Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__12-13-21_0704_270       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, DECEMBER 13, 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    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 November 8, 2021.     5.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.     6.CONTINUE DISCUSSION related to detox facilities and associated drug and alcohol treatment services.     7.DISCUSSION and provide comments on issues to be addressed in an update of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Parking.     8.COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff.    9.SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director.    10.REPORT from Development Services Director.    11.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    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of December 13, 2021 2 of 3   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 December 13, 2021 3 of 3 ITEM 4. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 12/13/2021 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 November 8, 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 Commission November 8, 2021.    SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2021.  Attachments DRAFT PZ MM 11.08.2021  D R A F T TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2021            1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE       Chairman Gray called the meeting of August 9, 2021, to order at 6:00 p.m.   2.ROLL CALL   Present: Chairman Peter Gray; Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg; Commissioner Jessie Brunswig; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Susan Dempster; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic; Commissioner Roderick Watts, Jr.  Staff Present: Development Services Director John Wesley; Senior Planner Farhad Tavassoli; Executive Assistant Paula Woodward  3.CALL TO THE PUBLIC      David Caribardi, Fountain Hills resident, said that a preliminary plat was submitted on 8/25 by a developer for an 13 home subdivision at 16400 Log Lane /parcel # 176-21-201. We are asking the Town to not grant or allow any form of waivers / variances / cuts & fills / or re-zoning resulting in the development of this single family lot. This proposed subdivision is a major Safety Issue - much more vehicle traffic would be exiting from Log Lane, which is a very steep/short driveway to one house and cannot safely handle heavier traffic stacking up at the Golden Eagle stop sign awaiting the opportunity to complete left/right turns onto Golden Eagle at the mid-point of one of the steepest streets in the Town with a speed limit of 35mph (downhillers reach55mph). This area is a favorite of walkers & bikers due to the challenge of the climb! Golden Eagle is the major artery into Town for the entire northwest quadrant. Log Lane is in violation of current Town Safety guidelines due to its proximity to Paradox, the Town should not compound this unsafe situation by increasing the vehicle traffic by 10 to 12 times beyond the one house currently entering/exiting Log Lane onto Golden Eagle! Please make the safety of walkers/bikers&motorists the Town's#1 priority! For Safety Issues alone this proposal should be disallowed by the Town. Additionally, this development is on a very steep/narrow ridge and would most likely require many ordinance & zoning revisions - be in violation of hillside disturbance rules - require many special cut & fill waivers be the cause of future soil erosion – it presents difficulty meeting road frontage/lot size/set-back requirements –    plus the current length of Log Lane has no pedestrian sidewalk for pedestrians (required in any new subdivision)! Zoning is to PROTECT our residents and our town from poor development deals! We need to STOP bailing out bad investment decisions made by developers via the Town granting waivers/revisions/changes! This property was advertised and sold as a single residence lot - it always has been for 31 years and should remain so! The prior owner informed the buyer/developer of the restriction on further development, and they both signed/notarized at closing a document attesting to this fact vowing no attempt to develop! Had this Property been developable it would have been sold as such for 2 to 3 times the money paid. I met several years ago with the then head of Develpm't Services (Bob Rodgers). My concern was the possible development of the Log Lane lot in the future - and he ASSURED me that this could NEVER occur (not even a single additional lot). As I sat in his office amid the Officaldom of City Hall I felt confident to build our home(at 16225 Cerro Alto) three years ago, and we moved here as permanent residents from MI. This scenario has played out with many of the newer owners in the area, as they asked the same questions and were told by Town staff/real estate agents/ closing agents that no further development could ever occur on this property. If this development is allowed, it will negatively impact the property values & resale ability of 37 adjacent residences. Had we thought this was ever possible, we would have built elsewhere. There should be no variances of any kind! Zoning is to protect our residents and our town!     4.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Septmeber 13, 2021.        MOVED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY Commissioner Dan Kovacevic to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 13, 2021.   Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   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.          Chairman Gray opened the public hearing and Mr. Tavassoli reviewed the application.  He said that the 1.62 acre subject property located at the corner of Saguaro and Shea Blvd is vacant and zoned C-1 (neighborhood Commercial and Professional.) The zoning is meant to provide a location for modest well-designed commercial enterprises to serve the surrounding neighborhood.  It is part of the Redrock Business Center.  Currently the center houses: indoor car showroom, a fraternal order, a butcher shop and wellness center.  The Monterra Ranch Condominiums are adjacent to the north and the former MCO realty office is to the south.    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 2 of 12 REQUEST  REVIEW STANDARDS Nature of Use Special Conditions Proposed location of buildings, parking, etc. Traffic impacts and influences on adjacent uses Mr. Tavassoli said that the applicant is proposing a small development with six townhome-style buildings consisting of a total of 17, three-story residential units. The bottom floors of each unit will have a two-car garage. The top floors are 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 Monterra Ranch condominiums to the north, which is the required building setback to a residentially zoned property, and will contain a landscaped open area. The building height is twenty-five feet. The density would be nine and a half dwelling units per acre. These units would be for sale not rental units. The garage doors would not face Saguaro Blvd. In addition to the two car garages the applicant is providing nine parking stalls. The minimum requirement is five parking stalls. Staff recommends approval of the 17 residential units at the property at 9637 N. Saguaro Blvd. Staff believes that introducing residential would be less impactful than what the underlying zoning would allow for – C-1.  In the past a proposal fora sixty-seven unit hotel was unanimously denied. Mr.Tavassoli concluded the applicant was present and available for any questions. In response to Vice Chairman Schlossberg, Kirk Harr, applicant, said that the set back and buffer between Monterra Ranch and the project would be twenty-five feet. The buffer would be the masonry wall and landscaping.  The plan is to have as much open space as possible. Mr. Tavassoli identified on the site plan the dumpster area, guest parking, and buildings for Commissioner Demspter.   Mr. Harr said that all units are three bedroom, two bathroom upper level.  The interior buildings are all four unit buildings.  The entry to the middle units are centered and the entrances to the outside buildings on the outside edge.  The goal was to create more privacy.  All bedrooms have access to outside decks.  Discussion took place regarding the traffic flow impact on the alley way that runs along the property line that feeds in to businesses to the south.   Mr. Tavassoli said since this is a Special Use permit the traffic control is not as detailed.  The traffic flow would be examined in detail during the design review process. The primary egress/ingress would be Saguaro Blvd. and he did not think there would be much impact.  The alley way marked “Trevino” is not a public right-of-way.   Chairman Gray asked if the Redrock Business Center is in agreement with the    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 3 of 12 proposed residential development. Mr. Tavassoli said he did not have any contact with the Redrock Business Center regarding the proposed development. In response to Commissioner Corey, Mr. Tavassoli said the minimum space between the buildings is six feet.  Larry Myers, Fountain Hills resident, said that he emailed the Commission with his thoughts on this project.  He said he feels like he is living in Groundhog Day referencing the Fountain Hills Medical Center.   He stated, “Why is this even before the Commission when there are so many unanswered questions.”  He believes that the traffic will be a big issue and a traffic study should be required along with a better prepared site plan.  Chairman Gray asked if the mandatory notification letters were sent to the Redrock Business Center and the adjacent Monterra Ranch Condominiums. Mr. Tavassoli said that close to seventy letters were sent  and he only received one inquiry from an owner at the Monterra Ranch Condominiums . Chairman Gray asked if there was an opportunity to review the civil plans and the drive cut off Saguaro Blvd before approving the SUP. He said it may be time to modify the entrance that is immediately after the right turn from Shea Blvd on to Sagauro Blvd.  Commissioner Brunswig suggested a “right hand turn only” from the proposed site’s driveway.   Mr. Tavassoli replied that it can certainly be discussed with the Town Engineer. Commissioner Dempster said these are great points but are not applicable to the SUP this evening. The details brought up tonight would be part of a detail review that would be submitted at a later time. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Tavassoli said there is not a public hearing that would follow approval of the Special Use Permit.   Staff would encourage the public to review the site plan.  There is no formal notification of the site plan. Vice Chairman Schlossberg said that he would welcome this project and the Monterra Ranch Community would be happy with this next to them.  Currently the vacant lot is an eyesore and serves as a turnaround for the large delivery trucks.  It does not exceed the twenty-five height maximum.  This is a gateway area for Fountain Hills. The lot has been empty for so many years. Commissioner Corey suggested that the Commissioner could request a traffic study with the approval of the SUP.  There are different ways to access the property.  People may learn to exit or enter where they feel most comfortable. What if one of the tenants leases to a business    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 4 of 12 with more traffic.  There is no control over that. It happens naturally. Chairman Gray stated that a traditional traffic study is not going to make a difference.  It needs to be specific Saguaro Blvd. access and the relationship to the Redrock Business Center.      MOVED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey, SECONDED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve a Special Use Permit to allow for 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 with the stipulation of traffic study related to access on Saguaro Blvd is provided.      Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   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.        Mr. Wesley explained that the proposed text amendment is to amend the Single Family Residential Zoning Districts, Chapter 10.04, to add design standards for single-family dwellings.He said recently staff has reviewed a few plans for single- family homes that look a lot like duplexes from the exterior and could easily be modified to become a duplex residential design standard.He referenced recent concerns from a neighborhood where this type of home design could be built on other vacant lots in the area that would also look like duplexes instead of single-family homes. Staff agreed to look at the possible changes to the ordinance to address the concern.   Mr. Wesley gave a PowerPoint Presentation that reviewed:   BACKGROUND EXAMPLES PROPOSAL DRAFT ORDINANCE   Mr. Wesley concluded with telling the Commission that a decision doesn’t have to be made tonight and they may have questions that require further research.   In response to Vice Chairman Schlossberg, Mr. Wesley said that a single family home would only be allowed to have one metric meter.   Commissioner Dempster commented that she is a real estate agent and that looking at the two examples shown in the PowerPoint Presentation, she would not expect those floor plans for a single family residence.  She said she would consider them to    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 5 of 12 those floor plans for a single family residence.  She said she would consider them to be a duplex.  She said she contacted a local architect for architectural guidelines. She was told when there is more than one entrance on the front elevation it is considered a duplex.  In her profession when a mirror image layout is present it is called a Gemini or twin home. She emphasized that this definition is used throughout the real estate industry.     In response to Commissioner Corey, Mr. Wesley said that if an application is received with more than one kitchen area, the other non-primary kitchen(s) cannot equal more than 50% countertop square footage of the primary kitchen.     Chairman Gray asked if the fire wall could be used as the main guide to determine what qualifies a single family residence, duplex, etc.     Mr. Wesley said that the appearance from the street is part of the equation. The fire wall can be reviewed as one of the components.     Commissioner Watts asked is this a problem today or are we anticipating a problem.  He suggested that there may be an educational opportunity for the building inspectors   Mr. Wesley replied that there was a situation for one neighborhood and another recent submittal that brought this to staffs attention. In order to prevent similar issues in the future staff choose to amend the ordinance now.   There are changes in the market that with regards to vacation rentals that increase concern regarding how dwellings might be designed and built within a single-family zoning districts.   Discussion ensued regarding garages, their placement, what defines a kitchen and in-law suites.   Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. Ron Thompson, Fountain Hills resident, spoke to the commission and submitted the following in writing: Representing 27 households in the neighborhood of a new home being built in R1- single-family zoning on E Palomino Blvd, I would like to demonstrate the need for modifications proposed in this agenda item to prevent a very duplex-looking and duplex-functioning home being built in R1- single family for the future. Such two-family-looking structures detract from our property values, neighborhood desirability, and highlight how a clever builder and architect can so widely deviate from single family home appearance and function without actually violating current codes or ordinances.  We don't want the house being built in this instance setting a precedent.   Chairman Gray closed the public hearing.   Commissioner Dempster commented that this is very complex. There are two main components – exterior and interior.  She said the intent at what is presented that there are many loopholes. She said that 157 multi-family properties are listed on the Maricopa County Access or website. They are primarily located on Saguaro Blvd. and    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 6 of 12 Fountain Hills Blvd.   Mr. Wesley commented that staff will make adjustments to the ordinance based on the Commissions feedback.        MOVED BY Chairman Peter Gray, SECONDED BY Commissioner Jessie Brunswig to continue to the December 13, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, 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.   Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   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.          Chairman Gray opened the public hearing and Mr. Tavassoli gave a PowerPoint Presentation that covered: BACKGROUND CURRENT ORDINANCE PROPOSED AMENDMENT   Mr. Tavassoli said that this text amendment only pertains to corner lots.  A corner lot the always has a street side yard and a street front yard. The front property line is the shorter of two sides.  In most cases the minimum building set back for a street side yard is twenty-feet especially in small-lot subdivisions. The interior side opposite that is either five feet or seven feet.  Mr. Tavassoli explained that a non-conforming structure that was legally built not in compliance with the current zoning standards – is “grandfathered.”  This proposed text amendment would allow extension to encroach within the minimum build set back line on the street side yard.  This only applies to nonconforming structures on corner lots and they must stay behind the existing wall plan and no closer than ten foot property line.  In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Tavassoli said that the structure needs to be flush with wall plane. Commissioner Kovacevic asked what the reason for this text amendment was. Mr. Tavassoli explained that over the past few years staff has received several building permit applications for residences on corner lots with additions being on the street-side yard of single-family homes (not along the front yard) in small front sub-divisions. Recently a case was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors for a variance request claiming an undue hardship.  The case was for a corner lot with a non-conforming structure that wanted to build an addition.  The board reviewed the    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 7 of 12 non-conforming structure that wanted to build an addition.  The board reviewed the case and felt it did not meet the criteria for approval. There was communication between the applicant and Town management.  Staff was directed to propose ordinance language that would allow a modest change to the ordinance. Commissioner Kovacevic expressed concern that drivers sight line may be blocked on street located on the street side yard. In response to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Tavassoli said it applies to extensions only, including patios.  Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. Heather Donnelly, Fountain Hills resident and applicant for the extension, explained that her home was built before the setbacks were put in place.  She would like to build an addition to accommodate her father living with her and her husband.  She noted that there must be other people in Town with the same situation.  Chairman Gray closed the public hearing.    MOVED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve 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.   Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   8.DISCUSSION and provide direction to staff regarding timing and process to prepare an ordinance to address detoxification facilities.        Mr. Wesley said that at the September Commission meeting Chairman Gray suggested it would be good time for the Town to proactively explore the issue of providing for detoxification facilities.  Staff agreed to place this on the November agenda for discussion and possible direction by the Commission. Last Spring a text amendment was proposed addressing the issue of detoxification facilities because it was not specifically listed in the zoning ordinance and there had been some inquires to establish such a use in the Town.  The Commission voted to recommend denial of the ordinance and the Town Council did not address the topic.As the Commission and Council continued the discussion regarding the hospital use there was a lot of concern expressed from the public about allowing detoxification facilities in Fountain Hills.  The Town Attorney advised the Council the Town cannot legally prohibit such uses in the Town. Mr. Wesley explained that given this is an issue and the Town is required to provide the use, it has been proposed to move forward to consider a possible amendment to allow the use and ensure the public will have the opportunity to be part of the process.  He said the Commission needs to determine if the Commission is ready to address this topic and if so establish a path to investigate and involve the public as options for making the recommendation to the Council. Mrs. Wesley reviewed the options as stated in the    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 8 of 12 recommendation to the Council. Mrs. Wesley reviewed the options as stated in the staff report. The 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. Mr. Wesley said that 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): 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   John Meredith, Fountain Hills resident, said that the parking and traffic is aggravated by putting in the hospital.  He said the last two years the property next to him is a rental property leased for commercial use as a sober living home.  He said that he feels that there is no will in the Town to correct this issue in Town. These sober living homes are violating the zoning ordinances. Andy Bennett, Director of Risk management of Fountain Hills Recovery, said he also works for Recovery Consultants.  He said that looking at statistics there are about 1700 people who need treatment in Fountain Hills. Currently there is nowhere local for them to get treatment.  He is in support of the sober living home facilities. Larry Myers, Fountain Hills resident, said that he does not live next to a sober living home but he does have one located close to him. He said he has seen these people - they are not local Fountain Hills residents.  He said he doesn’t deny there is a need for these places. He had a bad experienced with a property he owned in Texas with sober    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 9 of 12 living homes.  This will be worse than Prescott if the Town does not get a handle on it. Chairman Gray commented that we need to be really careful what is on the agenda for future meetings.   He reminded the Commission the topic is to address the active process of detoxification facilities in a commercial zoning district not sober living residential homes. Mr. Wesley said that he understands that Chairman Gray’s direction is for staff to research and come back with a text amendment in early 2022.  He asked the Commission what they would like staff to focus on. Commissioner Brunswig asked if a public meeting was ever held on this type of topic. Chairman Gray said that since the January Commission meeting is already established he agreed that meeting would be good for public input. Mr. Wesley said if the Commission thinks a Commission meeting is too formal of a meeting for public input a separate meeting can be scheduled in January.  At a January meeting we would want to make sure the Town Attorney would be present to answer legal questions.  He is also available between now and the January meeting to assist staff and the Commission.  Mr. Wesley said he would check with the Town Manager, Grady Miller, who is aware of the Commissions review of the topic, how involved the Town Council would like to be at this point in the process.   Mr. Wesley said from what he heard at the Town Council meeting there was some recognition there to address the topic without the pressure of a specific request. In response to Commissioner Dempster, Mr. Wesley said that the Town Attorney rendered his opinion at a Town Council meeting stating that the Town cannot deny the use of detoxification facilities.  Chairman Gray requested the Town provide more than one opinion to weigh in on the topic. He asked  for staff to bench marking research similar services located in the Town.  He said that would be where to find the federal tie regarding the inclusion piece. If the Town allows similar services that is where the Town Attorney is setting his disposition.  If there are similar services then look to their scope and scale and tie it all together. Commissioner Watts said whether it is taxation, licensing, or oversight there needs to be a goal and needs to be what is best for the Town. Chairman Gray asked for staff to look at any economic impacts, Town service impacts (MCSO) and any revenue impacts for adding services rendered. Commissioner Corey said another matrix to look at would be the number of people who were helped (positively impacted) at this type of facility in Town. In response to Vice Chairman Schlossberg, Mr. Wesley replied to his knowledge there are not detox facilities in Fountain Hills at this time.  There are two to three sober    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 10 of 12 living homes. Through those homes the treatment are provided in and out of the home.  Fountain Hills Recovery and Springboard Recovery provide sober living homes and out of home treatment.  The treatment for Fountain Hills Recovery advertises partial hospitalization which is not located in Fountain Hills. Chairman Gray asked if the partial hospitalization programs are not going to be classified as detox programs.  He said this needs to be very clear between sober living and the commercial business. Mr. Wesley said he agreed and it is a concern.  He asked that the Commission keep in mind that the Sober Living homes are a type of group home just as Senior Assisted Living Homes are a type of group home.  There are services provided there that are not questioned.   Commissioner Brunswig reminded the Commission and staff that state law will limit what the Town can and cannot do with sober living homes. Mr. Wesley replied the focus is detox. Commissioner Watts suggested that sober living and detox should be worked on simultaneously so that there is a clear definition.   Chairman Gray suggested that the ordinances that have touch points with group homes, limits of residences and occupancy.  Anything that falls under that pretense. Mr. Wesley acknowledged there are connections – if detox facilities are allowed there could be more sober living homes since one feeds the other. Maybe the caps of occupants need to be limited for the homes.  Chairman Gray said that everyone talks about the Prescott model (which is primarily sober living not detox) and to understand it better to help us. Chairman Gray asked that a briefing presentation regarding detox research  for the December meeting would be most ideal.  Mr. Wesley agreed and concluded by saying that January has options to have a public meeting or to push it forward.     9.COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff.     None.   10.SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director.     Mr. Wesley said he has a list to follow up on the single family design issues and the    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 11 of 12  Mr. Wesley said he has a list to follow up on the single family design issues and the sober living.item.   11.REPORT from Development Services Director.     Mr. Wesley said that the electronic permitting system that went live October 4, 2021, has been performing well for staff and the public. There have been very few issues.  He told the Commission that the Town Council is wrapping up their review of the temporary sign ordinance.    12.ADJOURNMENT      The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held November 8, 2021, adjourned at 9:15 p.m.     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 the November 8, 2021. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 29th day of November,  2021.                                                                                         _________________________________                                                         Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 12 of 12 ITEM 5. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 12/13/2021 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) December 13, 2021 Update At the November 8, 2021, hearing the Commission had several questions and offered suggestions for modification to the draft ordinance.  These items with staff response are as follows:  Most single-family homes have only one full laundry room, but may have secondary laundry facilities in a "mud room" or master bedroom.  Having more than one laundry room seems like a good addition to the list of items that could be used to trigger a dwelling not being considered a single-family home by design. Allow only one sanitary sewer or water service to the property.  Staff's understanding from the utilities is that this is already the case for single-family properties. Do not allow a "mirror image" design where you can draw a line down the middle of the structure and see the exact same elements reflected on each side.  This can be a bit challenging because some traditional house designs use this technique and are clearly single-family homes.  Staff has, however, added a new #3 to Section B that states "the front facade of the dwelling should not include mirror images of each half of the building."  Using the word "should" instead of "must" expresses the intent in context of the rest of the section while still allowing the mirror design if it is not contributing to a duplex appearance. Prohibit the use of firewalls to divide the structure.  This was already contained in B 5. Prohibit the use of sound walls or use of staggered studs in walls that would divide parts of the dwelling.  Staff considered this, and it could be added, but saw a challenge with homes that have media rooms or would otherwise have a legitimate reason for a sound wall in the home. Prohibit sub-metering that would allow future division of the dwelling into two halves consistent with a duplex design.  Staff addressed this by adding a provision to the list of items in Section C: "Electrical service from subpanels are aligned with the distinct living areas of the dwelling. If the dwellings as two (or more) two-car garages, require them to be on the same side of the structure thus not facilitating the split use of the dwelling.  While staff appreciates the thought behind this one, we see a number of custom designs, particularly on larger homes, where the garages are split and it is not an issue. Additional items for the Commission's consideration include:  In Section C of the ordinance there is a list of items that will be used to see if a proposed dwelling is crossing the line from a single-family residence to a duplex.  In the original list there were six items, now there are eight.  We have set the maximum number of items that be in the distinct portions of the dwelling at five, should this be increased to six? Staff is reconsidering including item B 1 a regarding the three-car garage design.  This is really an urban design, street appearance factor and not really an issue related to whether the dwelling will look or function like a duplex.  There are a significant number of existing homes in Town that will not meet this standard. November 8, 2021 Report 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. 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, and the December 29th, 2021 and January 5th, 2022 editions of the Fountain Hills Times; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission on November 8, and December 13, 2021, and by the Town Council on January 18, 2022. 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 ZONED 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. THE FRONT FAÇADE OF THE DWELLING SHOULD NOT INCLUDE MIRROR IMAGES OF EACH HALF OF THE BUILDING. 4. 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. 5. 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. LAUNDRY ROOM 4. KITCHEN OR AREA FOR FOOD PREPARATION 5. SEPARATE WATER HEATER 6. SEPARATE, DIRECT ACCESS FROM a. THE FRONT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, OR b. THE GARAGE 7. SEPARATE HVAC SYSTEM WITH THERMOSTATS 8. ELECTRICAL SERVICE FROM SUBPANELS ARE ALIGNED WITH THE DISTINCT LIVING AREAS OF THE DWELLING 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 18th day of January, 2022. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: Ginny Dicky, Mayor Elizabeth A. Klein, Town Clerk REVIEWED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney ITEM 6. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 12/13/2021 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):  CONTINUE DISCUSSION related to detox facilities and associated drug and alcohol treatment services. Staff Summary (Background) At the November Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission meeting the Commission directed staff to engage in research in preparation for drafting an ordinance amendment related to drug and alcohol detoxification facilities.  The Commission also recognized it may be necessary to bring related topics of treatment centers and sober living homes into the discussion.  This agenda item is for continued discussion of the topic and to provide the Commission with some updated material and information based on the discussion and questions at the November meeting.  At the November meeting the Commission raised several points and asked staff to research several items.  Staff summary of those items and the associated responses are:  Is the Council aware the Commission is planning to address this topic and do they support this action?  At the Council retreat last February the Council recognized this as an issue and determined it would be better for us to address it in the absence of an application or request for such facility. At that time they asked staff to begin working on a possible ordinance amendment. They are aware that the Commission has decided to begin this discussion. They have not voiced any concern or opposition.    The Town attorney has rendered an opinion that the Town cannot prohibit this type of use.  The Commission asked if we could get a second opinion.  As a result of this request the Town's Attorney, Aaron Arson, reached out to another attorney to review his memo and conclusions and then do any additional research needed to address the topic. The second attorney stated Aaron's initial analysis was "spot on" and he did not find anything to change or contradict in that memo. He went on to say that from his review of our existing ordinance language that sub-acute detoxification facilities (out-patient detox) could be classified just as other doctor's offices because they are, from a land use standpoint, essentially the same. He said the same for "Treatment Centers" as defined in the code. He recognized that in-patient facilities might be treated differently due to the land use impacts of a 24-hour operation . differently due to the land use impacts of a 24-hour operation .    Are there similar types uses already operating in Town?  Strictly speaking, staff has not identified any detoxification facilities which operate in Town. However, as will be discussed below, some minor levels of outpatient detoxification can take place as part of an overall treatment program and that level of service could be happening in conjunction with other services offered by businesses such as Fountain Hills Recovery. Staff is still working on a thorough review of existing businesses in Town that might be similar in nature to detoxification and drug treatment centers. There are a number of medical clinics and counseling services offered in Town. However, none provide for an overnight stay as is associated with the more intense inpatient detox facilities.    Provide a definition of the types of facilities and services. Staff found the following definitions provided by Johns Hopkins Hospital: Inpatient Treatment  (Most intense, primarily used for those who need medically supervised detox) "Inpatient substance abuse treatment is used on a short-term basis particularly for medically supervised withdrawal, also known as detoxification or ‘detox’. Trained medical professionals are on-site 24 hours a day. A physician (or in some cases a physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner) typically sees each patient on the inpatient unit every day, seven days per week.  Other professionals such as social workers and occupational therapists are also available.  Withdrawal from some drugs, such as opioids, sedative-hypnotics, and alcohol, which produce physical dependence, can produce a great deal of distress and discomfort. In some cases, it can be dangerous to abruptly stop using a drug. Detoxification can occur in either an inpatient or an outpatient setting. It often involves giving some medication in decreasing doses over time until the person is drug free. When done on an inpatient basis, detox usually lasts just a few days.  In an outpatient setting it can last weeks or months." Intensive and Standard Residential Treatment (Next most intense, can include non-medical detoxification as well as treatment/counseling; individuals live in a group setting and receive services where they live) "Residential treatment is also a level of service that has 24-hour supervision but does not have the same level of medical monitoring and staffing associated with inpatient treatment.  Individuals who do not have significant medical problems but who need constant supervision, are good candidates for residential treatment.  The length of time that a person stays on a residential unit can vary considerably, with some stays lasting as little as a few days or a week, and others lasting many months. Residential programs are staffed 24-hours a day and provide groups and counseling. A physician may see patients on an intermittent basis after admission (e.g., once per week if no medical issues), and in some cases non-complicated medical problems and withdrawals can be managed on a residential unit." Partial Hospitalization (Clients live at home or in a group setting and go to the treatment center; may or may not be a "hospital for services which may include detox in addition to counseling) "A partial hospitalization program (PHP) is one in which a patient stays in the hospital no more than 20 hours a week, usually during the day. Patients do not stay overnight. A PHP provides a mix of outpatient individual and group counseling in a setting with medical services. Nurses and physicians are available for clinical care, such as medically supervised withdrawals. Patients often enter a PHP after being an inpatient, and the PHP is used as a step-down in the intensity of services provided. In other cases, a person may be admitted to a PHP because they have relapses in their drug use and more intensive services are needed to re-stabilize the person. Staff in partial hospitalization program assess the patient and generate a treatment plan. Treatment often includes classes about drug use are well as therapies."  Outpatient Treatment  (Least intense, clients live at home or group setting, mostly counseling, no detox) Intensive outpatient treatment is distinguished from outpatient counseling by the amount of time the patient spends in the program --- usually nine or more hours a week of treatment. A patient in an intensive outpatient program (IOP) will have an individual treatment plan based on an assessment of their particular needs. The treatment is provided by a variety of professionals including nurses, counselors, physicians, psychologists, therapists, and social workers. Individual counseling is part of the treatment but the emphasis is on group therapy. Patients often enter an IOP from a more intensive level of service such as an inpatient or residential setting or a partial hospitalization program. Intensive outpatient treatment can last from a few weeks to several months, when the patient can move to standard outpatient counseling as they are stabilized. IOP programs vary in how they are organized – for example, some might operate in the early evening for two hours each weeknight (to accommodate people who work), while others may operate three to four hours per day, three days per week.  The State of Arizona defines Sober Living Houses as follows: Sober living houses (SLHs), also called sober homes and sober living environments, are facilities that provide safe housing and supportive, structured living conditions for people exiting drug rehabilitation programs. SLHs serve as a transitional environment between such programs and mainstream society.  Many SLHs also accept people who are in recovery from substance use disorders but have not recently completed a rehabilitation program. A.R.S. §36-2061(3) defines a sober living home as: “…any premises, place or building that provides alcohol-free or drug-free housing and that: a) Promotes independent living and life skills development. b) May provide activities that are directed primarily toward recovery from substance use disorders. c) Provides a supervised setting to a group of unrelated individuals who are recovering from substance use disorders. d) Does not provide any medical or clinical services or medication administration on-site, except for verification of abstinence.” The City of Prescott has dealt with some of these issues, reach out to them for their experience and regulations.  In addition to Prescott, staff has been researching the ordinances and requirements of several other cities and towns in Arizona.  Staff reached out to Bryn Stotler, Community Development Director, in Prescott. Several years ago Prescott was experiencing problems due to a significant influx of sober living homes. At one point they had around 200 sober living homes. Prescott took some action that then led to the State creating preemptive regulations. With the new regulations they are now down to around 30 sober living homes. They have never had an issue with detoxification facilities. There are a couple in the community. They are treated like other medical clinics. If they are inpatient facilities that will have patients who may not be capable of self-preservation, they have to meet the highest life safety standards of the building code just like a surgery center or hospital. Staff spoke with Kyle Mieras, Development Services Director in Gilbert. Gilbert treats detox facilities and drug treatment centers as any other medical type uses. Mesa updated their in July 2021. They allow detox facilities in all commercial districts (in districts comparable to our C-1, C-2, C-3 but not in the highest density urban core district) subject to approval of a Council Use Permit (the same as a Fountain Hills Special Use Permit). No specific regulations addressing treatment facilities, would be considered the same as other medical uses. Regulations on sober living homes require a 1,200-foot separation and set a maximum number in one home at 10. As a reminder, this will continue to be a general discussion at this meeting focused on addressing comments and questions from the Commission and determining what types of information you need to help move the discussion and consideration forward.  A public input session will be held at your January meeting.  Staff will begin drafting an ordinance after we receive that community input.  There will be no decisions made at this meeting. 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 No action will be taken at this meeting. ITEM 7. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 12/13/2021 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 comments on issues to be addressed in an update of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Parking. Staff Summary (Background) As staff has used the existing provision contained in Chapter 7, Parking, we have found some updates, corrections, and clarification that should be made.  Items staff has noted include but are not limited to:  The existing provisions for driveway spacing from an intersecting street or alley is listed in the residential section of the ordinance but is meant to apply to all driveways. A provision that applies to commercial parking is provided in the general requirements of the code. There are provisions regarding the use of mobile homes, etc. as temporary construction offices that should be in a different chapter of the code. The landscape design requirements are divided into two areas and need to be combined. Update the schedule of required parking to cover uses not listed (such as senior housing) and correct some errors in existing standards. In addition to these specific items already identified by staff, staff is seeking Commission input and comments on other possible modifications to the ordinance.  Other items that could be added to the ordinance include:  Adding a requirement for bicycle parking.  Some communities require commercial and multiple-family developments to include bicycle parking (places to lock up a bicycle) as part of new development or substantial remodels.  By requiring bicycle parking it can encourage people to make trips using bicycle rather than using their car. This can have environmental and health benefits to the community. Setting a maximum parking allowed to prevent over-parking.  In the past, commercial developments have often tried to maximize the amount of vehicle parking available in order to ensure that even on the busiest days there is ample parking and no customers are turned away to due the lack of available parking.  While this can be beneficial on those few days in a year when this condition may happen, the rest of the time there is a large asphalt or concrete parking lot sitting there not being used; these areas are usually unsightly and generate additional unnecessary heat gain to the community. Adding a general allowance for shared or time-of-use parking.  Some communities are adding provisions to their parking ordinance for mixed-use areas that allow for time of use adjustments to parking requirements.  For example, when a development includes parking for both residential uses (often not used as much during the day) and office uses (primarily used during the day, adjustments can be made to the required parking rather than require the total typically required for each.  The Town has this provision in the TCCD zoning district. Allowing the use of tandem parking spaces.  Tandem parking is when you allow one parking space behind another.  This is typically not allowed because it can be difficult to move the vehicle that is blocked by the one parked behind it.  There are some situations such are single-family dwellings or automobile repair facilities where this type of arrangement could work.  Our existing ordinance specifically prohibits the use of this parking option. Allowing for off-site parking.  Some communities have provided allowances for businesses that offer valet parking to have some or all of their parking provided off site.  The off-site parking has to be owned by the same person or there needs to be a long-term lease agreement between the property owner to allow such an arrangement. Before spending time pursuing any of these options, staff is seeking Commission comments and suggestions whether any or all would be of benefit to the Town. Staff also welcomes any other thought or options the Commission would like staff to consider as part of this ordinance update. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7 Parking and Loading Requirements Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) N/A SUGGESTED MOTION This is a discussion item.  There will be no formal action taken.