPIRES:12/3 1/2 0 2 4 0 3 .3 0.2 0 2 3 DRAWING NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER SCALE DRAWING TITLE KEYPLAN SEALS AND SIGNATURES ISSUED FOR REV DATE Pl o t D a t e : FO U N T A I N H I L L S 16 6 0 2 E P A L I S A D E S B L V D FO U N T A I N H I L L S , A Z 8 5 2 6 8 AP N 1 7 6 - 0 5 - 9 9 3 KONTEXTURE, LLC ARCHITECT 3334 E. 20TH STREET PHOENIX, AZ, 85016 602.875.6221 K O N T E X T U R E ar c h i t e c t u r e | i n t e r i o r s | u r b a n p l a n n i n g 1" = 10'-0" 4/ 2 6 / 2 0 2 3 1 2 : 4 2 : 2 6 P M SITE PLAN A0.2 23-009 PROJECT INFO 1" = 10'-0"1 SITE PLAN 103 PROPERTY LINE. 104 BUILDING SETBACK. 107 EXISTING SEWER LINE. 113 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE/EXIT. 122 VISITOR PARKING. 141 WATER METER. 150 EXISTING SIDEWALK. 155 EXISTING 6'-0" BLOCK FENCE. 158 EXISTING STREET CURB. 159 CURB CUT. 160 EXISTING LANDSCAPE. 363 METAL FRAME GATE. KEYNOTES VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERN MOST CORNER OF LOT 4; THENCE N 69-21-52 W, 125.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 31.42 FEET ON A CURVED ARC CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE N 20-38-08 E, 75.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 15.00 FEET ON A CURVED ARC CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 370.00 FEET; THENCE S 69-21-52 E, 144.70 FEET; THENCE S 20-38-08 W, 110.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 15,862.64 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO ALL EXISTING EASEMENTS. APN: 176-05-993 ZONING:R-3 STR:15 3N 6E PUC:1960 MCR:378-09 LOT:4A SUBDIVISION:FOUNTAIN HILLS AZ FP 102 LOT 4 BLK 2 REPLAT SETBACKS: FRONT:-30'-0" SIDES:-10'-0" STREET SIDE: -30'-0" REAR -30'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED -30'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED -25'-0" @ 1 STORY SITE INFORMATION LOT AREA:= 15,952 SF COVERAGE:-Covered Entry = 133 SF -Covered Patio = 364 SF -Livable = 4,229 SF -Mech Room = 45 SF -Total building footprint : 4,771 SF / 15,952 (x100) = 29.90% lot coverage MAX LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED: 50% CITY COMMENTS 1 03.29.2023 KONTEXTURE architecture | interiors | urban planning 3334 N. 20th Street, Phoenix AZ 85016 T:602.875.6221 F:602.875.6239 www.kontexture.com February 9th, 2023 Citizen Participation Plan RE: Fountain View Manor ALH 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Fountain View Manor ALH Special Use Permit Purpose: The purpose of this Citizen Participation Plan is to inform citizens, property owners, and nearby neighborhood associations of the special use permit application to increase the number of residents at this Assisted Living Home from 10 residents to 16. This plan will ensure that those affected by this application will have an adequate opportunity to learn about and comment on the proposal. Applicant: Simona Tolan 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. 480-886-1761 tolansimona@gmail.com Location: The property being considered for this SUP is located at the northeast corner of E. Palisades Blvd. and E. Westby Dr. Action Plan: In order to provide effective citizen participation in conjunction with this application, the following actions will be taken to provide opportunities to understand and address any real or perceived impacts of the development that members of the community may have. 1. A contact list will be developed for citizens and HOA’s within 300’ of the project location. 2. All persons listed on the contact list will receive a letter describing the project, site plan and invitation to a neighborhood meeting to be held virtually. • The meeting will be an introduction to the project, and opportunity to ask questions and state concerns. A sign-in list will be used and comment forms provided. Copies of the sign-in list and any comments will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. 3. Presentations will be made to groups of citizens or neighborhood associations upon request. Copies of the sign-in list and any comments will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. 4. An email will be sent to the case planner following the scheduled meeting, and at any other time there is significant input, to inform the staff of the progress of implementing the Plan. Schedule: Mail letters by February 20, 2023 First neighborhood meeting March 7th, 2023 KONTEXTURE architecture | interiors | urban planning 3334 N. 20th Street, Phoenix AZ 85016 T:602.875.6221 F:602.875.6239 www.kontexture.com March 10th, 2023 Citizen Participation Report RE: Fountain View Manor ALH 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Fountain View Manor ALH Special Use Permit Overview: This report provides results of the implementation of the Citizen Participation Plan for Fountain View Manor ALH. This site is located at 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. This report provides evidence that citizens, neighbors and interested persons have had adequate opportunity to learn about and comment on the proposed plans and actions addressed in the application. Comments, sing-in lists, and emails are attached. Applicant: Simona Tolan 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. 480-886-1761 tolansimona@gmail.com Contact: Kontexture, LLC Denisa Istrate 3334 N. 20th Street Phoenix, AZ 85016 602-875-6235 denisa.istrate@kontexture.com Neighborhood Meeting: 1. March 7th, 2023 – Virtual, GoTo, at 5:30 PM – 2 citizens in attendance • Simona Tolan, Owner – 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. • Bob Jensen, Neighbor – 16616 E. Palisades Blvd. #206; Their only concern was if the building is increasing in size, which is not. Correspondence: 1. Letters mailed to contact list (82) on February 17th, 2023 to all property owners within 300’. KONTEXTURE architecture | interiors | urban planning 3334 N. 20th Street, Phoenix AZ 85016 T:602.875.6221 F:602.875.6239 www.kontexture.com Results: There are 82 persons on the contact list as of the date of this Citizen Participation Report. Emails received are attached. 1.Summary of concerns: •Increased traffic •Parking on the street •Increase in square footage of the home. •Congestion and safety for the condos nearby. 2.How concerns, issues and problems were addressed: •The increase in residents will have very little impact on the traffic. Since we are only adding 6 more residents, live-in staff will increase, which means that they won’t be commuting every day to add to daily traffic. Also, the same nurses and medical staff that needs to come in sporadically, will be providing for the new 6 residents. •We are providing 4 parking spots on our property, and that will suffice for the number of visitors we have. •There is no increase of the building footprint or square-footage of the home. •The proposal of the addition of 6 new residents will have very little impact on the congestion of the nearby area. These residents do not travel or are in and out of the home. They all need care and supervision and most of them are disabled or bed- bound, therefore they will mostly be inside, getting care from the live-in staff. 3.Concerns, issues, and problems not addressed and why: •Applicant has very little control over the traffic and vehicles parked on E. Westby Dr. We will post a sign for our visitors to park in the available parking spots on our property, but there are condos on Westby Dr. that also have visitors or residents that park on the street. 1 denisa.istrate@kontexture.com From:Paul & Sharon Fogtmann <psfogtmann@shaw.ca> Sent:Tuesday, March 7, 2023 8:40 AM To:denisa.istrate@kontexture.com Cc:sandigundberg@gmail.com; ssarle@juno.com; cbulg7@aol.com Subject:Sup23-000002 16602 E Palisades Blvd Flag Status:Flagged Hello,    We are owners in Windstone Casitas that is adjacent to the property in question.     We are opposed to the Special Permit being filed with the Town of Fountain Hills (SUP23‐000002 with the property in  question located at 16602 E Palisades Blvd in Fountain Hills.    Our reasons are as follows:    1.  There are already numerous vehicles parked on E WESTBY Dr that belong to caregivers currently working at this  residence. Not only will there be more cars for residents but there will be additional cars for added caregivers at this  residence.     2. The footprint would change as this higher density proposal is not in line with current zoning of this area    3.  We are very worried about congestion and safety as this is a corner lot close to our condo.     We are therefore OPPOSED to this Special Use Permit.    We just received this notice today in the mail and were stunned to see the meeting was today. We are unable to attend  this meeting as we are busy at that time.   Please acknowledge that you have received this email.     Regards    Paul & Sharon Fogtmann  16631 E WESTBY Dr Unit 201  Fountain Hills, Az. 85268    Ph:  (403)795‐7013    1 denisa.istrate@kontexture.com From:Cheryl Bulger <cbulg7@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:01 AM To:Paul & Sharon Fogtmann Cc:denisa.istrate@kontexture.com; Sandi Gundberg; Steve Subject:Re: Sup23-000002 16602 E Palisades Blvd Attachments:image0.jpeg We as Homeowners at 16631 e Westby  #207 never received a letter!  But 100% agree with the above letter from the Fogtmann's  Not a spot for a business in a place that was built for a family. Not an overcrowded business  John & Cheryl Bulger    On Tue, Mar 7, 2023, 8:40 AM Paul & Sharon Fogtmann <psfogtmann@shaw.ca> wrote:  Hello,    We are owners in Windstone Casitas that is adjacent to the property in question.     We are opposed to the Special Permit being filed with the Town of Fountain Hills (SUP23‐000002 with the property in  question located at 16602 E Palisades Blvd in Fountain Hills.    Our reasons are as follows:    1.  There are already numerous vehicles parked on E WESTBY Dr that belong to caregivers currently working at this  residence. Not only will there be more cars for residents but there will be additional cars for added caregivers at this  residence.     2. The footprint would change as this higher density proposal is not in line with current zoning of this area    3.  We are very worried about congestion and safety as this is a corner lot close to our condo.     We are therefore OPPOSED to this Special Use Permit.    We just received this notice today in the mail and were stunned to see the meeting was today. We are unable to attend  this meeting as we are busy at that time.   Please acknowledge that you have received this email.     Regards    Paul & Sharon Fogtmann  16631 E WESTBY Dr Unit 201  Fountain Hills, Az. 85268    Ph:  (403)795‐7013    The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.   1 denisa.istrate@kontexture.com From:Farhad Tavassoli <ftavassoli@fountainhillsaz.gov> Sent:Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:36 PM To:denisa.istrate@kontexture.com Subject:FW: Special Use Permit Flag Status:Flagged Denisa,    You may want to reach out to Ms. Sarle, as she says her email to you had bounced back. Below is her email to me.    Thanks,    Farhad Tavassoli, AICP, CFM  Senior Planner  Town of Fountain Hills  (480) 816‐5139    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Marla Sarle <marlawing2000@gmail.com>  Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:27 PM  To: Farhad Tavassoli <ftavassoli@fountainhillsaz.gov>  Subject: Special Use Permit    EXTERNAL EMAIL    To the Fountain Hills City Council:    I would like to state my strong disapproval of this permit. The traffic on E. Westby is already very busy and way too fast  with no traffic control. Too Many cars parked on the street make it difficult to exit driveways. The fact that there is NO  CROSSWALK y yHighpointe hacross Palisades at Westby is a very dangerous situation (this situation is a disaster waiting  to happen).  We do not need more traffic and cars parked in this area.    Sincerely,  Marla Sarle  16651 E. Westby, Unit 201      Sent from my iPad    ________________________________  Disclaimer: All messages created in this system are the property of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona and should be  considered a public record subject to disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law (ARS 39‐121). Town employees,  town public officials, and those who generate email to them, should have no expectation of privacy related to the use of  this technology.  April 25th, 2023 Good Neighbor Statement RE: Fountain View Manor ALH 16602 E. Palisades Blvd. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 My name is Simona Tolan, owner of Fountain view Manor ALH, located at 16602 E. Palisades Blvd., Fountain Hills, AZ 85268. My cell phone number is 480-226-1761 and my email address is tolansimona@gmail.com. I am available to answer any questions you might have about my business at this phone number and email. Through this letter, I commit to place emergency contact information on the property in a location that is visible to the public. I am the emergency contact and the number and email above apply here as well. There will be designated four parking spots on the property, to address the parking issue that was raised by the neighborhood and ensure to let our visitors know that they need to park either on our driveway or the designated parking spots to avoid any negative impact to the neighborhood. We are open and available to answer any questions or concerns and thrive to accommodate any suggestions from the neighbors in the eventuality of any conflict. The neighbors can contact me at my cell phone number or through email and we will answer to the best of our abilities. The home has been open to elderly residents at this location for twenty years and we are integrated in the neighborhood. The addition of 6 more residents will not impact the surrounding neighborhood. The steps we are taking to mitigate any concerns are to provide parking spots on our property and ensure that our visitors park in the designated parking spots. Sincerely, Simona Tolan Fountain View Manor ALH - Owner From:Steve To:Farhad Tavassoli Subject:SUP 23-000002 Date:Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:24:37 AM EXTERNAL EMAIL I’m a resident of Condos two doors down from this property. I strongly object to this request. Traffic parking and overall congestion near the corner will be overwhelming to local residents and visitors. Thanks in advance for considering my concerns. Steve and Marla Sarle 16651 E Westby 201 Fountain Hills Sent from my iPhone From:Marla Sarle To:Farhad Tavassoli Subject:Special Use Permit Date:Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:27:10 PM EXTERNAL EMAIL To the Fountain Hills City Council: I would like to state my strong disapproval of this permit. The traffic on E. Westby is already very busy and way too fast with no traffic control. Too Many cars parked on the street make it difficult to exit driveways. The fact that there is NO CROSSWALK y yHighpointe hacross Palisades at Westby is a very dangerous situation (this situation is a disaster waiting to happen). We do not need more traffic and cars parked in this area. Sincerely, Marla Sarle 16651 E. Westby, Unit 201 Sent from my iPad From:Paul & Sharon FogtmannTo:denisa.istrate@kontexture.com Cc:sandigundberg@gmail.com; ssarle@juno.com; cbulg7@aol.com; marlawing2000@gmail.comSubject:Re: Sup23-000002 16602 E Palisades BlvdDate:Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:22:06 AM EXTERNAL EMAIL Hello, Simply said this is a for profit business. From what I’ve checked online Fountain View Manor located at 16602 E Palisades Blvd, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 currently takes care of ten residents atapproximately $3200/month for each resident resulting in gross income of $32,000 per month. You are looking to increase your return on investment and would prefer to take in $51,200 based on sixteenresidents. Graph attached below. You have no concern for the community around you as simply put this is a business for you. Your comment about about control of traffic and cars on E Westby makes no sense. Yes, as you say caregivers do stay the night but they have to get to your care facility and need to park. Increasing resident numbers from 10 to 16 will impact our community. That is an increase of 60% and for you it is the bottom line. The bottom line is PROFIT! As a resident of Windstone Casitas we are against your special use permit. Paul & Sharon Fogtmann On Mar 13, 2023, at 5:49 PM, denisa.istrate@kontexture.com wrote: Hello, Thank you for sending in your concerns. I would like to respond to your concerns as follows: 1. The caregivers working at this home are live-in and do not drive or park on the street. Also, if they own a car, there are available spots on our property for them to park their cars. We are providing 4 car parking spots on our property, to avoid anyone parking on the street. The increase in residents will have very little impact on the traffic. Since our staff is live-in, they will not be commuting every day to add to daily traffic. Also, our residents do not leave the home, unless is for a doctor appointment, which is very rarely. They do not move in with cars that will need to be parked. 2. The footprint of the home will not change. We are not making any additions or changes to the residence. 3. We have very little control or impact on traffic and vehicles parked on E. Westby Dr. We will post a sign for our visitors to park in the available spots on the property, but there are condos on Westby Dr.that also have visitors or residents that contribute to the traffic or the issue of parking on the street. I just want to mention that this is not a business in the traditional sense and is a care home that provides care and housing to the elderly. The elderly are most often disabled or bed-bound. This is allowed in the current zoning. We are not asking to change the zoning, or increase the size of the home. The owner will be able to provide for 6 more residents without having to add to the size of the house or impact traffic patterns. I hope that I was able to respond to your concerns and clarify the nature of our request. If you have any more questions, we are happy to respond! Thank you, Denisa IstrateOffice managerKONTEXTURE, LLC3334 N. 20th StreetPhoenix, AZ 85016P.602.875.6221D.602.875.6235F.602.875.6239www.kontexture.com From: Paul & Sharon Fogtmann <psfogtmann@shaw.ca> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 8:40 AM To: denisa.istrate@kontexture.com Cc: sandigundberg@gmail.com; ssarle@juno.com; cbulg7@aol.comSubject: Sup23-000002 16602 E Palisades Blvd Hello, We are owners in Windstone Casitas that is adjacent to the property in question. We are opposed to the Special Permit being filed with the Town of Fountain Hills (SUP23-000002 with the property in question located at 16602 E Palisades Blvd in Fountain Hills. Our reasons are as follows: 1. There are already numerous vehicles parked on E WESTBY Dr that belong to caregivers currently working at this residence. Not only will there be more cars for residents but there will be additional cars for added caregivers at this residence. 2. The footprint would change as this higher density proposal is not in line with current zoning of this area 3. We are very worried about congestion and safety as this is a corner lot close to our condo. We are therefore OPPOSED to this Special Use Permit. We just received this notice today in the mail and were stunned to see the meeting was today. We are unable to attend this meeting as we are busy at that time. Please acknowledge that you have received this email. Regards Paul & Sharon Fogtmann 16631 E WESTBY Dr Unit 201 Fountain Hills, Az. 85268 Ph: (403)795-7013 <image001.jpg> ITEM 7. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/08/2023 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: A request for approval of a Special Use Permit for residential use of commercially zoned property at 12800 N. Saguaro Boulevard, the northwest corner of Saguaro Boulevard and Paul Nordin Parkway, to allow conversion of the existing hotel in to apartments and four short-term rental units. SUP23-000004 Staff Summary (Background) The northwest corner of Saguaro Boulevard and Paul Nordin Parkway is zoned C-2, Intermediate Commercial District, and has been developed with a hotel since 2006.  In recent years the hotel has struggled to receive the amount of occupancy needed.  A new owner of the property is proposing to convert the hotel into apartments.  The current zoning designation does not allow residential only buildings by right.   Options included a rezone to a multi-family designation or a Special Use Permit to allow the residential use.  The most intense multi-family zoning district, R-5, would allow 80 dwelling units on this parcel.  Base on the current hotel rooms in the building, the plan is to convert the existing building to 90 apartment units, therefore, the R-5 zoning would not be sufficient.  The other option to achieve the goal is to obtain a Special Use Permit to allow the residential use; this is the option chosen by the applicant. General Plan The General Plan includes the following Goals and Policies:  Neighborhoods Element GOAL 2: Support a housing strategy that encourages a broad range of quality housing types to address current and future housing needs and to support long-term economic vitality. POLICIES   1. Encourage a broad range of housing types affordable to all income ranges and age groups in a manner compatible with adjacent development. 2. Encourage a range of housing types and residential densities and maintain consistency with the existing character of infill areas in conformance with criteria provided in Table 1: Character Areas Plan. 5. Direct higher-density residential and mixed-used development to the Town Center and redevelopment  areas such as Shea Corridor as opportunities arise.  redevelopment  areas such as Shea Corridor as opportunities arise.  Character Areas Element GOAL 1: Encourage future development, redevelopment and infill in a manner that will maintain and protect existing neighborhoods, the Town’s economic health, community well-being, and natural environment.  POLICIES 1. Achieve and maintain a diverse and sustainable land use mix consistent with our small-town character that supports thriving neighborhoods, environment and economy by attracting and retaining revenue-generating uses that:  Enhance the Town’s economic vitality; anda. Increase the Town’s revenue base to maintain quality infrastructure, services and amenities.b. GOAL: 2: Development, redevelopment and infill support Fountain Hills' small-town identity and the distinct character of each area while fostering long-term viability. POLICIES  3. Support a mix of residential, employment, and commercial uses at densities and intensities and in the development form that reflect the small-Town character of Fountain Hills. 5. Strongly encourage a wide range of housing types, densities and prices to support the current and projected populations (particularly families and working professionals) and to ensure the future stock of affordable housing for all income ranges.  6. Require that development, redevelopment, and infill conform with Exhibit 2, Character Aras Plan map, and Table 1. The Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 designates this area as part of the Town Center character area.  This area is designed to have a highly integrated mix of uses to provide a vibrant town center.  Active ground floor uses are encouraged to provide activity on the street level.  Office and residential uses are encouraged on upper floors. GOAL 4: Allow the Town Center to achieve its full potential. POLICIES 1. Market the Town Center to attract a variety of employment, office, cultural, institutional, mixed-use, lodging, commercial, entertainment and recreational opportunities. 2. Attract and retain small and medium sized businesses to mixed-use projects in the Town Center to promote day and evening activities. 3. Require mixed-use development within Town Center to incorporate commercial or office uses at the street level, with high-density residential on upper floors. Downtown Area Specific Plan The Downtown Area Specific Plan provides direction on development within the town center area.  This Plan divides the downtown area into nine districts, each with its own vision for development.  This property is part of the Avenues District.  The Plan states the following with regard to this District:  The Avenue District: The Avenue District is envisioned as the core of the downtown with a wonderful and comfortable atmosphere for strolling, sightseeing and shopping. This corridor is designed to evolve into Fountain Hills’ premier shopping destination for residents and a “must-see” magnet for visitors. A variety of unique eating experiences that reinforce the one-of-a- kind nature of Fountain Hills is intended to compliment the range of specialty shops and one-of-a- kind nature of Fountain Hills is intended to compliment the range of specialty shops and boutique stores. These restaurants will be of a quality that not only caters to local residents but also attracts the attention of visitors and guests. The Avenue District is designed to accommodate a degree of other uses including second story office space, condominiums and small-scale businesses along with limited neighborhood services. If designed appropriately, a small percentage of brownstone style housing could be integrated into The Avenue District. Traffic calming measures such as crosswalks, additional on-street parking, and narrower travel lanes are planned to provide easy and safe access to all areas of the downtown for both vehicles and pedestrians. Zoning The property is zoned C-2 and has been from the beginning of development of Fountain Hills.  Section 12.01 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following with regard to the purpose of this zoning district:  D. C-2. Intermediate Commercial Zoning District: The principal purpose of this Zoning District is to provide for the sale of commodities and the performance of services and other activities in locations for which the market area extends beyond the immediate residential neighborhoods. Principal uses permitted in this Zoning District include furniture stores, hotels and motels, restaurant, and some commercial recreation and cultural facilities such as movies and instruction in art and music.  This Zoning District is designed for application at major street intersections. This zoning district is the primary commercial zoning district in Town and allows a wide variety of uses.  Residential uses, however, are allowed only through approval of a Special Use Permit.  There are no specific parameters put on the design and development of residential uses approved through a Special Use Permit. Application The applicant is proposing to remodel and use the existing building for a total of 90 studio and one-bedroom apartment units and four short-term rental units.  There will be no changes to the exterior of the building.  There will be a need to add five parking spaces which can be done to the west of the loading area on the north side of the building. The ordinance requires the submission of a Good Neighbor Statement, as applicable, with the application.  In this case, staff did not see the need for a statement and did not require one to be filed. Analysis The zoning ordinance Section 12.03 allows consideration of residential uses in all commercial zoning districts with the approval of a SUP.  Section 2.02 of the zoning ordinance establishes the process and criteria for consideration of a SUP.  Section 2.02 F 1 d of the zoning ordinance states:    d. In order to recommend approval of any use permit, the findings of the Commission must be that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor shall it be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. The goals of the General Plan and the Downtown Area Specific Plan are to have an active and vibrant town center.  Having a hotel to house visitors in this area is an important part of the overall mix of uses desirable in a downtown area. A hotel in this location provides a convenient place for visitors to stay and enjoy the town center, local festivals and events, and Fountain Park.  With the pending development of enjoy the town center, local festivals and events, and Fountain Park.  With the pending development of the remaining portions of Park Place, there are no other large sites in the town center to accommodate a full-service hotel. Information provided by the applicant (attached Best and Highest Use Report) states the property has struggled over the years as a hotel.  However, the market studies support the need for smaller apartments that will meet the needs of local workers and for potential new residents before the find a permanent home. The General Plan encourages a wide variety of housing options.  One concern that has been discussed as staff has worked to develop an economic development plan is the lack of housing in town that is affordable to some of the lower wage workers in town.  The primary employers in Fountain Hills are service-based with the average service worker making less than $40k. Additionally, the town currently has a supply and demand challenge with diverse housing availability. The lack of housing affordable to these workers has made it difficult for some local businesses to hire and retain workers. The Town Center area has some vacant buildings and several vacant properties.  More residents living in the nearby area, within walking distance, will help bring vitality and vibrancy to the area on a continuous basis. A preferred option may be to have some or all of the building used as retail and office space.  The placement and design of the current building does not lend itself to retail uses.  The town would have a challenge to absorb this much office space. Approval of a SUP for residential uses in the C-2 zoning district has been done several times previously in the Town Center area.  Examples include The Village at Towne Center, Villa Estates and Town Center Condominiums, Town Center Crossing Condos, The Enclave, and Thunder Ridge Condos. Good Neighbor Statement Given the nature of the use, staff did not require a good neighbor statement. Citizen Participation The Citizen Participation Plan included mailing letters to all property owners within 300 feet inviting them to a meeting at the hotel on April 3 to learn about the project.  The Plan included the option for a follow up meeting on April 19, if needed.  Eleven people attended the April 3 meeting and all questions were addressed.  The applicant received no other inquiries regarding the request so the second meeting was not held.    Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 Downtown Area Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance Section 2.02, Special Use Permits Zoning Ordinance Chapter 12, Commercial Districts Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff finds that the proposal meets the criteria in the ordinance for approval of the requested SUP.  The additional housing geared to workers in the Town Center area will add a needed housing type envisioned in the General Plan. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to recommend approval of Case SUP23-000004 allowing up to 94 dwelling units. Attachments Vicinity Map  Project Narrative  Site and Building Plans  Highest Use statement  Citizen Participation Plan  Citizen Participation Report  Meeting Sign-in  CASE: SUP23-000004 SITE / ADDRESS: 12800 N SAGUARO BLVD APN 176-25-560 REQUEST: A Special Use Permit for multi-family residential. All that is Ariz on a FO U N TAIN HIL L S TOWN OF INC. 1989 MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN REGIONAL PARK SALT RIVER PIMA - MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY FO R T M C D O W E L L Y A V A P A I N A T I O N SC O T T S D A L E Site Location CaseCase DetailsDetails AVEN U E O F T H E F O U N T A I N S SA G U A R O B L V D EL LAGO BLVD VE R D E R I V E R D R PAUL N O R D I N P K W Y Vicinity Map  2233 East Thomas Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Office: (602) 955-3900 rkaa.com  1151 Dove Street, Suite #175 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Office: (949) 954-8785  Licensed in: Alabama Alaska ArizonaArkansas California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana NebraskaNevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon PennsylvaniaSouth Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming  Principals: Robert W. Kubicek, CEO Neil A. Feaser, President Steve Nosal, Executive VP Kathleen D. Rieger, VP Randy E. Haislet, VP  NARRATIVE FOUNTAIN PARK HOTEL – RE-ZONING FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 85269 1. Reason(s) for the re-zoning application The soon-to-be new owner, Fountain Park Apartments, LLC would like to convert the existing hotel into residential apartments for lease. The existing, vacant restaurant space would also be converted to (4) separate suites for lease. 2. Proposed Scope of Work The proposed work under this application would be to add kitchenettes to the studio units and to convert some studios to 1-bedroom units. The new ground floor suites will require very limited exterior site modifications. TO FROM City of Fountain Hills Engineering & Development Services PLANNING & ZONING 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 (480) 816-5138 Attn: John Wesley RKAA Architects, Inc. Michael Bayless 2233 E Thomas Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85016 (602) 955 – 3900 mbayless@rkaa.com RE Re-Zoning Application APN #: 176-25-560 3. List of Document Names for Planning & Zoning  Cover Sheet  Site Plan  First Floor Plan  First Floor suites  Second floor Plan  Third Floor Plan  Citizen Participation Plan  Citizen’s Mailing List March 28, 2023 BEST AND HIGHEST USE The question has been posed to me, why I think converting this particular building from a hotel to an apartment community is the best use of this property. I recently obtained an appraisal that contained 128 pages of documentation on history and life of this property, as well as a 156-page CoStar report on the property and surrounding areas and history of the property compared to other multifamily properties in the surrounding communities. Both reports identified struggles with the use of this property being successful. Those reports identified that at least three different facelifts and marketing strategies were performed to try to increase traffic and revenue, each without enough success. The charm that the community of Fountain Hills provides to the area has both good and bad impact. The good impact is the charm of the city being desirable and popular and seems to be sought after by people all over the country. In my opinion, however, the challenge presented by the seasonal visitors is that it is difficult to maintain a hotel and a restaurant when the traffic reduces significantly in the off-peak months. There is a housing need in the community that still has challenges, and the goal of operating this building as an apartment community is to serve that need. There are several apartment communities that display a beautiful mix of floor plans that include large one-bedroom and two- bedroom units, but there is a shortage in Fountain Hills of housing with studio or efficient one- bedroom floorplans. This building will fill that need perfectly. Smaller square footage offerings in a beautiful building that serves the needs of workers in the Fountain Hills area will allow businesses to find better and more abundant workers to serve the needs of businesses in the community and will allow those tax dollars from people living where they work, to remain here. In addition, many of the prospective residents of these apartments that I have spoken to express the desire to move from other areas of the country but are hesitant to purchase and want to reside here before making a commitment to a large purchase. This building will also fill this need. Roy Brown  2233 East Thomas Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Office: (602) 955-3900 rkaa.com  1151 Dove Street, Suite #175 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Office: (949) 954-8785  Licensed in: Alabama Alaska ArizonaArkansas California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana NebraskaNevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon PennsylvaniaSouth Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming  Principals: Robert W. Kubicek, CEO Neil A. Feaser, President Steve Nosal, Executive VP Kathleen D. Rieger, VP Randy E. Haislet, VP  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR FOUNTAIN PARK HOTEL, SPECIAL USE PERMIT NWC of N. SAGUARO ROAD & E. PAUL NORDIN PARKWAY FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 85268 Date: March 20th, 2023 Purpose: The purpose of this Citizen Participation Plan is to inform citizens, property owners, and nearby neighborhood associations of the special use permit application to re-zone the current property from a TCCD to a C-2. By doing so, we would like to change the use from a hotel to apartments and convert the old restaurant space to (4) AirBnB units. This plan will ensure that those affected by this application will have an adequate opportunity to learn about and comment on the proposal. Applicant: Fountain Park Apartments, LLC Roy Brown 9375 E. Shea Blvd., Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (480) 489-0249 Email: rbrown@ulassets.com Location: The property being considered for this SUP is located at the Northwest corner of N. Saguaro Rd. & E. Paul Nordin Pkwy. (See attached location map) Action Plan: In order to provide effective citizen participation in conjunction with this application, the following actions will be taken to provide opportunities to understand and address any real or perceived impacts of the development that members of the community may have. 1. A contact list will be developed for citizens and HOA’s within 300’ of the project location. 2. All persons listed on the contact list will receive a letter describing the project, project schedule, site plan and invitation to a series of two neighborhood meetings to be held at the Fountain Park Hotel. The letter will also include access information for anyone wanting to attend the meetings virtually. 1. The first meeting will be an introduction to the project, an opportunity to ask questions and state concerns. A sign-in list will be used and comment forms provided. Copies of the sign-in list and any comments will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. 2. The second meeting will be held two weeks later and will include responses to questions and concerns of the first meeting. A sign-in list and comment cards will be provided to the Town with the Citizen Participation Report. 3. Presentations will be made to groups of citizens or neighborhood associations upon request. Copies of the sign-in list and any comments will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. 4. An email will be sent to the case planner following each of the scheduled meetings, and at any other time there is significant input, to inform the staff of the progress of implementing the Plan. Schedule: Mail letters by March 17, 2023 First neighborhood meeting: April 03, 2023 1:00 PM Second neighborhood meeting: April 19, 2023 10:00 AM  2233 East Thomas Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Office: (602) 955-3900 rkaa.com  1151 Dove Street, Suite #175 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Office: (949) 954-8785  Licensed in: Alabama Alaska ArizonaArkansas California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana NebraskaNevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon PennsylvaniaSouth Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming  Principals: Robert W. Kubicek, CEO Neil A. Feaser, President Steve Nosal, Executive VP Kathleen D. Rieger, VP Randy E. Haislet, VP  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REPORT FOR FOUNTAIN PARK HOTEL, SPECIAL USE PERMIT NWC of N. SAGUARO BLVD. & E. PAUL NORDIN PARKWAY FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 85268 Date: May 2nd, 2023 Overview: This report provides results of the implementation of the Citizen’s Participation Plan for Fountain Park Apartments and AirBnB. This site is located at the Northwest corner of N. Saguaro Blvd. & E. Paul Nordin Pkwy. This report provides evidence that citizens, neighbors, and interested persons have had adequate opportunity to learn about and comment on the proposed plans and actions addressed in the application. Ther sign-in sheet and mailing list are attached. There were not any comments. Contact: Fountain Park Apartments, LLC Roy Brown 9375 E. Shea Blvd., Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 (480) 489-0249 Email: rbrown@ulassets.com Neighborhood Meeting: The following date and location of the initial meeting where citizens were invited to discuss the applicant’s proposal (sign-in sheet is attached); 1. April 3rd, 2023 - Fountain Hills Community Center located at 13001 N. La Montana Dr. 1:00 - 3:00 pm. 11 citizens were in attendance including the applicant and architect. Correspondence & Telephone Calls: 1. 1st letters mailed to the contact list (38) on March 17th, 2023. 2. Project published in the “Fountain Hills Times” newspaper the week beginning 4/176/2023 & 4/24/2023. 3. April 3rd, 2023; met with citizens to discuss the project and to address any concerns. Results: There are 38 persons on the contact list as of the date of this Citizen’s Participation Report 9see attached) 1. There were not any concerns, comments, or issues.   2233 East Thomas Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Office: (602) 955-3900 rkaa.com  1151 Dove Street, Suite #175 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Office: (949) 954-8785  Licensed in: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Citizen Participation Meeting #1 – 04/03/2023 Guest Sign-In NAME PHONE # EMAIL ADDRESS Roy Brown 480-489-0249 rbrown@ulassets.com Michael Bayless 619-675-9080 mbayless@rkaa.com Judy Gelden 480-216-2434 PJ Selby 480-385-8633 Mike D 480-620-5423 Tricia Manara 480-273-6884 Jim Manara 480-273-0934 Karla Foltz 480-729-1111 Donna Schaefer 303-506-8430 Marie Roebling 480-406-4654 Dan Roebling ITEM 8. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/08/2023 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION: A request for approval of a Special Use Permit to permit up to 10 apartments in three buildings on a .33 acre parcel located at 16741 E. Glenbrook, the southwest corner of Glenbrook Boulevard and Fountain Hills Boulevard. SUP23-000001 Staff Summary (Background) The property at the southeast corner of Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. is zoned C-C, Common Commercial.  This zoning district is the same as the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and Professional, zoning district, but allows for common parking areas rather than parking on individual lots.  This property was platted in 1973 for this type of development and includes the area down to El Pueblo.  The building along El Pueblo Blvd. and a portion of the parking along the street were constructed prior to January 1986.  Additional buildings and parking were slowly added over the years.  The development as it exists today has been in place since 2004.  Council approved a Special Use Permit to allow residential use of the lot at the southeast corner of this subdivision last year. The lot at the corner of Fountain Hills Blvd and Glenbrook Blvd. is just under 30,000 sq. ft.  The applicant is proposing to construct up to ten dwellings on the property.  A concept plan has been submitted to illustrate how the lot could be developed.  Residential uses are allowed in the commercial zoning districts only through approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP).  Following approval of the SUP the applicant will prepare a final site plan as required by Sec. 2.04 of the Zoning Ordinance for review and approval by staff. General Plan The General Plan includes the following Goals and Policies: Neighborhoods Element GOAL 2: Support a housing strategy that encourages a broad range of quality housing types to address current and future housing needs and to support long-term economic vitality.  POLICIES  1. Encourage a broad range of housing types affordable to all income ranges and age groups in a manner compatible with adjacent development. 2. Encourage a range of housing types and residential densities and maintain consistency with the existing character of infill areas in conformance with criteria provided in Table 1: Character Areas existing character of infill areas in conformance with criteria provided in Table 1: Character Areas Plan. 5. Direct higher-density residential and mixed-used development to the Town Center and redevelopment areas such as Shea Corridor as opportunities arise.  Character Areas Element  GOAL 1: Encourage future development, redevelopment and infill in a manner that will maintain and protect existing neighborhoods, the Town’s economic health, community well-being, and natural environment. POLICIES  1. Achieve and maintain a diverse and sustainable land use mix consistent with our small-town character that supports thriving neighborhoods, environment and economy by attracting and retaining revenue-generating uses that: a. Enhance the Town’s economic vitality; and b. Increase the Town’s revenue base to maintain quality infrastructure, services and amenities. GOAL: 2: Development, redevelopment and infill support Fountain Hills' small-town identity and the distinct character of each area while fostering long-term viability. POLICIES  3. Support a mix of residential, employment, and commercial uses at densities and intensities and in the development form that reflect the small-Town character of Fountain Hills. 5. Strongly encourage a wide range of housing types, densities and prices to support the current and projected populations (particularly families and working professionals) and to ensure the future stock of affordable housing for all income ranges.  6. Require that development, redevelopment, and infill conform with Exhibit 2, Character Aras Plan map, and Table 1. Section III of the general plan includes the information on the Character Areas in the Town.  This small commercial area at Glenbrook and Fountain Hills Boulevards was included as part of the surrounding Neighborhood character type.  More specifically, this area is considered a Mixed Neighborhood with smaller lots and a mix of non-residential uses.  This existing commercial area is intended to remain a low intensity area with any further development or redevelopment consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.  Allowing the proposed residential use within this commercial area would be consistent the intent of the Plan for this area. Ordinance Requirements The zoning ordinance Section 12.03 allows consideration of residential uses in all commercial zoning districts with the approval of a SUP.  Section 2.02 of the zoning ordinance establishes the process and criteria for consideration of a SUP.  Section 2.02 F. 1. d. of the zoning ordinance states:   d. In order to recommend approval of any use permit, the findings of the Commission must be that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use or building applied for will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor shall it be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. This area has been zoned and platted prior to incorporation of the Town for commercial uses.  It is still the desire of the Town to have this be a successful commercial center.  The questions become:  the desire of the Town to have this be a successful commercial center.  The questions become:  Would allowing residential use of this prominent corner be detrimental to the desired commercial activity? 1. Would the residential use be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, or comfort of the neighborhood? 2. Is the residential use being designed and established in a manner that creates a desirable living environment in a manner compatible with the adjacent development and meets the goal of providing a recognizable entry to the Town? 3. A review of this property shows that over its almost 50-year history it has not fully developed and has largely been underutilized.  Facilitating the development by allowing a mix of uses will help to improve the overall quality of the development by introducing new buildings and additional activity on the property.  More people living nearby can provide customers to the businesses.  Two SUP's have already been approved in this development to allow residential in mixed use buildings.  This would be the first consideration of a residential only development.   The C-C zoning district allows buildings up to 25' tall.  The adjacent property to the east and south is zoned C-C and built with commercial buildings and a parking lot.  Further east along Glenbrook Blvd. are residential uses.  While none of the other properties are currently developed with two-story buildings, they are permitted on this property and all the surrounding properties.  The property west across Fountain Hills Blvd is zoned R1-8 and to the northwest is zoned R1-35, both are developed with churches.  The property to the north across Glenbrook Blvd. is zoned C-1 and developed with commercial buildings. The conceptual design has access to the apartments from both streets.  Each dwelling has a ground-floor, two-car garage.  The developer of this project is the same as the one for the property on Saguaro Blvd. at Trevino and the same type of unit is planned for this location.  Given the small size of the parcel, the applicant is having difficulty meeting some of the ordinance requirements with the attached site plan.  For example, the drive aisle through the property does not meet the minimum width and the three guest parking spaces do not meet the parking stall depth requirements.  Further, there are no on-site amenities shown in the development.  A gate is provided to allow access to the commercial area, but it is unclear whether there will be any sidewalks or paths on the commercial side to connect to the gate.  Further refinement of the site plan will take place through the site plan review process and it is possible a unit will need to be removed. Addressing the third question above with this proposed Special Use Permit is the most challenging.  As stated above, the General Plan envisions a gateway feature somewhere in this general area to welcome people into the Town and help provide wayfinding to Town destinations.  This function is more easily provided in a commercial setting than in a residential development.  This intersection is the first major intersection when entering the Town from the north.  This is the only undeveloped intersection at this corner.  Care should be taken with the design amenities at this corner to provide interest and set a high standard for the community.  A block wall and the back of two-story residential units may not provide the look desired for this location. This small pocket of residential use will be located at a busy intersection and surrounded by parking lots and non-residential uses.  Each unit will have a small private outdoor space, but the interior of the development is all driveway without any amenities.  This setting for the homes is not ideal and will have a challenge in providing a "desirable living environment" for the residents. Good Neighbor Statement Given the nature of the use, staff did not see a need to require this statement. Citizen Participation The applicant provided a Citizen Participation Plan as part of his application.  That plan included sending letters to all property owners within 300' and holding a meeting on February 21, 2023.  The letter described the project, provided contact information for any residents who had questions and offered to meet with residents if desired. A Citizen Participation Report was received on March 21, 2023.  Two property owners from the adjacent commercial development attended the meeting.  Those individuals asked questions for clarification and information was provided.  There was some concern that residents of this development would use the parking on the adjacent properties.  The report states that after the discussion both were in favor of the project.   Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 Zoning Ordinance Section 2.02, Special Use Permits Zoning Ordinance Section 12.03, Uses Subject to Special Use Permits in Commercial Zoning Districts Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) This commercial property has been zoned and plated for 50 years and has not developed with commercial development.  In general, the Town is over zoned and built for commercial uses and needs to convert some commercial properties to residential uses to provide place for more residents to utilize the existing businesses.  The General Plan supports a mix of neighborhood scale uses in this location. Despite the reasons for support listed above, staff has some concerns with the approval of the SUP for this location.  These concerns stem from the setting and the challenge it will have in addressing the need to provide a desirable living environment.  There are several issues that will need to be resolved in the concept plan and it is likely at least one unit will need to removed to provide for the required parking and an amenity area. If the Commission is supportive of allowing the residential use at this location staff can recommend approval and work with the applicant on the site plan to address the issues raised. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to recommend approval of case number SUP23-0000001. Attachments Vicinity Map  Location and zoning map  Project Narrative  Site Plan  Example Elevations  Vicinity CASE: SUP23-000001 SITE / ADDRESS: 16741 E GLENBROOK BLVD APN 176-04-687 REQUEST: SUP FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UP TO 10 UNITS ON COMMERCIAL ZONED PROPERTY. All that is Ariz on a FO U N TAIN HIL L S TOWN OF INC. 1989 MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN REGIONAL PARK SALT RIVER PIMA - MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY FO R T M C D O W E L L Y A V A P A I N A T I O N SC O T T S D A L E Site Location Vicinity MapMap ::CaseCase DetailsDetailsSUP23-000001SUP23-000001 E GLENBROOK B L V D N F O U N T A I N H I L L S B L V D E EL PUEBLO BLV D N I V O R Y D R AL L E Y BA L B O A W A S H AL L E Y ALLEY E A L A M O S A A V E N P E A C H T R E E L N Subject PropertyR1-8 R1-35 C-1 R-2 C-C RLeporeArchitecture, LLC RLeporeArchitecture@gmail.com 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 ph: 602.318.0100 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 Project Narrative Glenbrook Condominiums 16741 East Glenbrook Blvd. Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 Project Overview The Glenbrook Condominium project is a 10-unit, 3-bedroom Condominium project consisting of (3) separate buildings. The development will have one 5-unit building, one 3-unit building and one duplex building. All 3 buildings will be 2- story structures with a 2-car garage, powder room, kitchen, dining area and family room on the ground level. The 2nd level will have 3-bedrooms with closets, 2-bathrooms and a laundry room. Site Context The site is a 29,921 sf parcel located on the southeast corner of Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. The Fountains United Methodist Church is located on the Northwest corner of Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. with a small retail building in located on the Northeast corner. A parking lot is located adjacent to the south property line and an alley borders the east property line. Access to the site will be provided from both Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. The interior circulation will be a single driveway which connects both Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. Each of the individual units will have direct access from the driveway to their 2-car garages. Three additional guest parking stalls will also be provided on the site. An aerial image of the surrounding area is below. RLeporeArchitecture, LLC RLeporeArchitecture@gmail.com 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 ph: 602.318.0100 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 Imagery The buildings will consist of a combination of exterior stucco, veneer stone and metal accents. The massing of the structure will be broken up to provide and interaction of the shades and shadows. The stucco will have multiple colors which will also break up the wall plains and provide an interesting visual effect. The Landscaping will emphasize the use of drought resistant vegetation and will conform to Fountain Hills guidelines. Site Utility Providers Water for the project will be provided by EPCOR (Chaparral) Water. Sewer will be provided by Fountain Hills Sanitary District Electricity is provided by Salt River Project. There is no gas provided to the property. Project Timeline The project is currently going through the Fountain Hills Development process. An initial Use Permit Hearing with the Planning and Zoning Department and City Council will be held within the next couple of months. Once the Use Permit is approved, drawings will be submitted for the Site Approval process. This process will take an additional couple of months. After Site Plan approval, construction documents will be submitted to the Building Department for purposes of obtaining the necessary building permits. All together, we anticipate construction to begin in approximately six months from the time of approval of this Use Permit request. Project Contact At any time during the development of this project, you can contact the Architect for any information you may request or to state any concerns you may have with the project. The Architect will provide pertinent information for assist in your understanding of the project. The Architect’s contact information is: RLeporeArchitecture, LLC – Robert Lepore, Architect 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 602-318-0100 Email: rleporearchitecture@gmail.com Citizen Participation Plan See Citizen Participation Plan on adjacent sheet RLeporeArchitecture, LLC RLeporeArchitecture@gmail.com 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 ph: 602.318.0100 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 Citizen Participation Plan for Glenbrook Condominiums January 2, 2023 Purpose: The purpose of this Citizen Participation Plan is to inform citizens, property owners, And nearby neighborhood associations of the special use permit application for a new 10-unit condominium project. This plan will ensure that those affected by this application will Have an adequate opportunity to learn about and comment on the proposal. Applicant: RLeporeArchitecture, LLC Robert L. Lepore – Architect 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 ph: 602-318-0100 email: rleporearchitecture@gmail.com Location: The property being considered for this SUP is located at the Southwest corner of Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. Action Plan: In order to provide effective citizen participation in conjunction with this application, the following actions will be taken to provide opportunities to understand and address any rreal or perceived impacts of the development that members of the community may have. 1. A contact list will be developed for citizens and HOA’s within 300’ of the project location. 2. All persons listed on the contact list will receive a letter describing the project, project schedule, site plan and invitation to a series of two neighborhood meetings to be held at a location to be determined. The letter will also include access information for anyone wanting to attend the meetings virtually. · The first meeting will be an introduction to the project, and opportunity to ask questions and state concerns. A sign-in list will be used and comment forms provided. Copies of the sign-in list will be used and any comment will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. · The second meeting will be held two weeks later and will include responses to questions and concerns of the first meeting. A sign-in list and comment cards will provided to the Town with the Citizen Participation Report. 3. Presentation will be made to groups of citizens or neighborhood associations upon request. Copies of the sign-in list and any comments will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. 4. An email will be sent to the case planner following each of the scheduled meetings, and at any other time there is significant input, to inform the staff of the progress of implementing the Plan. Schedule: Mail letters by (TBD) First neighborhood meeting (TBD) Second neighborhood meeting (if necessary) (TBD) RLeporeArchitecture, LLC RLeporeArchitecture@gmail.com 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 ph: 602.318.0100 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 RLeporeArchitecture, LLC RLeporeArchitecture@gmail.com 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 ph: 602.318.0100 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 Project Narrative Glenbrook Condominiums 16741 East Glenbrook Blvd. Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 Project Overview The Glenbrook Condominium project is a 10-unit, 3-bedroom Condominium project consisting of (3) separate buildings. The development will have one 5-unit building, one 3-unit building and one duplex building. All 3 buildings will be 2- story structures with a 2-car garage, powder room, kitchen, dining area and family room on the ground level. The 2nd level will have 3-bedrooms with closets, 2-bathrooms and a laundry room. Site Context The site is a 29,921 sf parcel located on the southeast corner of Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. The Fountains United Methodist Church is located on the Northwest corner of Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. with a small retail building in located on the Northeast corner. A parking lot is located adjacent to the south property line and an alley borders the east property line. Access to the site will be provided from both Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. The interior circulation will be a single driveway which connects both Fountain Hills Blvd. and Glenbrook Blvd. Each of the individual units will have direct access from the driveway to their 2-car garages. Three additional guest parking stalls will also be provided on the site. An aerial image of the surrounding area is below. RLeporeArchitecture, LLC RLeporeArchitecture@gmail.com 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 ph: 602.318.0100 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 Imagery The buildings will consist of a combination of exterior stucco, veneer stone and metal accents. The massing of the structure will be broken up to provide and interaction of the shades and shadows. The stucco will have multiple colors which will also break up the wall plains and provide an interesting visual effect. The Landscaping will emphasize the use of drought resistant vegetation and will conform to Fountain Hills guidelines. Site Utility Providers Water for the project will be provided by EPCOR (Chaparral) Water. Sewer will be provided by Fountain Hills Sanitary District Electricity is provided by Salt River Project. There is no gas provided to the property. Project Timeline The project is currently going through the Fountain Hills Development process. An initial Use Permit Hearing with the Planning and Zoning Department and City Council will be held within the next couple of months. Once the Use Permit is approved, drawings will be submitted for the Site Approval process. This process will take an additional couple of months. After Site Plan approval, construction documents will be submitted to the Building Department for purposes of obtaining the necessary building permits. All together, we anticipate construction to begin in approximately six months from the time of approval of this Use Permit request. Project Contact At any time during the development of this project, you can contact the Architect for any information you may request or to state any concerns you may have with the project. The Architect will provide pertinent information for assist in your understanding of the project. The Architect’s contact information is: RLeporeArchitecture, LLC – Robert Lepore, Architect 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 602-318-0100 Email: rleporearchitecture@gmail.com 0 10 20 40 NO R T H GLENBROOK BLVD FO U N T A I N H I L L S B L V D AL L E Y 11 5 ' - 0 " BACK OF CURB BA C K O F C U R B 18' - 0" 6' - 0" Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3Unit 4Unit 5 Unit 6Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 26 ' - 0 " 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage LANDSCAPE LA N D S C A P E LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE ASPHALT PAVING TRASH ASPHALT PAVING FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAVEL ROUTE RE A R Y A R D RE A R Y A R D PATIO / REAR YARD PATIO / REAR YARD PATIO / REAR YARD PATIO / REAR YARD PATIO / REAR YARD PATIO / REAR YARD PATIO / REAR YARD PATIO / REAR YARD 15 ' - 6 " 6' - 0 " 16' - 0 5/32" 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 18' - 0"22' - 2 1/2" 6' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 96' - 2" GUEST PARKING 19 ' - 0 " 4' - 0 " VI C I N I T Y M A P Glenbrook Condominiums DEVELOPER: Harr Family Homes 15871 East Eagle Rock Drive Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 contact: Kirk Harr ph: (602) 826-8655 email: k.harr@me.com RLeporeArchitecture, LLC 13440 North 44th Street, #2031 Phoenix, Arizona 85032 Robert L. Lepore - Architect ph: (602) 318-0100 email: RLeporeArchitecture@gmail.com ARCHITECT: 16741 E. Glenbrook Blvd Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 A Multi-Family Project: PR O J E C T T E A M APN: S/T/R: MCR: Zoning: Subdivision: Lot #: Lot Area: Gross: Net: Occupancy Group: Construction Type: Maximum Height: Allowed: Proposed: BUILDING SETBACKS: Front: Rear: Side: AREA CALCULATIONS: 5-Plex Unit Area Calcs: 1st Floor Livable: 1st Floor Garage: 1st Floor Rear Patio: 1st Floor Entry Patio: 2nd Floor Livable: 2nd Floor Rear Balcony: 2nd Floor Front Balcony: 4-Plex Unit Total Livable: 4- Plex Building Total: Tri-Plex Unit Area Calcs: 1st Floor Livable: 1st Floor Garage: 1st Floor Rear Patio: 1st Floor Entry Patio: 2nd Floor Livable: 2nd Floor Rear Balcony: 2nd Floor Front Balcony: Tri-Plex Unit Total Livable: Tri- Plex Building Total: Du-Plex Unit Area Calcs: 1st Floor Livable: 1st Floor Garage: 1st Floor Side Patio: 1st Floor Side Patio: 2nd Floor Livable: 2nd Floor Balcony 1: 2nd Floor Balcony 2: 2nd Floor Balcony 3: Du-Plex Unit Total Livable: Du- Plex Building Total: Lot Coverage: Allowed: Provided: Parking: Required: Provided: 176-04-813 10 3N 6E 162-40 C-C Fountain Hills Arizona No. 106 AMD N/A x,xxx 29,921 sf (+/- 0.68 acres) Residential V-B Sprinklered 25' 25' 0 0' 0' Livable Non-Livable Livable Non-Livable 675 sf x 5 = 3375 sf 436 sf x 5 = 2188 sf 172 sf x 5 = 860 sf 112 sf x 5 = 560 sf 1028 sf x 5 = 5140 sf 134 sf x 5 = 670 sf 100 sf x 5 = 500 sf 1703 sf 954 sf 8515 sf 4778 sf 675 sf x 3 = 2025 sf 436 sf x 3 = 1308 sf 172 sf x 3 = 516 sf 112 sf x 3 = 336 sf 1028 sf x 3 = 3084 sf 134 sf x 3 = 402 sf 100 sf x 3 = 300 sf 1703 sf 954 sf 5109 sf 2862 sf 743 sf x 2 = 1486 sf 426 sf x 2 = 852 sf 178 sf x 2 = 356 sf 178 sf x 2 = 356 sf 1132 sf x 2 = 2264 sf 114 sf x 2 = 228 sf 47 sf x 2 = 94 sf 49 sf x 2 = 98 sf 1875 sf 992 sf 3750 sf 1984 sf (100%) 89,878 x 1 = 89,878 sf 5-Plex = 6287 x 1 = 7,312 sf Tri-Plex = 4675 x 1 = 4,675 sf Duplex = 2997 x 1 = 2,997 sf Total Building Coverage: 14,984 sf (2) Stalls per 3-bedroom units = 20 stalls required (23) Stalls provided. PR O J E C T D A T A E. Glenbrook Blvd. N. Founta in Hills Blvd E. McDowellMountain Rd. Project Location REGIS T E R ED ARC H I T ECT CE R T I F I CATE N O A RIZONA U.S.A.Signed D at e . -2022 - , Expires 12-31-2023 27001 ROBERT L LEPORE 2 501 RL e p o r e A r c h i t e c t u r e , L L C 13 4 4 0 N o r t h 4 4 t h S t r e e t , # 2 0 3 1 Ph o e n i x , A r i z o n a 8 5 0 3 2 60 2 . 3 1 8 . 0 1 0 0 R L e p o r e A r c h i t e c t u r e @ g m a i l . c o m 16 7 4 1 E . G l e n b r o o k Fo u n t a i n H i l l s , A r i z o n a 8 5 2 6 8 A N e w M u l t i -fa m i l y P r o j e c t No . Da t e Re v i s i o n Gl e n b r o o k C o n d o m i n i u m s A1.1 Site Plan & Project Data 1" = 10'-0"1 Site Plan 0 10 20 40 NO R T H GLENBROOK BLVD FO U N T A I N H I L L S B L V D AL L E Y 11 5 ' - 0 " BACK OF CURB BA C K O F C U R B 18' - 0" 6' - 0"Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3Unit 4Unit 5Unit 6Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10 95' - 8 25/32" 26' - 0 " 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage PLAZA LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LA N D S C A P E LA N D S C A P E LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE ASPHALT PAVING TRASH ASPHALT PAVING FIRE DEPARTMENTTRAVEL ROUTE RE A R Y A R D R E A R Y A R D PATIO /REAR YARD PATIO /REAR YARD PATIO /REAR YARD PATIO /REAR YARD PATIO /REAR YARD PATIO /REAR YARD PATIO /REAR YARD PATIO /REAR YARD 6' - 0 " 12' - 0 " 18' - 0 " BEN C H BENCH TABLE 16' - 0 5/32" 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 2-Car Garage 18' - 0"22' - 2" 6' - 0 " 6' - 0 " VIC I N I T Y M A P Glenbrook Condominiums DEVELOPER: Harr Family Homes15871 East Eagle Rock DriveFountain Hills, Arizona 85268contact: Kirk Harrph: (602) 826-8655email: k.harr@me.com RLeporeArchitecture, LLC13440 North 44th Street, #2031Phoenix, Arizona 85032Robert L. Lepore - Architectph: (602) 318-0100email: RLeporeArchitecture@gmail.com ARCHITECT: 16741 E. Glenbrook Blvd Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 A Multi-Family Project: PR O J E C T T E A M APN: S/T/R: MCR: Zoning: Subdivision: Lot #: Lot Area:Gross:Net: Occupancy Group: Construction Type: Maximum Height:Allowed:Proposed: BUILDING SETBACKS:Front:Rear:Side: AREA CALCULATIONS:5-Plex Unit Area Calcs:1st Floor Livable:1st Floor Garage:1st Floor Rear Patio:1st Floor Entry Patio:2nd Floor Livable:2nd Floor Rear Balcony:2nd Floor Front Balcony:4-Plex Unit Total Livable:4- Plex Building Total: Tri-Plex Unit Area Calcs:1st Floor Livable:1st Floor Garage:1st Floor Rear Patio:1st Floor Entry Patio:2nd Floor Livable:2nd Floor Rear Balcony:2nd Floor Front Balcony:Tri-Plex Unit Total Livable:Tri- Plex Building Total: Du-Plex Unit Area Calcs:1st Floor Livable:1st Floor Garage:1st Floor Side Patio:1st Floor Side Patio:2nd Floor Livable:2nd Floor Balcony 1:2nd Floor Balcony 2:2nd Floor Balcony 3:Du-Plex Unit Total Livable:Du- Plex Building Total: Lot Coverage:Allowed:Provided: Parking:Required:Provided: 176-04-813 10 3N 6E 162-40 C-C Fountain Hills Arizona No. 106 AMD N/A x,xxx29,921 sf (+/- 0.68 acres) Residential V-B Sprinklered 25'25' 00'0' Livable Non-Livable Livable Non-Livable 675 sf x 5 = 3375 sf 436 sf x 5 = 2188 sf 172 sf x 5 = 860 sf 112 sf x 5 = 560 sf1028 sf x 5 = 5140 sf 134 sf x 5 = 670 sf 100 sf x 5 = 500 sf1703 sf 954 sf 8515 sf 4778 sf 675 sf x 3 = 2025 sf 436 sf x 3 = 1308 sf 172 sf x 3 = 516 sf 112 sf x 3 = 336 sf1028 sf x 3 = 3084 sf 134 sf x 3 = 402 sf 100 sf x 3 = 300 sf 1703 sf 954 sf 5109 sf 2862 sf 743 sf x 2 = 1486 sf 426 sf x 2 = 852 sf 178 sf x 2 = 356 sf 178 sf x 2 = 356 sf1132 sf x 2 = 2264 sf 114 sf x 2 = 228 sf 47 sf x 2 = 94 sf 49 sf x 2 = 98 sf1875 sf 992 sf 3750 sf 1984 sf (100%) 89,878 x 1 = 89,878 sf 5-Plex = 6287 x 1 = 7,312 sf Tri-Plex = 4675 x 1 = 4,675 sf Duplex = 2997 x 1 = 2,997 sfTotal Building Coverage: 14,984 sf (2) Stalls per 3-bedroom units = 20 stalls required(23) Stalls provided. PR O J E C T D A T A E. Glenbrook Blvd. N. Fountain Hills Blvd E. McDowellMountain Rd. ProjectLocation REGIST EREDARCHIT ECT CERTI FICATE NO A RIZONA U.S.A.Signed Date . -2022 - , Expires 12-31-2023 27001ROBERTLLEPORE 2 501 RL e p o r e A r c h i t e c t u r e , L L C 13 4 4 0 N o r t h 4 4 t h S t r e e t , # 2 0 3 1 Ph o e n i x , A r i z o n a 8 5 0 3 2 60 2 . 3 1 8 . 0 1 0 0 R L e p o r e A r c h i t e c t u r e @ g m a i l . c o m 16 7 4 1 E . G l e n b r o o k Fo u n t a i n H i l l s , A r i z o n a 8 5 2 6 8 A N e w M u l t i -fa m i l y P r o j e c t No . Da t e Re v i s i o n Gl e n b r o o k C o n d o m i n i u m s A1.1 Site Plan &Project Data 1" = 10'-0"1 Site Plan 2nd Flr F.F, 12' -1 1/2" 2nd Flr F.F, 12' -1 1/2" T.O.P. 21' -2 1/4" T.O.P. 21' -2 1/4" Tri Plex 1st Flr F.F. 0' -0" Tri Plex 1st Flr F.F. 0' -0" 24 ' - 4 " 24 ' - 4 " 25 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 4 " 2nd Flr F.F, 12' -1 1/2" T.O.P. 21' -2 1/4" Tri Plex 1st Flr F.F. 0' -0" 8' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " 12" EIFS BAND EIFS OVER WOOD FRAMING PAINTED WOOD PLANK SIDING REGIS T E R ED ARC H I T ECT CE R T I F I CATE N O A R IZONA U.S .A.Signed D at e . -2022 - , Expires 12-31-2023 27001 ROBERT L LEPORE 1 611 RL e p o r e A r c h i t e c t u r e , L L C 13 4 4 0 N o r t h 4 4 t h S t r e e t , # 2 0 3 1 Ph o e n i x , A r i z o n a 8 5 0 3 2 ph : 6 0 2 . 3 1 8 . 0 1 0 0 RL e p o r e A r c h i t e c t u r e @ g m a i l . c o m 96 3 7 N o r t h S a g u a r o B l v d . Fo u n t a i n H i l l s , A r i z o n a 8 5 x x x A 1 7 -Un i t C o n d o m i n i u m P r o j e c t : Fo u n t a i n H i l l s C o n d o m i n i u m 12 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 2 3: 4 9 : 5 0 P M A4.3 Tri-Plex Exterior Elevations 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Tri Plex Front Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Tri Plex Left Side Elevation No .Description Date ITEM 9. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/08/2023 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):  CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION: Modifications to Chapter 6, Sign Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance Staff Summary (Background) The Commission held a public hearing at their April meeting to begin discussion and consideration of possible amendments to Chapter 6, Sign Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance.  The review is being done in response to Town Council direction to consider possible modifications that can assist businesses in having effective sign options.  At the April meeting Staff presented several items that had previously been identified by the Town Council and staff as possible areas for amendment.  Staff continues to solicit comment from the Commission and public as we conduct this review and begin to make the changes needed to address the concerns raised by the Council. This report is going to focus on a few of the items previously discussed to obtain clarity and direction from the Commission to guide staff efforts in preparing specific recommendations for modifications to the current ordinance.  Should A-frame and Yard signs have the same allowances for use in the right of way?  Council is wanting to provide businesses with increased visibility to help them be successful.  In this regard, Council specifically provided direction on some modifications to A-frame signs but were not as specific regarding Yard signs. Both A-frame and Yard signs are easy and convenient for a business owner to use to place out along the street to attract customers.  While the sign types are similar, there are differences.  A-frame signs are larger, more expensive than Yard signs.  Yard signs can go more places than A-frames.  Keep in mind that we can only regulate by time, place, manner not content of a sign so signs could be place in the right of way in front of a business but not advertise that business and staff would not be able to require the sign to be removed. 1. What distance away from a commercial business should we allow a temporary sign?  The draft ordinance, based on Council discussion had a distance of 90'.  At the April meeting staff demonstrated situations where distances up to 300' might be needed to provide adequate opportunities for business to effectively utilize a temporary sign. 2. The draft provisions for A-frame signs placed in the right of way states they have to be taken in when the business is closed.  If the sign is placed just behind the right of way on private property it would not have to be taken down.  A-frame signs are also used for purposes other than an open 3. business, such as for open houses and garage sales, but can contain any message.  The provision requiring residential directional signs to be taken in each day was removed from the draft ordinance.  The same sign type has to be treated the same regardless of use or message and staff cannot read the content of the sign to determine what rules to apply.  The section providing the regulations for Yard signs did not include language about taking them in when a business is closed.  There was discussion at the April meeting that they should be taken in and out at sunrise and sunset.   Should A-frame signs be allowed on a sidewalk anywhere but in the Town Center Pedestrian area?4. How long should banner signs be allowed for new businesses?  Discuss at the April meeting ranged from 180 days to 365.  There was a suggestion that the signs be required to change their message periodically.  Our sign regulations have to be content neutral, so we could not enforce such a provision.  The ordinance includes some maintenance standards, but we could add language that states the sign has to be replaced every X days. 5. Staff has recently observed a "For Sale" sign attached to the balcony of a condominium unit.  The ordinance does not specifically address this type of sign display, but it would be staff's interpretation that such a sign would be in violation of the ordinance.  Should language be added to the ordinance to specifically address temporary signs placed on a building?  The current ordinance only has provisions as it relates to banners and flags hung on a building. 6. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Zoning Ordinance Chapter 6, Sign Regulations Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff is looking for further direction from the Commission on the topics listed.  No recommendations are being made at this time. SUGGESTED MOTION No motions will be made at this time.