Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__11-08-21_0707_266       NOTICE OF MEETING REGULAR MEETING FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION      Chairman Peter Gray  Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg Commissioner Jessie Brunswig Commissioner Clayton Corey Commissioner Susan Dempster Commissioner Dan Kovacevic Commissioner Roderick Watts, Jr.      TIME:6:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING WHEN: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2021 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 Septmeber 13, 2021.     5.PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: SPECIAL USE PERMIT to allow 17 residential units on a 1.62-acre property generally located north of the northeast corner of N. Saguaro Boulevard and E. Shea Boulevard (AKA 9637 N. Saguaro Boulevard; APN#176-10-805) on the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district.     6.PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Regarding Ordinance 21-17, amending Chapter 10, Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts, Section 10.04, General Provisions, to add design standards for single-family dwellings.     7.PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Regarding Ordinance 21-18, amending Chapter 4 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) and Chapter 10 (Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts) by adding new provisions for extensions to nonconforming structures on corner lots zoned for single-family residential use.       8.DISCUSSION and provide direction to staff regarding timing and process to prepare an ordinance to address detoxification facilities.     9.COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff.    10.SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director.    11.REPORT from Development Services Director.     Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 2 of 3     12.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 ____________________, 2021. _____________________________________________  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 November 8, 2021 3 of 3   ITEM 4. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/08/2021 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 Septmeber 13, 2021. 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 CommissionSeptember 13, 2021.    SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2021.  Attachments 9/13/21 PZ MM Draft  D R A F T TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2021            1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE       Chairman Gray called the meeting of September13 2021, to order at 6:00 p.m.   2.ROLL CALL   Present: Chairman Peter Gray; Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg; Commissioner Jessie Brunswig (Telephonically); Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Susan Dempster; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic; Commissioner Rick Watts, Jr.  Staff Present: Development Services Director John Wesley; Senior Planner Farhad Tavassoli; Executive Assistant Paula Woodward  3.CALL TO THE PUBLIC       None.   4.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OF approving the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of the Executive Session Meeting of August 9, 2021, the Regular Meeting of August 9, 2021, and the Special Work Session Meeting of August 9, 2021.        MOVED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of the Executive Session Meeting of August 9, 2021, the Regular Meeting of August 9, 2021, and the Special Work Session Meeting of August 9, 2021.      Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   5.PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance 21-12, amending Chapter 18, Town Center Commercial District, and Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District, by adjusting and clarifying provisions for outdoor seating in the public right-of-way.            Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. Mr. Tavassoli said that Ordinance 21-12 is to change Chapter 18, Town Center Commercial District and Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District, by adjusting and clarifying provisions for outdoor seating in the public right-of-way.   Chairman Watts asked if the permitting process includes indemnification so the Town is not liable. Mr. Tavassoli said that he was not sure but thinks it is implicit. Vice Chairman Schlossberg asked for a good definition of the town right-of-way and how would a restaurant utilize it for outdoor seating.    Mr. Tavassoli replied that the town right-of-way includes the street, median and the sidewalks.  A situation where there is outdoor seating encroaching in the right-of-way would be OKA Sushi on the Avenue. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Tavassoli said that there may be some sort of grandfathering for that particular restaurant. The Special Use Permit would contain stipulations that would ensure the outdoor seating area is accessible and that the sidewalk is ultimately owned by the Town. Mr. Tavassoli said that if alcohol is served outside an enclosed fence is required.  Outside enclosure does not require overhead enclosures.  The amendment is not intended to address temporary (special) events. Mr. Wesley said that spilling out into the parking spaces would not be allowed.  Chairman Gray questioned if the process needed to include the Town Council approval or could it just be approved administratively by staff. Commissioner Dempster and Commissioner Kovacevic commented that this is a good opportunity for restaurants especially during COVID-19 times. Discussion ensued regarding right-of-way, center medians and sidewalks. Mr. Wesley commented that some purposes are issued by encroachment permits. Commissioner Watts said he would like to know for sure that indemnification is included in the ordinance and permitting process. Chairman Gray closed the public hearing.    MOVED BY Commissioner Dan Kovacevic, SECONDED BY Commissioner Susan    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2021 2 of 6    MOVED BY Commissioner Dan Kovacevic, SECONDED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve Ordinance 21-12, amending Chapter 18, Town Center Commercial District, and Chapter 25, Entertainment Overlay District, by adjusting and clarifying provisions for outdoor seating in the public right-of-way, adding language that includes certificate of insurance requirement, setting outer limits of area in question and good neighborly housekeeping and maintenance requirements.   Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   6.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON Ordinance 21-13 amending Zoning Ordinance Chapter 6, Sign Regulations, Sections 6.02, Definitions, Section 6.07, General Regulations, and Section 6.08, Sign Requirements and Allowances.        Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. Mr. Wesley said that in May 2021 the Council approved the new sign ordinance. Part of the process was the elimination of temporary signs in the right-of-way. Following that action there were concerns among community members and the council asked for further review and not to enforce until further notice. Mr. Wesley provided maps displaying commercial properties that would not be able to display signs. He said there were not many locations affected – around a dozen that could not put temporary signs in front of their businesses.  He said the purpose of the meeting is to consider possible amendments to the new Sign Ordinance to address temporary signs in the right of way.  The goal is to strike a balance between Section 6.01 Findings and Purpose – avoid visual clutter, promote health and safety, etc. following Council’s determination to not allow signs in right-of-way and allow signs for commercial needs. Mr. Wesley explained that in order to allow A-frame and T-frame in the Town Center right-a-way, staff added a new definition called the Town Center Pedestrian Area.  Mr. Wesley highlighted the following proposals to the Sign Ordinance: - allow A-frames in the ROW in the Town Center Pedestrian Area - provide an exemption for temporary signs (located in right of way) that are part of a Town approved special event - correct an oversight and allow an exception for Post and Board signs -correct an oversight and allow an exception for Yard signs - allow a time frame when Residential Directional Signs can be placed in a ROW   Mr. Wesley said that “off-site” and “off premise” are used in different parts of the proposed code.  They are the same thing, a correction will be made to use “offsite” throughout the document. In response to Commissioner Dempster Mr. Wesley said currently A-frames are only allowed in commercial zoning with an exception in residential as a directional sign only.  One example would be for directions for an open house.    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2021 3 of 6   Chairman Gray asked about the real estate post and board sign percentage that are in the right of way. Mr. Wesley said that about 50 % of post and board signs are in the right of way. Traditionally these signs are put in the right a way closest to the street for better visibility. After the Town Council approves the code, the next step is education and the enforcement.  Enforcement implementation will start with the easiest – A-frames. Chairman Gray asked what the Town has to gain by forcing the post and beam out of the right of way. Perhaps the ordinance could be a little more friendly, a happy medium. Mr. Wesley replied that it removes clutter, visual distractions, and other impediments.  He suggested that the language could be adjusted to "may be located in the right of way but must be three feet behind the curb or edge of pavement." Commissioner Watts commented that seating is allowed on sidewalks, right of ways, but not signs.  Is it fair to have one and not the other?  In regards to signs, he suggested that an exception be made to allow for post and beam signs in residential areas.   Generally these signs are not as prolific for commercial Mr. Wesley replied that this is a good question and was brought up by the focus groups.  He said that signs on sidewalks were not allowed previously so it was not included in this revision. He said he got a strong sense from Town Council that they were not open to signs on sidewalks. Any of the suggested changes are fairly easy to make should the Commission desire.  There would need to be specifics stating that at least a ten foot wide sidewalk and six foot clearance on one side of the sign.  Commissioner Watts asked if the Town could incent business owners that have zero areas of right of way, to get a permit for signs that hang from their buildings.   Mr. Wesley said that projecting signs from buildings are allowed by Town Code but if they hang into the right of way, an encroachment permit is required.  A consideration for a blanket encroachment permit could be considered. Commissioner Corey suggested that Planning and Zoning publish a map showing allowable sign display areas. He said this would be helpful to the business owners, especially realtors. Commissioner Brunswig suggested that a footer be placed in the ordinance denoting the re-decision Mr. Wesley said that once all this is finalized a map can be created and available that displays allowable sign placement areas.  In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley said there are fines, which recently doubled fro sign non-compliance.  Commissioner Dempster thanked Mr. Wesley for including items from the discussion    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2021 4 of 6   groups. Chairman Gray closed the public hearing. Commissioner Watts said he would like to see this move forward with minor adjustments.      MOVED BY Chairman Peter Gray, SECONDED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve amending Zoning Ordinance Chapter 6, Sign Regulations, Sections 6.02, Definitions, Section 6.07, General Regulations, and Section 6.08, Sign Requirements and Allowances with the following stipulations:allow for post and board installations in residential areas, 3 feet from curb; request for staff to review blanket encroachment for the Town Center; opportunities for public access in respect to the map exhibits, to allow for installations in scenarios where there are at least six foot pathway of sidewalk.   Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   7.COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff.     In response to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Wesley said that the electronic permitting system will be live on October 4, 2021  On September 28 th there will be a Builders, Developers, Contractors Forum that will feature the new permitting system.   Chairman Gray said he would like to request staff to address zoning and regulations for detox and rehabilitation facilities.      8.SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director.     Mr. Wesley said that staff would work on the request and prepare information to present at the November meeting.     9.REPORT from Development Services Director.     Mr. Wesley told the Commission there would not be an October meeting.    10.ADJOURNMENT      The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held September 13, 2021, adjourned at 7:15 p.m.    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2021 5 of 6       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 September 13, 2021. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 29th day of September, 2021.                                                                                          _________________________________                                                                                           Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2021 6 of 6   ITEM 5. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/08/2021 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 to allow 17 residential units on a 1.62-acre property generally located north of the northeast corner of N. Saguaro Boulevard and E. Shea Boulevard (AKA 9637 N. Saguaro Boulevard; APN#176-10-805) on the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. Staff Summary (Background) The 1.62-acre subject property, located north of the northeast corner of Saguaro and Shea Blvd., is vacant and zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial and Professional). This zoning is established to provide a location for modest, well-designed commercial enterprises to serve the surrounding neighborhood, such as medical offices, banks, food establishments and retail. The subject property is part of the Redrock Business Center, which was originally platted in 1972 and re-platted in its current configuration in 1997. Currently, the center houses indoor car showroom, a fraternal order, a butcher shop and wellness center.  The Monterro condominium neighborhood is adjacent to the north, and the former MCO realty office is to the south. The applicant is proposing a small development with 5 townhome-style buildings consisting of a total of 17, three-story residential units. The bottom floors of each unit will contain a two-car garage, while top floors contain living areas and balconies. The purpose for the special use permit request is to allow a residential use in a commercial district, as required by the zoning ordinance.    The primary ingress/egress will be off of Saguaro Blvd, with limited access from the interior of the Redrock Business Center. The applicant will maintain a 20-foot building setback from the Monterro condominiums to the north, which is the required building setback to a residentially zoned property, and will contain a landscaped open area. The applicant has provided building elevations to show facade treatment, wall articulation, and other modern architectural elements.  Section II of the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 discusses the elements that help create thriving neighborhoods.  One of the items listed is having a variety of housing types.  This section includes policies to encourage a broad range of housing types affordable to all income ranges and a range of housing types and densities consistent with the character area.  Section III of the General Plan includes the information on the Character Areas in the Town.  This small commercial parcel was included as part of the Shea Corridor and a Secondary Gateway to the Town.  More specifically, this area is to focus on infill and redevelopment and “invite residents and visitors to explore the Town and increase guest spending.”  Allowing the proposed residential use would be consistent with the intent of the Plan for this area by accommodating new residents and thus inviting new clientele for existing and future businesses. The zoning ordinance Section 12.03 allows consideration of residential uses in all commercial zoning districts with the 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 D. 5. of the Zoning Ordinance states:  5. 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 that the Redrock Business Center continue to be successful.  The Commission must determine if the introduction of residential uses to this area of the Redrock Business Center would be detrimental to the desired commercial activity and whether the residential use would be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, or comfort of the neighborhood.   A review of this property shows that over its almost 50-year history it has not fully developed and has been considerably underutilized.  The property was the subject of another recent special use permit request for a 67-room hotel in March 2020. There was significant opposition to the project, and request was denied by a unanimous vote by the Commission. The applicant withdrew the application before moving forward to the Town Council hearing.  Should the Town Council approve the Special Use Permit, staff will continue to work with the applicant on details related to the site plan, grading and drainage plan, and required landscaping before filing for a building permit. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Zoning Ordinance Section 2.02 - Special Use Permits Zoning Ordinance Section 12.03 - Uses Subject to Special Use Permits in the C-1, C-C, C-2, and C-3 Zoning Districts General Plan 2020, Section II: Thriving Neighborhoods 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 supports a recommendation for approval of this Special Use Permit. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the Special Use Permit to allow residential uses at 9637 N. Saguaro Blvd for a maximum of 17 dwelling units. Attachments Vicinity map  Site Plan and Elevations  Narrative  Vicinity CASE: SU2021-05 SITE / ADDRESS: 9637 N Saguaro Blvd APN#176-10-805 REQUEST: A Special Use Permit to allow a development of a residential community. 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 S H E A B L V D SAG U A R O B L V D Site Location Vicinity MapMap ::SU2021-05SU2021-05 CaseCase DetailsDetails ITEM 6. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/08/2021 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):  PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Regarding Ordinance 21-17, amending Chapter 10, Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts, Section 10.04, General Provisions, to add design standards for single-family dwellings. Staff Summary (Background) On several occasions over the last few months staff has received building permit plans for single-family homes that look a lot like duplexes.  These homes give the appearance of a duplex from the street and could very easily be modified to turn them into a duplex.  Because they met all the technical requirements of the zoning ordinance and building codes as single-family dwellings, staff had to approve the applications.  Because the property is zoned for single-family uses they could not legally be converted to a duplex use, but it could be very tempting to do so without proper permits and give an appearance as a duplex in the neighborhood. In one case, the neighbors in the area became aware of the design and were significantly concerned about the design of the home.  They were concerned about how the dwelling would actually be used and that homes could be built on other vacant lots in the area that would also look like duplexes instead of single-family homes.  They brought their concerns to staff and we agreed to look at possible ordinance amendments to address the concerns. Staff and the Council have recently been supportive of allowing second kitchens in single-family homes to accommodate a variety of living styles, "mother-in-law" quarters, and guest houses.  This brings with it, however, the opportunity for abuse to convert a home to a duplex and/or take advantage of vacation rental allowances. The Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 has three goals with related policies that support the need to protect and maintain existing neighborhoods.  These statements are:  Thriving Neighborhoods Goals and Policies Goal 1:  Continue to develop and maintain thriving neighborhoods. Policy 2:  Protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development that does not support the character of that area. 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 vitality. Policy 6:  Support quality residential development that meets Town housing needs, promotes vitality of established neighborhoods, and enhances the quality of life in Fountain Hills. Policy 7:  Provide various regulatory and financial incentives to encourage well designed housing, special needs housing, and housing affordable to households of different income levels. Goal 3:  Maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. Policy 1:  Protect established single-family residential neighborhoods from the transition, intensification, and encroachment of uses that detract and/or change the character of the residential neighborhood.    Given the concerns, staff has investigated how cities and towns define single-family dwellings and looked for existing single-family residential design standards that could be put in place to help reduce the opportunity to design and build a home that looks like a duplex on the outside and is easily converted to one on the inside.  In review of definitions, staff did not find any definitions used by other communities that are significantly different from our current definition.  Regarding design standards, staff did not find any that address the issue at hand.  The ones we could find were directed to ensure a high-quality design aesthetic, particularly along a street, not to making sure it did not look like a duplex. The primary exterior features of a home that can make it look like something other than a single-family home are the number and placement of garage doors and the number and placement of "front" doors to the home.  Staff has addressed these concerns in the design standards by including provisions to allow no more than one front door and three garage doors to face the street in front of the property.  Sections 10.04 B. 1 and 2 address these concerns.  Section 10.04 B. 1 addresses garage design.  We want to avoid more than one, 3-car wide garage facing the street from both a general aesthetic standard and from an appearance as a duplex concern.  When a home has a 3-car-wide garage, one of the bays will have to be offset from the other two by both physical separation of at least 2 feet and a change in plane by at least 2 feet.  If two or more 2-car-wide garages are proposed, only one can directly face the front street.  All others will need to be located so as to not be directly visible from the front street thus reducing both the "garage-scape" appearance along the street and the possible perception of a duplex design. Section 10.04 B. 2 addresses the front door concern.  It is certainly possible for homes to have more than one entry along the front of the home, particularly for homes with front casitas or guest quarters.  To still allow this, but reduce the possible appearance as being a duplex with two equal front doors, this section requires at least one of the doors to be located so it is not immediately visible from the front street. The primary concerns on the interior of the building are allowing more than one full-size kitchen and ensuring the interior functions as one dwelling; does not have segments that can be totally walled off from the remainder of the dwelling.  Sections 10.04 B. 3 and 4 address these concerns.  Section 10.04 B. 3 provides a limitation on the size of secondary kitchens to keep there from being two full-sized kitchens.  While there could be some ambiguity in which countertops are really part of the kitchen, we believe it will be clear in most cases and staff can work with an applicant in a given situation to make that determination.  Staff is open to adjustment to the allowance for the amount of secondary food preparation areas, 50% has been used as a place to start a discussion. Section 10.04 B. 4 addresses the concern of the floor plain being one that is easily modified so that interior walls separate the interior into two separately functioning dwelling units.  While this would not be legal in a single-family district anyway, this adds extra emphasis to review the design for features that make it possible. Section 10.04 C adds a comprehensive approach to determining if a proposed dwelling should be considered a single-family home and allows staff to not approve a permit for a home if it does not comply with these requirements.  If a dwelling is designed to with more than one "distinct" living area, it cannot be approved if the design includes at least five of the following six items:  Bedroom(s)1. 3/4 or larger bathroom(s)2. Kitchen or area for food preparation3. Separate water heater4. Separate, direct access from the front side of the property or the garage 5. Separate HVAC system with thermostats6. It is felt that once you get to at least five of the items on this list, it would become too easy for the dwelling to function as a two-family dwelling, or other non-single-family type use.  Staff has some concern with this last provision, however, in that a larger custom home could have five or all six of these features and it would still be appropriate.  If this provision is included in the ordinance, it may be appropriate to either set a size limitation (applies only to homes up to a specified size) or provide some flexibility in the wording that would still let staff approve the plan if it was clearly not being set up to be used in a manner other than as a single-family home.   Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle General Plan 2020 Thriving Neighborhoods Goals 1 and 3 Zoning Ordinance Section 1.12 definitions of dwellings Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5, General Provisions Zoning Ordinance Chapter 10, Single-family Residential Districts Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Cities and towns have generally been reluctant to place significant design standards on single-family homes.  With changing markets and design ideas, there is a need to take steps as necessary, however, to ensure to the degree we can that homes built in single-residence neighborhoods will maintain the standards of those neighborhoods. Staff believes the standards being proposed provide the balance between allowing freedom in design of single-family homes while giving some additional standards and tools for staff to use in review of plans.  Staff can support the proposed ordinance but also looks for input and discussion from the Commission to make refinements and adjustments to meet the needs of the community. SUGGESTED MOTION Staff will assist the Commission as necessary in drafting a motion for consideration. Attachments Ordinance 21-17  Example Plans  ORDINANCE NO. 21-17 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 10, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: R1-190, R1-43, R1-35, R1-35H, R1-18, R1-10, R1-10A, R1-8, R1-8A, R1-6, R1-6A, MODIFYING SECTION 10.04, GENERAL PROVISIONS BY ADDING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Town Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 93-22 on November 18, 1993, which adopted the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Zoning Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend Chapter 10, Single-family Residential Districts, Section 10.04, General Provisions by adding specific requirements for the design of single-family dwellings; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to implement the goals and policies of the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 with regards to protecting existing neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9-462.04, public hearings regarding this ordinance were advertised in the October 20th and 27th and November 3rd, 2021 editions of the Fountain Hills Times; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission on November 8, 2021, and by the Town Council on December 7, 2021. WHEREAS, in accordance with Article II, Sections 1 and 2, Constitution of Arizona, and the laws of the State of Arizona, the Town Council has considered the individual property rights and personal liberties of the residents of the Town and the probable impact of the proposed ordinance on the cost to construct housing for sale or rent before adopting this ordinance. ENACTMENTS: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10, Single-family Residential Districts: R1-190, R1-43, R1-35, R1-35H, R1-18, R1-10, R1-10A, R1-8, R1-8A, R1-6, R1- 6A, Section 10.04, General Provisions, is hereby amended to add the following definition: A. The General Provisions in Chapter 5 herein shall apply. B. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT HOMES BEING BUILT IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS QUALIFY TO BE CONSIDERED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS SHALL APPLY. 1. GARAGE DESIGN AND ORIENTATION. a. 3-CAR-WIDE GARAGES. WHERE A THREE-CAR-WIDE GARAGE IS UTILIZED, AT LEAST ONE (1) GARAGE DOOR MUST BE OFFSET FROM THE OTHER TWO (2) BY A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST TWO (2) FEET AND SET AT LEAST TWO (2) FEET IN FRONT OF OR BEHIND THE PLANE OF THE OTHER TWO (2) GARAGE DOORS. b. 4-CAR OR MORE GARAGES. WHERE GARAGE SPACE IS PROVIDED THAT HAS FOUR OR MORE VEHICLE PARKING SPACES, NO MORE THAN ONE (1), TWO-CAR-WIDE GARAGE DOOR MAY BE PLACED SO AS TO BE ORIENTED TO THE FRONT STREET. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED ABOVE FOR A THREE-CAR-WIDE GARAGE, ALL OTHER GARAGE DOORS MUST BE ORIENTED SO AS TO NOT BE DIRECTLY VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT STREET. 2. FRONT ENTRY. NO MORE THAN ONE RECOGNIZED ACCESS TO THE HOME IS ALLOWED ALONG THE FRONT STREET. IF ADDITIONAL ENTRIES ARE PROVIDED THEY MUST BE DESIGNED AND LOCATED SO AS TO NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT STREET, WHILE STILL PROVIDING SAFE ACCESS TO THE HOME. 3. KITCHENS. IF A DWELLING UNIT INCLUDES MORE THAN ONE AREA INDOORS FOR THE PREPARATION OF FOOD (A KITCHEN), ONE KITCHEN MUST BE DESIGNATED ON THE BUILDING PLANS AS THE PRIMARY KITCHEN AND THE TOTAL COUNTERTOP AREA, INCLUDING ISLANDS, DEVOTED TO OTHER INDOOR AREA(S) FOR PREPARATION OF FOOD CAN BE NO MORE THAN HALF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COUNTERTOP AREA IN THE DESIGNATED PRIMARY KITCHEN. 4. FLOOR PLAN, EXCEPT AS ALLOWED FOR GUEST HOUSES. ALL CONDITIONED SPACE WITHIN THE DWELLING MUST BE FULLY ACCESSIBLE FROM ALL OTHER AREAS WITHIN THE DWELLING WITHOUT HAVING TO GO OUTSIDE. NO FIRE RATED WALLS CAN SEPARATE ONE PART OF THE DWELLING FROM ANOTHER. C. EXCEPT AS ALLOWED FOR GUEST HOUSES, A PLAN FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING SHALL NOT BE APPROVED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IF IT IS DESIGNED WITH MORE THAN ONE DISTINCT LIVING AREA WHEN EACH AREA CONTAINS AT LEAST FIVE OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. BEDROOM(S) 2. ¾ OR LARGER BATHROOM(S) 3. KITCHEN OR AREA FOR FOOD PREPARATION 4. SEPARATE WATER HEATER 5. SEPARATE, DIRECT ACCESS FROM a. THE FRONT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, OR b. THE GARAGE 6. SEPARATE HVAC SYSTEM WITH THERMOSTATS SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, this 7th day of December, 2021. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: Ginny Dickey, Mayor Elizabeth A. Klein, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney ITEM 7. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/08/2021 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: Regarding Ordinance 21-18, amending Chapter 4 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) and Chapter 10 (Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts) by adding new provisions for extensions to nonconforming structures on corner lots zoned for single-family residential use.   Staff Summary (Background) Over the past few years, staff has received several building permit applications for dwellings on corner lots with the additions being on the street-side yard of single-family homes (not along the front yard) in small-lot subdivisions. Many such permit requests were denied on the basis that the proposed extensions did not meet the required minimum street-side building setback from the property line.  Often the existing residences were already built within the required setback of the street side yard. Such existing structures are often identified as a "nonconforming structure", which is defined by the zoning ordinance "as a structure which was lawfully erected prior to the adoption of [the current] ordinance but which, under [the current] ordinance, does not conform with the standards of coverage, yard spaces, height of structures or distance between structures prescribed in the regulations for the district in which the structure is located." The Town contains numerous nonconforming structures, and most appear to have been built prior to incorporation of the Town in 1990. Currently, the zoning ordinance requires that all extensions to nonconforming homes comply with the current development standards.   All corner lots within the small-lot, single-family zoning districts (R1-10, R1-10A, R1-8, R1-8A, R1-6, R1-6A) require a minimum street side building setback of 20 feet, or the height of the building, whichever is greater. For interior lots, however, the required minimum building setback is 7 feet from each side property line in the R1-10, R1-10A, R1-8, R1-8A zoning districts, and a 5-foot minimum side yard building setback in the R1-6, R1-6A zoning districts. Staff has observed that corner lots in the aforementioned zoning districts are not necessarily wider than interior lots. Thus, staff believes the required 20-foot street side setback creates a more restrictive building envelope, especially for owners of nonconforming homes who wish to build additions that are compatible with the exterior appearance, promote interior functionality, and positively impact property values throughout the neighborhood.     The Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 has two goals with related policies that support the need to protect and maintain existing neighborhoods. These statements are:  Thriving Neighborhoods Goals and Policies Goal 2: Support a housing strategy that encourages a broad range of quality housing types to address current and future needs and support long-term vitality. Policy 6: Support quality residential development that meets Town housing needs, promotes vitality of established neighborhoods, and enhances the quality of life in Fountain Hills. Goal 3: Maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. Policy 1: Protect established single-family residential neighborhoods from the transition, intensification, and encroachment of uses that detract and/or change the character of the residential neighborhood.    Staff believes that providing some flexibility for current owners of nonconforming homes on corner lots is consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies, and accommodates more design considerations for long-term maintenance of existing homes and neighborhoods. Therefore, this zoning ordinance text amendment proposes that extensions to nonconforming structures on corner lots in the aforementioned zoning districts may encroach into the required minimum street side-yard building setback line if the extension is at or behind the wall plane of the existing structure, but shall be no closer than 10 feet to the property line, or the height of the extension, whichever is greater. It is important to note, however, that conforming structures on corner lots, as well as undeveloped corner lots, must still maintain a minimum 20-foot street side setback (or the height of the building, whichever is greater) for all future construction.   Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle General Plan 2020, Thriving Neighborhoods, Goals 1 and 2 Zoning Ordinance Section 1.12, Definitions for "Nonconforming Structure" and "Lot Line, Street Side" Zoning Ordinance Chapter 4.01.E, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Extensions Zoning Ordinance Chapter 10, Single-Family Residential Districts Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff believes the standards being proposed provide the balance between allowing flexibility in design of extensions in small-lot neighborhoods while giving greater opportunity to maintain the existing neighborhood character. Staff can support the proposed ordinance but also looks for input and discussion from the Commission to make refinements and adjustments to meet the needs of the community. SUGGESTED MOTION Staff will assist the Commission as necessary in drafting a motion for consideration. Staff will assist the Commission as necessary in drafting a motion for consideration. Attachments Ordinance 21-18  ORDINANCE NO. 21-18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 4, NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES, BY AMENDING SECTION 4.01.E.1 AND CHAPTER 10, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS: R1-190, R1-43, R1- 35, R1-35H, R1-18, R1-10, R1-10A, R1-8, R1-8A, R1-6, R1-6A, SECTION 10.09, TO ALLOW EXTENSIONS TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES ON CORNER LOTS TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM STREET SIDE BUILDING SETBACK AREA RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Town Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 93-22 on November 18, 1993, which adopted the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Fountain Hills (the “Zoning Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to amend the Zoning Ordinance to revise Chapter 4, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, by amending provisions related to extensions to nonconforming structures in Section 4.01.E.1., and Chapter 10, Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts: R1-190, R1-43, R1-35, R1-35H, R1-18, R1-10, R1-10A, R1-8, R1-8A, R1- 6, R1-6A, in by amending provisions in Section 10.09; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Article II, Sections 1 and 2, Constitution of Arizona, and the laws of the State of Arizona, the Town Council has considered the individual property rights and personal liberties of the residents of the Town and the probable impact of the proposed ordinance on the cost to construct housing for sale or rent before adopting this ordinance; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9-462.04, public hearings regarding this ordinance were advertised in the October 27, 2021, and November 3, 2021 editions of the Fountain Hills Times; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission on November 8, 2021 and by the Town Council on December 7, 2021. ENACTMENTS: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Section 4.01.E., Extensions, is amended as follows: … 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR IN THIS CHAPTER, aAny extension of a nonconforming structure shall conform with all regulations for the zoning district in which such structure is located, except for corner lots in the R1-10, R1-10A, R1-8, R1- 8A, R1-6 and R1-6A zoning districts., IN WHICH CASE EXTENSIONS TO A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE ON THE STREET SIDE YARD MAY ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK LINE IF THE EXTENSION IS AT OR BEHIND THE EXISTING WALL PLANE OF THE ADJOINING STRUCTURE, BUT SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE, OR THE HEIGHT OF THE EXTENSION, WHICHEVER IS GREATER … SECTION 3. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 10, Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts: R1-190, R1-43, R1-35, R1-35H, R1-18, R1-10, R1-10A, R1-8, R1-8A, R1-6, R1-6A, Section 10.09., Density, Area, Building and Yard Regulations, is amended as follows: a Flag lots permit a 30-foot width provided there are no more than 2 flag lots adjoining each other. b A side entry garage is allowed a 10 feet setback. c An approved P.U.D. permits lots no smaller than 4,500 square feet, provided there is 1,500 square feet of useable common open space per lot or a combination thereof. lots larger than 4,500 square feet may have less than 1,500 square feet of common useable open space per lot if the combination of lot size and the common useable open space is at least 6,000 square feet per lot. d Or building height, whichever is greater. e A garage positioned at a 45 degree angle or greater from the front property line must setback at least 15-feet or a greater lot size to ensure consistency with existing platted lots in the immediate vicinity, as calculated pursuant to Section 5.03. f Lots on which the house footprint has an average natural slope in excess of equal to or greater than 30% are permitted to utilize the modified front setback and height standards for canyon-side lot, as determined pursuant to Section 5.10. G FOR CORNER LOTS, EXTENSIONS TO A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE ON THE STREET SIDE YARD MAY ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK LINE IF THE EXTENSION IS AT OR BEHIND THE EXISTING WALL PLANE OF THE ADJOINING STRUCTURE, BUT SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE, OR THE HEIGHT OF THE EXTENSION, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. … SECTION 4. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents and take all steps necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, this 7th day of December, 2021. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: Ginny Dickey, Mayor Elizabeth A. Klein, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney ITEM 8. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 11/08/2021 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):  DISCUSSION and provide direction to staff regarding timing and process to prepare an ordinance to address detoxification facilities. Staff Summary (Background) At the September Commission meeting the Chairman suggested it would be appropriate for the Town to proactively explore the issue of providing for detoxification facilities in the Town rather than wait for a time when the Town may be pressured into addressing this topic.  This was not on the September agenda for discussion, therefore, staff agreed to place the topic on the November agenda for discussion and possible direction by the Commission. Last spring staff processed a text amendment to provide for hospitals as a listed use in our zoning ordinance. This was done in light of the fact the Town Council had previously agreed that hospitals were to be considered a use allowed in the C-1 zoning district.  At the same time staff also proposed an amendment addressing the issue of detoxification facilities because that was another use not specifically listed in our zoning ordinance and there had been some inquiries regarding the options to establish such a use in the Town.  At that time the Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance and the Town Council chose to not address the topic. As the Commission and Council continued the discussion regarding the hospital use there was a lot of concern expressed in the meetings from citizens who are concerned about allowing detoxification facilities in Fountain Hills.  When the issue was brought up at the Town Council meeting during their discussion of the hospital ordinance, the Town Attorney advised the Council that we cannot legally prohibit such uses in the Town. Given that this is an issue and use that is concerning to our citizens, but we ultimately have a requirement to provide for the use, it has been proposed that we move forward with a process to consider a possible amendment to allow the use and ensure citizens have the opportunity to be part of the process.  The purpose of this agenda item is two-fold:  Determine if the Commission as a whole is ready to address this topic and, if so,1. Establish a general path to follow to investigate the topic and involve citizens as options are2. considered for making a recommendation to the Council. Should the Commission agree to move forward with a text amendment, there is probably a fairly narrow range of ultimate options that will be considered.  These options are:  Which zoning districts should this use be allowed in?  The only likely choices are C-2, C-3, IND-1 and IND-2. Should the use require approval of a Special Use Permit in one or more districts?  The answer is likely to be "Yes".  This will allow the Council to establish appropriate and necessary conditions of approval on the use based on ordinance requirements and the specific location. What, if any, standard conditions of approval should be placed on this type of use?  This is likely the most significant question with the widest range of possibilities that will have to be reviewed and discussed to address the needs of the community but not be overly burdensome to the business. Given these questions, and assuming the Commission does agree to move forward with addressing this topic, staff is suggesting the following general process and timeline for the consideration (this can easily be modified as we move through the review):  November - P&Z general discussion and initial thoughts on the issue and direction for staff review January - Input from staff based on initial comments and questions from the Commission.  Commission and public discussion of the topic.  This will be an opportunity for the Commission and public to provide further input and comments to staff regarding how this use should be addressed and what possible impacts need to mitigated through the ordinance requirements February - staff follow-up on research and preliminary findings to address ideas and comments received March/April - public hearing on proposed ordinance   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) N/A SUGGESTED MOTION Staff will assist the Commission as needed to prepare a motion to direct staff to address this issue.