Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTESpacket_PZ_05-09-22_0526_234TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 9, 2022            1.CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE      Chairman Gray called the Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held May 9, 2022 to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Commission and the public in the Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence.    2.ROLL CALL   Present: Chairman Peter Gray; Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Patrick Dapaah; Commissioner Susan Dempster; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic Telephonically; Commissioner Roderick Watts, Jr.  Staff Present: Development Services Director John Wesley; Senior Planner Farhad Tavassoli; Executive Assistant Paula Woodward  3.CALL TO THE PUBLIC     4.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission February 14, 2022 and March 14, 2022.        MOVED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey to APPROVE the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission's February 14, 2022 and March 14, 2022.   Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   5.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: A request for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow up to five dwelling units in the C-C (Common Commercial) zoning district on an 8,000 square-foot lot located at the northwest corner of El Pueblo Boulevard and Ivory Drive. (Case #SUP22-000001)        John Wesley, Development Services Director, presented information     John Wesley, Development Services Director, presented information contained in the staff report and gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding an application for a Special Use Permit. He said that the property is located at the northwest corner of El Pueblo and Ivory Drive and a total of 8,000 square feet. He said the development has been the same since 2004.  The applicant is proposing to build a 19,000 square foot office space on the ground floor and five residential units on the second floor. Commercial activities are allowed by right.  The residential units require a Special Use Permit. The proposed project supports the General Plan’s elements that create thriving neighborhoods and are in line with the neighborhood's character area.  This project would offer a mixed-use building that falls under the “variety of housing types” and contribute to the “Mixed Neighborhood” residential use within a commercial area.  Mr. Wesley said that in order to grant a SUP, the project would have to prove to not be detrimental to public health, safety, peace, comfort or welfare of persons and not detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the area or general welfare of the Town. Mr. Wesley said that this could promote other growth in the area since no new building has taken place in the area since 2003.  Residential use of the second floor is less impactful than non-residential.  He said that the maximum building height is twenty-five feet and the proposed unit sizes are similar to adjacent properties.  There is concern regarding the design of the building but that can be addressed when the Town receives the formal submittal. Mr. Wesley said that parking is an issue and there are not enough spaces if the property reaches full build out. There may be some relief since residential requires lower parking requirements but staff would need to work with the applicant and Property Owners’ Association during the site plan review to determine maximum building on this lot. This project requires 110 parking spaces. Mr. Wesley pointed out that the applicant should be aware that storage can only be for tenants and there is concern regarding the direction of the garage door facing Ivory Drive. Mr. Wesley explained to the Commission that the applicant is required to submit a Citizen Participation Plan.   Last year, the Commission recommended and the Town Council approved the Citizen Participation Plan requirement.  This is the first application to submit such plan.  The applicant was required to notify property owners within a 300’ radius of the proposed project.  The applicant did not receive any comments and one person came to Town Hall to inquire about the proposal.  Their concern was with the building height. Mr. Wesley concluded that staff recommends approval for up to five dwellings subject to site plan approval.    In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley said that this building was approved to have a second floor. Commissioner Watts expressed concern regarding not knowing what business could potentially occupy the property.     Mr. Wesley said that it is very common in a strip center to have several tenant spaces/shells and not know immediate occupancy.  This is a similar situation where space could be divided depending on the businesses.  This    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 2 of 11 location is C-C zoning, so if a business was to open before 7:00 a.m. a SUP would be required.  Commissioner Dempster suggested that the first floor space be allocated for garages since parking is so limited.  She also said that the applicant’s submittal lacked general details. Mr. Wesley said that is not uncommon. Often, an applicant will invest in submitting details after the Special Use Permit is approved first.  Mr. Wesley said that the parking lot is managed by the property Owner’s Association and they would be responsible for the maintenance. In response to Commissioner Dapaah, Mr. Wesley said that there is a solid waste enclosure that would be evaluated as the project progresses. The trash plan will be reviewed during the site plan submittal. Vice Mayor Schlossberg commented that this project is eerily similar to the project on Kingstree Blvd that the Commission denied and the Town Council approved. He said that there is so much empty commercial space it would be best to make it all residential. Mr. Wesley said that the applicant (property owner) plans to occupy the first floor space for their business office. Commissioner Corey asked if the residential space could occupy at least eighty percent residential and twenty percent commercial. Chairman Gray commented that it is hard to understand high end apartments that do not have parking directly associated with them. He said that the storage (at grade) and the garage door are hard to understand.   Chairman Gray asked what the relationship  between Town staff and the POA.  Mr. Wesley said that it is his understanding that the POA supports the project.  During the site plan review,  the POA, the applicant and staff will need to discuss important details.  The Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R’s) are a private matter between the POA and the property owner. Anything pertaining to building permits and site plans would involve Town staff. Chairman Gray asked if individual meters for each apartment could be a project stipulation. Mr. Wesley agreed that a stipulation of this nature is a good idea. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the parking requirements and lack of details submitted by the applicant. John Gurczak, applicant, said that the commercial component to this project is very flexible. The idea is to fit as much as possible on the lot.  The intent of    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 3 of 11 the garage door was for business access. Eliminating the commercial space and converting it to parking would solve the parking concerns.  The residential area consists of four two-bedroom units (1100 square feet) and one one-bedroom unit (800 square feet.) He said that he did not have any detailed floor plans at the time.  Mr. Gurczak said that he did not receive any feedback from the contact mailers required by the Citizen Participation Plan. In response to Commissioner Gray, Mr.Gurczak said that he was not interested in remaster plan the parcel.  He said that the whole area would be more beneficial to be zoned multi-family. Mr. Gurczak said that the apartments would be leased with his office space below. In response to Commissioner Dapaah, Mr. Gurczak said that the HAVC would be on the roof and probably not visible through the parapet.  Mr. Wesley said that the rooftop units would be reviewed in detail on the site plan submittal. The following individuals from the public spoke: Rebecca Ellison, Barry McBride, Elaine Robinson, Nancy Robinson, Larry Meyers, Crystal Cavanagh and Ed Stizza. Commissioner Watts requested the applicant respond to some of the questions.  Mr. Gurczak explained that in the past there was a settlement between the previous property owner and the POA regarding POA membership.   The property is part of the POA and he is working with them regarding this project.  He said that he would gladly add a property restriction if that would ease people’s minds.  He confirmed the property was never considered for or to become a detox house. He said that this is going to be their office and they would never want that kind of activity around.   He said the residential units would rent for $2500 a month or more. In response to Commissioner Kovacevic, Mr. Wesley said he was aware of the property history leading up to the settlement decision but not aware of Mr. McBride’s comments tonight, that Mr. Gurczak’s property is not part of the POA.  Mr. Wesley recommended the Commission continue this item to a future meeting to allow time to obtain more information regarding the POA stance and project details.   Commissioner Kovacevic agreed and commented that he does not understand how this is going to work. Chairman Gray said that there are so many nuances to this that he is in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Watts commented that there needs to be more answers before proceeding further.    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 4 of 11 Chairman Gray said that he would like to see more details regarding the parking, roof top mechanicals, allocation of meters, building height, and interior ceiling height.       MOVED BY Chairman Peter Gray, SECONDED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster to CONTINUE the request for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow up to five dwelling units in the C-C (Common Commercial) zoning district on an 8,000 square-foot lot located at the northwest corner of El Pueblo Boulevard and Ivory Drive to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled Monday, June 13, 2022.    Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   6.REVIEW, DISCUSS, AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON possible Zoning Ordinance text amendments to address drug and alcohol treatment centers and detoxification facilities.         Mr. Wesley explained that the Zoning Ordinance provides a list of permitted uses by the zoning district.  In the current ordinance, detoxification facilities are not specifically listed.  Treatment Centers are defined but not listed in the zoning districts. Uses are generally placed on the intent of zoning districts and land use characteristics and the impact of other similar uses.  He said he looked at other cities around the state and did not find those uses listed.  A few cities lump detox into medical uses.  The city of Mesa was the exception. A required permit is reviewed and approved by the city council.  He said at the March meeting a discussion took place about this topic. One of the main things the Commission focused on, in addition to what staff talked about, was the separation distances that would go along with the uses in the zoning ordinances.   These uses are commercial activities and, given the basic nature, C-2 and C-3 districts are the most appropriate for consideration of the uses.  Currently there is a treatment center in Town that is C-2 zoning district use by right. Treatment centers without lodging already exist in the C-2 zoning.   Mr. Wesley suggested that the Commission begin by reviewing the definitions and then review the criteria for placement and regulation. Mr. Wesley said that the Treatment Center definition already exists.  He suggested two definitions for substance abuse; Substance Abuse Treatment Centers that are outpatient and one that includes lodging and meals, typically for a period of 30 to 90 days. Chairman Gray asked that the Town’s definition reflects the state statute regarding treatment centers. Mr. Wesley said there are four definition categories: two types of treatment centers - with lodging and without lodging and two types of detox facilities – inpatient and outpatient. Some of the ways to regulate these facilities are to include separation    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 5 of 11 Some of the ways to regulate these facilities are to include separation requirements. Currently, the zoning ordinance includes separation requirements for Adult Use and Medical Marijuana.  Mr. Wesley provided an exhibit map that showed areas of the C-2 and C-3 zoning and the 300 feet separation requirement from residential zoning.  Also, the map displayed the separation requirements for bars (500 ft. buffer), library and parks (1,000 ft. buffer), school (2,000 ft. buffer). Chairman Gray said that he strongly disagreed with the 300’ separation requirement.  He asked Mr. Wesley how many parcels in a municipality are required  to accommodate a business.  Mr. Wesley said that there is not one, but it has to be clear they are not excluded.  Applying the separation requirements would make finding a location challenging.   Commissioner Watts said that he would like to see the requirement for the residential buffer from 300’ to 2,640’. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley said that the outpatient treatment facility would be excluded from a buffer requirement. Mr. Wesley said that the 300’ from residential requirement may be too short, but is a good starting point.  He said some things to consider regarding detox facilities are: suggest C-2 and/or C-3 especially for acute inpatient care; patient discharge policy, contact person for issues or complaints, indoor waiting area, and a “good neighbor’ policy to address potential impacts of people loitering.  He said that outpatient treatment centers are typically daytime business hours but could extend into the evening. Clients come for medication, counseling and group meetings. It is possible that outpatient detox is part of the program. The inpatient centers are run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The person resides at the center while getting treatment during a 30 – 90 day process.  He suggested amendments to Section 1.12 to amend and add definitions and amend section 12.02 to allow uses in C-2 and C-3 with separation requirements, indoor waiting area, and good neighbor policy and, providing a facility contact person. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley confirmed there is no active application with the Town regarding any drug and alcohol treatment centers and detoxification facilities.  Chairman Gray said he is asking because he would like the opportunity for public input. Commissioner Watts commented that the same concern surrounds the detox facilities as did the sober living homes. The primary affected people are the residences.  He said he did not agree with the 300’ separation buffer, it should be much more.  Businesses have the same concern.  They do not want the unintended consequences of people hanging around. He said he wants to be as aggressive as possible but still offer the ability to allow a well-managed and    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 6 of 11 well-controlled facility. Commissioner Dempster suggested that the amendment include discharge details to prevent issues that may occur if someone is kicked out or doesn’t complete the program. Mr. Wesley replied that the city of Mesa asked facilities to provide a statement of leave and how that person was going to get to their destination from the treatment center. They included a requirement related to distance to make sure they were not wandering the neighborhood. Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. John Kavanagh, State Representative and a Fountain Hills resident, said that he had his staff research the restrictions on the zoning of detox centers.  He said they found out that the only type of facilities that can provide detox services are acute hospitals and behavioral health.  Inpatient facilities both fall under the statutory definition of health care institution A.R.S. 36403 in the statute that governs healthcare institutions, and it states nothing in this chapter shall prevent counties or municipalities from adopting and enforcing building and zoning regulations for health care institutions.  The Arizona Department of Health Services medical licensing would be the appropriate entity to address any zoning questions. He suggested that the Town reach out to the AZ Department of Health Services to ensure compliance with the minimum standards set by the AZ DH Rule for health care. He also questioned why the Town is even writing an ordinance to accommodate such facilities.  He said if ‘they zone it, they will come.” He said it could invite a problem that may have never come to Fountain Hills. He said that most existing detox facilities are hidden in municipalities such as an industrial area, very low profile areas. Does Fountain Hills even have an appropriate location for a facility?  He asked that the Commission allow time for the public's input and not rush through the process.   Jane Bell, Fountain Hills resident, thanked the Commission for their work on the sober living ordinance.  She said that if someone needed a detox center there was one located at the corner of Scottsdale Blvd and Shea Blvd. She suggested that a list of requirements should be mandatory for detox centers.  She said that the Commission should provide the public with an opportunity to attend information meetings and give their insight before deciding on a final ordinance. Larry Meyers, a Fountain Hills resident, said that sober facilities are in commercial areas in places like Phoenix.   They are put in areas where they cannot readily be seen, buried on purpose.  In Fountain Hills, you can't bury anything. The facility would be located near a school, near a park, near a residence or near a church.  Businesses don't want to be near them.  He said that he agrees with State Representative Kavanaugh. Lori Troller, a Fountain Hills resident, said that she agreed with everything the    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 7 of 11 last few speakers stated.  She said that she googled ten facilities within nine miles of each other. They are located in Scottsdale. It would be just as easy as going over the hill to Costco as it would  to a treatment facility.  Fountain Hills doesn’t need any here. Darla Jacobs, a Fountain Hills resident, said that she has lived in Fountain Hills since 2005.  She said that “I've just seen absolutely disastrous business development efforts in this town that have given me a huge headache.”  She said she never knew much about sober living homes but now knows a lot because she got involved.  She plans to do the same for detox facilities. She agreed with everyone that had spoken before and asked Chairman Gray and Mr. Wesley to establish some safety for the residents of the sober living homes and the Fountain Hills residents. Ed Stizza, Fountain Hills resident, thanked the Commission and said it has been a very, very difficult ride over the past year dealing with the whole subject and it's caused a lot of problems. He said that it was interesting to hear an applicant tonight say they would put in writing their project would never be a detox facility.    Chairman Gray closed the public hearing.   Chairman Gray asked how staff would interpret an application today. Mr. Wesley replied that the zoning ordinance does not specifically list these uses in the code.  Discussions took place with the Town attorney and he indicated legally, the Town cannot prohibit the use.  If an application is submitted, it will be up to the Zoning Administrator to see where and how to place the use. Since this is a major concern for the Town Council, it prompted the Commission to set the rules so if and when an applicant does submit, there are as many safeguards in place as possible.  A Special Use Permit would not currently be required. It would be up to the Zoning Administrator if the application is approved. Commissioner Watts commented that he doesn’t seem to think there would be an influx of detox applicants, but he would like to see the Commission be as stringent as possible regarding the facilities. Commissioner Kovacevic expressed concern that with the current zoning ordinance, the Commission would never see an application to review. Chairman Gray said that he sides with Commissioner Kovacevic and Watts, that there needs to be constraints and would like to see public outreach as part of the process.   He said he is okay with a few more meetings in order to get that input and continue dialog. In reply to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Wesley said that if an application came in for a use not already listed, the Zoning Administrator could provide information that would allow such a facility. The Zoning Administrator looks at    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 8 of 11 the proposed use compared to other similar uses in the zoning ordinance and determines which it is most similar to and where it can fit. Chairman Gray suggested a public forum take place in the fall in order to allow better attendance numbers and allow time to finalize language. Mr. Wesley agreed and said it would be best to follow up with the Commission at the August 8, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.     7.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: annual report on the implementation of the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020.        Mr. Tavassoli explained that the current General Plan 2020 was adopted November 3, 2020. The state statutes require the Town to provide an annual report regarding implementation progress by the Town. He said that the adoption of the General Plan took a new approach compared to the 2010 Plan to focus on neighborhoods, environment and the economy. The Plan sought to use Character areas instead of specific land uses, as it did in the past. It also established procedures and requirements for the annual report.  He presented a page in the Implementation strategy that showed each element of the plan and the steps to achieve and implement the policies. He said that each item is prioritized.  The goals and objectives are divided and distributed to each department.  Each department is responsible for providing progress reports. There were no amendments or policy issues during the review period as noted in the report. Mr. Tavassoli highlighted that the following have taken place since the General Plan 2020 implementation: three zoning ordinances text amendments approved, McDowell Mountain Preserve Trail Master Plan, Active Transportation Plan, Community Services Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan, Grant Fund from the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and multiple Public Works projects.   In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Tavassoli said that he had not heard any complaints regarding restaurants encroaching on the Avenue of the Fountains.    Justin Weldy, Development Services Director, said that he committed to being present at the meeting should the commission have any questions related to the Public Works Engineering portion of the General Plan. Commissioner Watts commented that he was frustrated with the crosswalks at Avenue of the Fountains. Pedestrians blindly walk out on the crosswalk without looking for traffic. Mr. Weldy said that it is driver and pedestrian behavior that is very difficult to correct.  In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Weldy said that the Saguaro crosswalk    Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 9 of 11 project is part of the Active Transportation Plan. The Active Transportation Plan is part of the General Plan 2020 Implementation. Commissioner Corey asked for an update regarding the project located at the corner of Kingstree Blvd and Saguaro Blvd. Mr. Tavassoli said that their Special Use Permit expires in September.  The applicant is in the process of submitting a site plan.  He said he is not sure of a building permit submittal.   Commissioner Corey mentioned that water is a hot topic. He asked  how the Town monitors water usage for new development. Mr. Wesley said that when the plats are created they are part of the 100 year water assurance, approved by the ADR.      MOVED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the annual report on the implementation of the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020.   Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   8.COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff.     None.   9.SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director.      Mr. Wesley said that he has been working on an amendment to the parking ordinance which will be on the Commissioin's June 13, 2022 meeting agenda.    10.REPORT from Development Services Director.     None.    11.ADJOURNMENT        The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held May 9, 2022, adjourned at 8:42 p.m.     Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 10 of 11     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 May 9, 2022. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this day of May 19, 2022.                                                                           ______________________________                                                                           Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant     Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of May 9, 2022 11 of 11 ITEM 4. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/09/2022 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 February 14, 2022 and March 14, 2022. 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 February 14, 2022 and March 14, 2022.   SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission February 14, 2022 and March 14, 2022. MINUTES       MOVED BY  Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY  Commissioner Clayton Corey to APPROVE the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission's February 14, 2022 and March 14, 2022.   Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously  ITEM 5. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/09/2022 Meeting Type: Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Type: Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Planning and Zoning Commission (Agenda Language):   CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: A request for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow up to five dwelling units in the C-C (Common Commercial) zoning district on an 8,000 square-foot lot located at the northwest corner of El Pueblo Boulevard and Ivory Drive. (Case #SUP22-000001) Staff Summary (Background) The property at the northeast corner of Fountain Hills Blvd. and El Pueblo Blvd. is zoned C-C, Common Commercial.  This zoning district is the same as the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and Professional, zoning district, but allows for common parking areas rather than parking on individual lots.  The property at this corner was platted in 1973 for this type of development.  The building along El Pueblo Blvd. and a portion of the parking along the street were constructed prior to January 1986.  Additional buildings and parking were slowly added over the years.  The development as it exists today has been in place since 2004. The lot at the corner of Ivory and El Pueblo is just under 8,000 sq. ft.  The applicant is proposing to construct a building on the property that will have a 1,900 sq. ft. office and other future tenant space on the ground floor and residential uses on the second floor.  A concept plan has been submitted to illustrate how the lot could be developed.  Residential uses are allowed in the commercial zoning districts only through approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP).  Following approval of the SUP the applicant will prepare a final site plan as required by Sec. 2.04 of the Zoning Ordinance for review and approval by staff. 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.  Allowing for the mixed-use building will also further the General Plan's goal of helping to attract young families and new business to the Town. Section III of the general plan includes the information on the Character Areas in the Town.  This small commercial area at Glenbrook and Fountain Hills Boulevard was included as part of This small commercial area at Glenbrook and Fountain Hills Boulevard was included as part of the surrounding Neighborhood character type.  More specifically, this area is considered a Mixed Neighborhood with smaller lots and a mix of non-residential uses.  This existing commercial area is intended to remain a low intensity area with any further development or redevelopment consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.  Allowing the proposed residential use within this commercial area would be consistent the intent of the Plan for this area. The zoning ordinance Section 12.03 allows consideration of residential uses in all commercial zoning districts with the approval of a SUP.  Section 2.02 of the zoning ordinance establishes the process and criteria for consideration of a SUP.  Section 2.02 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 to have this be a successful commercial center.  The questions become:  Would allowing residential use on the second floor of this proposed building be detrimental to the desired commercial activity? 1. Would the residential use be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, or comfort of the neighborhood? 2. Is the residential use being designed and established in a manner that creates a desirable living environment? 3. A review of this property shows that over its almost 50-year history it has not fully developed and has largely been underutilized.  The existing parking lot is in poor shape.  Facilitating the development by allowing a mix of uses will help to improve the overall quality of the development by introducing a new building and additional activity on the property.  More people living nearby can provide customers to the businesses.  One SUP has already been approved in this development to allow second floor residential in an existing building.   The C-C zoning district allows buildings up to 25' tall.  The adjacent property to the east and south is zoned R-2 and built with single-story duplex condominiums.  While none of the other properties are currently developed with two-story buildings, they are permitted on this property and all the surrounding properties.  The properties across Ivory Dr. are developed with duplex condominiums.  According to the information available from the County Assessor's website, these homes have around 1,500 sq. ft. of living space in each home.  The proposed dwellings are mostly 1,100 sq. ft. each, with one being 825 sq. ft. in size.  Five additional residential dwellings across the street from an existing residential neighborhood should not be detrimental to that neighborhood.  Through the formal site plan review staff can consider the proposed architecture of the building to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood character. The concepual design has access to the apartments from El Pueblo and the parking lot to the The concepual design has access to the apartments from El Pueblo and the parking lot to the north.  The units will be access from a central hallway and each will have a private patio space.  The ground floor may be used to provide each unit a private storage space.  Residents here will have access to shopping, schools, parks, and churches.  Development of this lot should help facilitate redevelopment and upgrading of the landscape in the parking lot. The only issue staff has with the development of this property, for any use, is the parking.  The spaces are not properly striped, so staff can only estimate the number of parking spaces available in the lot, which we estimate at 110.  If all the lots were built with one-story retail or office uses (no restaurants), 187 parking spaces would be required by code.  Residential development requires less parking than commercial uses.  If the entire area was developed with 1,000 sq.ft. apartments (46 units), the ordinance would require 104 parking spaces.  There is a much larger parking field in the western portion of Plat 106, but the ordinance states the minimum required parking must be within 300 feet of the use. The request is to allow part of the total floor space allowed by code to be used for residential rather than commercial purposes.  Doing so reduces the parking demand compared to having the maximum area built for commercial uses.  The current proposal requires a minium of 36 parking spaces. While staff is supportive of the concept to allow residential use, the specific proposal will likely have to be reduced.  When the site plan is submitted for review, staff will work with the applicant and the property owner's association to determine how many of the available spaces will be dedicated to this property and what size building and number of residential units can be added to this lot. While not part of the SUP review, staff wants to point out that the ground floor use of the building cannot be for storage, other than storage areas provided for the residents of the apartment units.  Staff does not see the need for a roll up door facing Ivory and the residential neighborhood across the street and would like to see that removed from a final site plan. Citizen Participation The applicant provided a Citizen Participation Plan as part of his application.  That plan included sending letters to all property owners within 300' by March 16.  The letter described the project, provided contact information for any residents who had questions and offered to meet with residents if desired. A Citizen Participation Report was received on April 26.  The applicant did not receive any comments from the public.  One nearby property owner came to Town Hall to discuss the project.  They were unaware that 2-story development was possible in this commercial center and did not want to have buildings that tall.  They were encouraged to contact the applicant to discuss their concerns. 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-C, C-1, C-2, and C-3 Zoning Districts Only 2020 General Plan, Thriving Neighborhoods and Character Areas Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit for up to 5 dwelling units on this property.  The number that will be allowed will be determined through the formal site plan review. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve SUP22-00001 to allow up to 5 dwelling units as approved through site plan review. Attachments Vicinity Map  Site Plan and Elevations  Project Narrative  Citizen Participation Plan  Citizen Participation Report  MINUTES       John Wesley, Development Services Director, presented information contained in the staff report and gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding an application for a Special Use Permit. He said that the property is located at the northwest corner of El Pueblo and Ivory Drive and a total of 8,000 square feet. He said the development has been the same since 2004.  The applicant is proposing to build a 19,000 square foot office space on the ground floor and five residential units on the second floor. Commercial activities are allowed by right.  The residential units require a Special Use Permit. The proposed project supports the General Plan’s elements that create thriving neighborhoods and are in line with the neighborhood's character area.  This project would offer a mixed-use building that falls under the “variety of housing types” and contribute to the “Mixed Neighborhood” residential use within a commercial area.  Mr. Wesley said that in order to grant a SUP, the project would have to prove to not be detrimental to public health, safety, peace, comfort or welfare of persons and not detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the area or general welfare of the Town. Mr. Wesley said that this could promote other growth in the area since no new building has taken place in the area since 2003.  Residential use of the second floor is less impactful than non-residential.  He said that the maximum building height is twenty-five feet and the proposed unit sizes are similar to adjacent properties.  There is concern regarding the design of the building but that can be addressed when the Town receives the formal submittal. Mr. Wesley said that parking is an issue and there are not enough spaces if the property reaches full build out. There may be some relief since residential requires lower parking requirements but staff would need to work with the applicant and Property Owners’ Association during the site plan review to determine maximum building on this lot. This project requires 110 parking spaces. Mr. Wesley pointed out that the applicant should be aware that storage can only be for tenants and there is concern regarding the direction of the garage door facing Ivory Drive. Mr. Wesley explained to the Commission that the applicant is required to submit a Citizen Participation Plan.   Last year, the Commission recommended and the Town Council approved the Citizen Participation Plan requirement.  This is the first application to submit such plan.  The applicant was required to notify property owners within a 300’ radius of the proposed project.  The applicant did not receive any comments and one person came to Town Hall to inquire about the proposal.  Their concern was with the building height. Mr. Wesley concluded that staff recommends approval for up to five dwellings subject to site plan approval.    In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley said that this building was approved to have a second floor. Commissioner Watts expressed concern regarding not knowing what business could potentially occupy the property.     Mr. Wesley said that it is very common in a strip center to have several tenant spaces/shells and not know immediate occupancy.  This is a similar situation where space could be divided depending on the businesses.  This location is C-C zoning, so if a business was to open before 7:00 a.m. a SUP would be required.  Commissioner Dempster suggested that the first floor space be allocated for garages since parking is so limited.  She also said that the applicant’s submittal lacked general details. Mr. Wesley said that is not uncommon. Often, an applicant will invest in submitting details after the Special Use Permit is approved first.  Mr. Wesley said that the parking lot is managed by the property Owner’s Association and they would be responsible for the maintenance. In response to Commissioner Dapaah, Mr. Wesley said that there is a solid waste enclosure that would be evaluated as the project progresses. The trash plan will be reviewed during the site plan submittal. Vice Mayor Schlossberg commented that this project is eerily similar to the project on Kingstree Blvd that the Commission denied and the Town Council approved. He said that there is so much empty commercial space it would be best to make it all residential. Mr. Wesley said that the applicant (property owner) plans to occupy the first floor space for their business office. Commissioner Corey asked if the residential space could occupy at least eighty percent residential and twenty percent commercial. Chairman Gray commented that it is hard to understand high end apartments that do not have parking directly associated with them. He said that the storage (at grade) and the garage door are hard to understand.   Chairman Gray asked what the relationship  between Town staff and the POA.  Mr. Wesley said that it is his understanding that the POA supports the project.  During the site plan review,  the POA, the applicant and staff will need to discuss important details.  The Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R’s) are a private matter between the POA and the property owner. Anything pertaining to building permits and site plans would involve Town staff. Chairman Gray asked if individual meters for each apartment could be a project stipulation. Mr. Wesley agreed that a stipulation of this nature is a good idea. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the parking requirements and lack of details submitted by the applicant. John Gurczak, applicant, said that the commercial component to this project is very flexible. The idea is to fit as much as possible on the lot.  The intent of the garage door was for business access. Eliminating the commercial space and converting it to parking would solve the parking concerns.  The residential area consists of four two-bedroom units (1100 square feet) and one one-bedroom unit (800 square feet.) He said that he did not have any detailed floor plans at the time.  Mr. Gurczak said that he did not receive any feedback from the contact mailers required by the Citizen Participation Plan. In response to Commissioner Gray, Mr.Gurczak said that he was not interested in remaster plan the parcel.  He said that the whole area would be more beneficial to be zoned multi-family. Mr. Gurczak said that the apartments would be leased with his office space below. In response to Commissioner Dapaah, Mr. Gurczak said that the HAVC would be on the roof and probably not visible through the parapet.  Mr. Wesley said that the rooftop units would be reviewed in detail on the site plan submittal. The following individuals from the public spoke: Rebecca Ellison, Barry McBride, Elaine Robinson, Nancy Robinson, Larry Meyers, Crystal Cavanagh and Ed Stizza. Commissioner Watts requested the applicant respond to some of the questions.  Mr. Gurczak explained that in the past there was a settlement between the previous property owner and the POA regarding POA membership.   The property is part of the POA and he is working with them regarding this project.  He said that he would gladly add a property restriction if that would ease people’s minds.  He confirmed the property was never considered for or to become a detox house. He said that this is going to be their office and they would never want that kind of activity around.   He said the residential units would rent for $2500 a month or more. In response to Commissioner Kovacevic, Mr. Wesley said he was aware of the property history leading up to the settlement decision but not aware of Mr. McBride’s comments tonight, that Mr. Gurczak’s property is not part of the POA.  Mr. Wesley recommended the Commission continue this item to a future meeting to allow time to obtain more information regarding the POA stance and project details.   Commissioner Kovacevic agreed and commented that he does not understand how this is going to work. Chairman Gray said that there are so many nuances to this that he is in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Watts commented that there needs to be more answers before proceeding further. Chairman Gray said that he would like to see more details regarding the parking, roof top mechanicals, allocation of meters, building height, and interior ceiling height.        MOVED BY  Chairman Peter Gray, SECONDED BY  Commissioner Susan Dempster to CONTINUE the request for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow up to five dwelling units in the C-C (Common Commercial) zoning district on an 8,000 square-foot lot located at the northwest corner of El Pueblo Boulevard and Ivory Drive to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled Monday, June 13, 2022.    Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously  Vicinity CASE: SUP22-000001 SITE / ADDRESS: 15006 N Ivory Drive APN 176-04-715 REQUEST: Special Use Permit - Mixed Use All that is Ariz on a FO U N TAIN HIL L S TOWN OF INC. 1989 MCDOWELL MOUNTAIN REGIONAL PARK SALT RIVER PIMA - MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY FO R T M C D O W E L L Y A V A P A I N A T I O N SC O T T S D A L E Site Location Vicinity MapMap ::CaseCase DetailsDetailsSUP22-000001SUP22-000001 FO U N T A I N H I L L S B L V D GLENBROOK BL V D EL PUEBLO BLVD AL A M O S A A V E I V O R Y D R E S C O N D I D O D R M I R A G E C R O S S I N G C T SABIN A S D R ALLEY AL L E Y SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS This project consists of a proposed 2-story, 13,180 S.F. Mixed Use Building with first floor commercial & residential condos/apartments above, on a vacant commercial lot. First Floor commercial will consist of an approximately 1,900 sq. ft. office with a 3,800 garage/storage space that will be occupied by Owner/Developer, Gurczak Luxury Development. Second Floor will have 5 luxury residential condos/apartments that average approx. 1,100 sq. ft./unit & have private balconies. The parcel is zoned C-C & part of an existing, largely undeveloped, commercial shared parking development. Citizen Participation Plan for Gurczak Luxury Development Mixed-Use Special Use Permit Date: 3-7-2022 Purpose: The purpose of this Citizen Participation Plan is to inform citizens, property owners, and nearby neighborhood associations of the special use permit application for a new mixed-use development. This plan will ensure that those affected by this application will have an adequate opportunity to learn about and comment on the proposal. Applicant: Gurczak Luxury Development LLC P.O. Box 20256 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 (480) 272-1308 Email: John.Gurczak@gmail.com Location: The property being considered for this SUP is located at the northwest corner of El Pueblo Blvd & Ivory Dr. Action Plan: In order to provide effective citizen participation in conjunction with this application, the following actions will be taken to provide opportunities to understand and address any real or perceived impacts of the development that members of the community may have. 1. A contact list will be developed for citizens and HOA’s within 300’ of the project location. 2. All persons listed on the contact list will receive a letter describing the project, project Schedule & Site plan. Citizens will be provided with contact information on where to send letters/emails with their questions/concerns. The letters/emails received will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report to the Town. 3. Presentations will be made to groups of citizens or neighborhood associations upon request. Copies of the sign-in list and any comments will be submitted with the Citizen Participation Report. 4. An email will be sent to the case planner following each milestone, and at any other time there is significant input, to inform the staff of the progress of implementing the Plan. Schedule: Mail letters by March 16th, 2022 Citizen Participation Report for 15006 N. Ivory Dr. Special Use Permit Date of Report: 4-26-2022 Overview: This report provides results of the implementation of the Citizen Participation Plan for 15006 N Ivory Dr. This site is located at northeast corner of El Pueblo Dr. & Ivory Dr. This report provides evidence that citizens, neighbors, and interested persons have had adequate opportunity to learn about and comment on the proposed plans and actions addressed in the application. Contact: John Gurczak P.O. Box 20256 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 480-272-1308 John.Gurczak@gmail.com Correspondence: Certified Letters were mailed to contact list (42) on 3-16-2022, including all property owners & one HOA within 300’ Results: There are 42 persons on that contact list as of the date of this Citizen Participation Report. There was no correspondence received either by mail or email. Eight letters were rejected & not accepted by property owners. Tract 106 Commercial Property Owners Association supports approval of the Special Use Permit. ITEM 6. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/09/2022 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):  REVIEW, DISCUSS, AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON possible Zoning Ordinance text amendments to address drug and alcohol treatment centers and detoxification facilities.  Staff Summary (Background) The Commission began study of a possible text amendment at their meeting in March. At that meeting staff presented some basic background information on these types of uses, the primary zoning districts to be considered for these uses, and some existing similar uses in town. The discussion from staff also included some possible options that could be considered to help address compatibility or impact issues, such as limiting outdoor seating, requiring a good neighbor policy, and contact information. Discussion by the Commission focused mostly on consideration of separation requirements from other uses that might be negatively impacted. Alcohol and drug abuse is an issue that affects virtually all cities and towns. A 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that 5.3% of the U. S. population aged 12 and over suffers from Alcohol Use Disorder. If Fountain Hills follows the national trend, that means over 1,000 of our citizens struggle with this condition. Another study shows 11.7% of Americans 12 and older use illegal drugs. This translates into around 2,500 people in Fountain Hills. There has been some expression that the services provided by detoxification facilities and treatment centers are for people from outside of Fountain Hills. While it is likely that a number of people that participate in these programs are from out of the Town, particularly those who reside in a community residence while in treatment, there are local residents who need and use these services. This need is also shown in the fact there are 9 Alcoholics Anonymous groups that meet in Fountain Hills. The Town's zoning ordinance currently allows for a variety of medical services, many of which are currently provided in the community. Substance abuse treatment centers and detoxification facilities are types of medical services. To the degree they are the same as other medical uses they, should be treated in the same manner. If there are differences in land use impacts, then consideration can be given to addressing those impacts. consideration can be given to addressing those impacts. Treatment Centers The zoning ordinance defines treatment centers as: "Facilities providing lodging and meals and, primarily, treatment, training or education as a part of an alcoholism or drug addiction program." While the use is not specifically listed in any zoning district, Fountain Hills Recovery, a licensed business in Town providing these services, is located in a C-2 zoning district. That indicates that this use, when it does not contain an on-site living component, has been recognized as a use permitted in this zoning district. The primary characteristics of this land use are similar to other listed uses for this district (e.g. dentist, physicians, medical offices, counselors, etc.). Therefore, it seems appropriate to continue allowing this use, by right, in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. Through the discussion regarding community residences, particularly with regard to sober living homes, it was recognized there is a need to better address treatment centers that include lodging at the treatment center within our definitions and listed uses. Modifying the current definitions will provide clarity that such uses are different from a treatment center that does not provide housing and different than a transitional community residence. Because the focus in these facilities is on treatment, they do not have to be allowed in residential zoning districts. To address this, staff is considering the following changes in definitions:  SUBSTANCE ABUSE Treatment Center: Facilities providing OUTPATIENT lodging and meals and, primarily, treatment, training or education as a part of an alcoholism or drug addiction program WITHOUT ON-SITE LODGING. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTER, LODGING: FACILITIES PROVIDING TREATMENT, TRAINING, OR EDUCATION AS PART OF AN ALCOHOLISM OR DRUG ADDICTION PROGRAM WHERE CLIENTS LODGE AT THE FACILITY AND RECEIVE MEALS, TYPICALLY FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS TO 90 DAYS. With this definition for a center that includes lodging, the question then becomes what are the land use characteristics and impacts that help place it in the best zoning district(s) and establish any associated development standards. In many respects this use is very similar to any other medical office, except the patients stay at the facility and the medical staff come and go. It is also in operation 24/7, although any activity at night is typically limited. Given that the person desiring to go into treatment could possibly arrive at odd times and from a variety of means and, more importantly, could choose to leave at odd hours, it is appropriate to consider some policy or procedure requirements for how the facility will manage these transitions to ensure individuals coming or going will not be left to wonder through the surrounding neighborhood. Some regulations which may go along with this use could include: providing a written procedure for how they will assist arriving and departing patients to ensure they are not left to impact the surrounding neighborhood, a separation requirement of some distance from residential developments and parks, a not allowing outdoor seating areas in front of the building and/or requiring an indoor waiting area be provided. Detoxification Facilities Detoxification facilities are not currently defined in our zoning ordinance or listed as an Detoxification facilities are not currently defined in our zoning ordinance or listed as an allowed use. The use is, however, similar to other medical uses that are allowed in the zoning ordinance. In fact, any doctor could be assisting a patient through a detoxification process at any medical office. The focus of this regulation is for those facilities with the primary focus of providing detoxification services. As with the treatments centers, there are two basic levels of detoxification facilities - outpatient and inpatient. Possible definitions for these two types of facilities are: DETOXIFICATION FACILITY, OUTPATIENT: FACILITIES PROVIDING OUTPATIENT DRUG OR ALCOHOL DETOXIFICATION SERVICES WITH OR WITHOUT ASSOCIATED TRAINING, EDUCATION, OR TREATMENT SERVICES AT THE SAME LOCATION. DETOXIFICATION FACILITY, INPATIENT: FACILITIES PROVIDING INPATIENT DRUG OR ALCOHOL DETOXIFICATION SERVICES. When a person decides to stop using a drug or alcohol their body will go through withdrawal. Symptoms of withdrawal can be mild to severe and include things such as anxiety, depression, changes in blood pressure, sweating, hallucinations, and delirium tremens (a life-threatening condition). Medical staff in a detoxification facility work with the individual and tailor a detoxification program based on the individual needs. Services often include medications to help treat the symptoms. From what staff has learned some, maybe many, outpatient detoxification facilities also include treatment programs at the same location. Beginning treatment early can help give the individual the tools to continue with the detoxification and withdrawal process. In many respects the characteristics of an outpatient detoxification facility are not much different from other medical office uses. Patients will come and go as they receive services. Staff has inspected several sites in surrounding communities which provide outpatient detoxification services. Most of these facilities are located in commercial shopping and office areas along with tenants of the other buildings. In most cases there was no observed difference or impact of the detoxification facility operation; in one case there was clear evidence as clients congregated outside the facility and on a nearby street corner. The detoxification uses could also have a requirement that the facility provide a good neighbor policy, a separation requirement from specific uses, and indoor waiting areas. The zoning ordinance currently includes separation requirements for adult uses and medical marijuana facilities. Those separation requirements are summarized in the following table.  Use Separation Distance from Given Use 2000'1000'500'300' Adult Use Churches, Schools, Similar Uses None Bars, Parks Residential Medical Marijuana Schools, Child care, Similar Uses Library, Parks Churches None Staff has prepared maps that show the impact of these separation distances on existing C-2 and C-3 zoned property, they are attached. While it could be appropriate to establish some separation requirements, the effect cannot be to totally eliminate the opportunity to provide the use in the Town. It is likely that the combination of these separation requirements will be too restrictive, but they provide a place to start a discussion. At the March meeting the Commission requested a walk map showing 1/4 mile (5 minute) and 1/2 mile (10 minute) walk distances from existing commercial areas. That map is attached. 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 be looking for consensus direction on options for an ordinance but no motions will be made. Attachments Walk Map  Residential Separation  Bars Separation  Parks Separation  Schools Separation  MINUTES       Mr. Wesley explained that the Zoning Ordinance provides a list of permitted uses by the zoning district.  In the current ordinance, detoxification facilities are not specifically listed.  Treatment Centers are defined but not listed in the zoning districts. Uses are generally placed on the intent of zoning districts and land use characteristics and the impact of other similar uses.  He said he looked at other cities around the state and did not find those uses listed.  A few cities lump detox into medical uses.  The city of Mesa was the exception. A required permit is reviewed and approved by the city council.  He said at the March meeting a discussion took place about this topic. One of the main things the Commission focused on, in addition to what staff talked about, was the separation distances that would go along with the uses in the zoning ordinances.   These uses are commercial activities and, given the basic nature, C-2 and C-3 districts are the most appropriate for consideration of the uses.  Currently there is a treatment center in Town that is C-2 zoning district use by right. Treatment centers without lodging already exist in the C-2 zoning.   Mr. Wesley suggested that the Commission begin by reviewing the definitions and then review the criteria for placement and regulation. Mr. Wesley said that the Treatment Center definition already exists.  He suggested two definitions for substance abuse; Substance Abuse Treatment Centers that are outpatient and one that includes lodging and meals, typically for a period of 30 to 90 days. Chairman Gray asked that the Town’s definition reflects the state statute regarding treatment centers. Mr. Wesley said there are four definition categories: two types of treatment centers - with lodging and without lodging and two types of detox facilities – inpatient and outpatient. Some of the ways to regulate these facilities are to include separation requirements. Currently, the zoning ordinance includes separation requirements for Adult Use and Medical Marijuana.  Mr. Wesley provided an exhibit map that showed areas of the C-2 and C-3 zoning and the 300 feet separation requirement from residential zoning.  Also, the map displayed the separation requirements for bars (500 ft. buffer), library and parks (1,000 ft. buffer), school (2,000 ft. buffer). Chairman Gray said that he strongly disagreed with the 300’ separation requirement.  He asked Mr. Wesley how many parcels in a municipality are required  to accommodate a business.  Mr. Wesley said that there is not one, but it has to be clear they are not excluded.  Applying the separation requirements would make finding a location challenging.   Commissioner Watts said that he would like to see the requirement for the residential buffer from 300’ to 2,640’. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley said that the outpatient treatment facility would be excluded from a buffer requirement. Mr. Wesley said that the 300’ from residential requirement may be too short, but is a good starting point.  He said some things to consider regarding detox facilities are: suggest C-2 and/or C-3 especially for acute inpatient care; patient discharge policy, contact person for issues or complaints, indoor waiting area, and a “good neighbor’ policy to address potential impacts of people loitering.  He said that outpatient treatment centers are typically daytime business hours but could extend into the evening. Clients come for medication, counseling and group meetings. It is possible that outpatient detox is part of the program. The inpatient centers are run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The person resides at the center while getting treatment during a 30 – 90 day process.  He suggested amendments to Section 1.12 to amend and add definitions and amend section 12.02 to allow uses in C-2 and C-3 with separation requirements, indoor waiting area, and good neighbor policy and, providing a facility contact person. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley confirmed there is no active application with the Town regarding any drug and alcohol treatment centers and detoxification facilities.  Chairman Gray said he is asking because he would like the opportunity for public input. Commissioner Watts commented that the same concern surrounds the detox facilities as did the sober living homes. The primary affected people are the residences.  He said he did not agree with the 300’ separation buffer, it should be much more.  Businesses have the same concern.  They do not want the unintended consequences of people hanging around. He said he wants to be as aggressive as possible but still offer the ability to allow a well-managed and well-controlled facility. Commissioner Dempster suggested that the amendment include discharge details to prevent issues that may occur if someone is kicked out or doesn’t complete the program. Mr. Wesley replied that the city of Mesa asked facilities to provide a statement of leave and how that person was going to get to their destination from the treatment center. They included a requirement related to distance to make sure they were not wandering the neighborhood. Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. John Kavanagh, State Representative and a Fountain Hills resident, said that he had his staff research the restrictions on the zoning of detox centers.  He said they found out that the only type of facilities that can provide detox services are acute hospitals and behavioral health.  Inpatient facilities both fall under the statutory definition of health care institution A.R.S. 36403 in the statute that governs healthcare institutions, and it states nothing in this chapter shall prevent counties or municipalities from adopting and enforcing building and zoning regulations for health care institutions.  The Arizona Department of Health Services medical licensing would be the appropriate entity to address any zoning questions. He suggested that the Town reach out to the AZ Department of Health Services to ensure compliance with the minimum standards set by the AZ DH Rule for health care. He also questioned why the Town is even writing an ordinance to accommodate such facilities.  He said if ‘they zone it, they will come.” He said it could invite a problem that may have never come to Fountain Hills. He said that most existing detox facilities are hidden in municipalities such as an industrial area, very low profile areas. Does Fountain Hills even have an appropriate location for a facility?  He asked that the Commission allow time for the public's input and not rush through the process.   Jane Bell, Fountain Hills resident, thanked the Commission for their work on the sober living ordinance.  She said that if someone needed a detox center there was one located at the corner of Scottsdale Blvd and Shea Blvd. She suggested that a list of requirements should be mandatory for detox centers.  She said that the Commission should provide the public with an opportunity to attend information meetings and give their insight before deciding on a final ordinance. Larry Meyers, a Fountain Hills resident, said that sober facilities are in commercial areas in places like Phoenix.   They are put in areas where they cannot readily be seen, buried on purpose.  In Fountain Hills, you can't bury anything. The facility would be located near a school, near a park, near a residence or near a church.  Businesses don't want to be near them.  He said that he agrees with State Representative Kavanaugh. Lori Troller, a Fountain Hills resident, said that she agreed with everything the last few speakers stated.  She said that she googled ten facilities within nine miles of each other. They are located in Scottsdale. It would be just as easy as going over the hill to Costco as it would  to a treatment facility.  Fountain Hills doesn’t need any here. Darla Jacobs, a Fountain Hills resident, said that she has lived in Fountain Hills since 2005.  She said that “I've just seen absolutely disastrous business development efforts in this town that have given me a huge headache.”  She said she never knew much about sober living homes but now knows a lot because she got involved.  She plans to do the same for detox facilities. She agreed with everyone that had spoken before and asked Chairman Gray and Mr. Wesley to establish some safety for the residents of the sober living homes and the Fountain Hills residents. Ed Stizza, Fountain Hills resident, thanked the Commission and said it has been a very, very difficult ride over the past year dealing with the whole subject and it's caused a lot of problems. He said that it was interesting to hear an applicant tonight say they would put in writing their project would never be a detox facility.    Chairman Gray closed the public hearing.   Chairman Gray asked how staff would interpret an application today. Mr. Wesley replied that the zoning ordinance does not specifically list these uses in the code.  Discussions took place with the Town attorney and he indicated legally, the Town cannot prohibit the use.  If an application is submitted, it will be up to the Zoning Administrator to see where and how to place the use. Since this is a major concern for the Town Council, it prompted the Commission to set the rules so if and when an applicant does submit, there are as many safeguards in place as possible.  A Special Use Permit would not currently be required. It would be up to the Zoning Administrator if the application is approved. Commissioner Watts commented that he doesn’t seem to think there would be an influx of detox applicants, but he would like to see the Commission be as stringent as possible regarding the facilities. Commissioner Kovacevic expressed concern that with the current zoning ordinance, the Commission would never see an application to review. Chairman Gray said that he sides with Commissioner Kovacevic and Watts, that there needs to be constraints and would like to see public outreach as part of the process.   He said he is okay with a few more meetings in order to get that input and continue dialog. In reply to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Wesley said that if an application came in for a use not already listed, the Zoning Administrator could provide information that would allow such a facility. The Zoning Administrator looks at the proposed use compared to other similar uses in the zoning ordinance and determines which it is most similar to and where it can fit. Chairman Gray suggested a public forum take place in the fall in order to allow better attendance numbers and allow time to finalize language. Mr. Wesley agreed and said it would be best to follow up with the Commission at the August 8, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.      DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A ll that is Ar i z o n a F O U N T AIN HIL L S TOWN OF INC. 1989 EXHIBIT MAP LEGEND: Commercial Zoning Areas 1/2 Mile 1/4 Mile GRANDE BL V D PALIS A D E S B L V D SAG U A R O B L V D SAGU A R O B L V D SH E A B L V D SAG U A R O B L V D PALISA D E S B L V D FOUN T A I N H I L L S B L V D SHEA BLV D SHEA BLVD SAG U A R O B L V D DEVELOPMENT SERVICES All that is Ar i z o n a F O U N TAIN HI L L S TOWN OF INC. 1989 EXHIBIT MAP LEGEND: C-2 and C-3 Zoning Residential Zoning 300 feet Other Zoning Vacant ParcelV PALIS A D E S B L V D SAG U A R O B L V D SAGU A R O B L V D SH E A B L V D SAG U A R O B L V D PALISA D E S B L V D FOUN T A I N H I L L S B L V D SHEA BLVD SHEA BLVD SAG U A R O B L V D DEVELOPMENT SERVICES All that is Ar i z o n a F O U N TAIN HI L L S TOWN OF INC. 1989 EXHIBIT MAP LEGEND: C-2 and C-3 Zoning Bar (Series 06 & 07) 500 feet Vacant ParcelV PALI S A D E S B L V D SA G U A R O B L V D FOU N T A I N H I L L S B L V D SA G U A R O B L V D DEVELOPMENT SERVICES All that is Ar i z o n a F O U N TAIN HI L L S TOWN OF INC. 1989 EXHIBIT MAP LEGEND: C-2 and C-3 Zoning Park Preserve and Trails Library 1,000 feet buffer Vacant ParcelV GO L D E N E A G L E B L V D FOUNT A I N H I L L S B L V D GRANDE BLV D PALIS A D E S B L V D SA G U A R O B L V D PALISA D E S B L V D FOUN T A I N H I L L S B L V D SHEA BLVD SAG U A R O B L V D DEVELOPMENT SERVICES All that is Ar i z o n a F O U N TAIN HI L L S TOWN OF INC. 1989 EXHIBIT MAP LEGEND: C-2 and C-3 Zoning School 2,000 feet buffer Medical Marijuana Vacant ParcelV ITEM 7. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 05/09/2022 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):   CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: annual report on the implementation of the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020. Staff Summary (Background) Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-461.07 A. 2. states that after the municipal legislative body has adopted a general plan, the community’s planning agency shall render an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the plan and progress in its application.  The Town adopted its current general plan on November 3, 2020. The first annual report was presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 12, 2021, and was forwarded to Council on May 18, 2021. At that time, the Town was in a unique position by virtue of having just adopted a new general plan, and addressed the efforts that were underway to begin implementation of the 2020 General Plan. The Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 includes the following requirement: Each year, the Fountain Hills Development Services Department must prepare, and the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission must review and submit to the Town Council an annual report on the status of the General Plan progress. The report must include, but not be limited to, the following:  A summary of General Plan amendments processed during the preceding year and those pending review, including General Plan amendments initiated by Town Council. A report on the progress and status of implementation actions enumerated in the General Plan Implementation Strategy. A review of policy issues which may have arisen regarding provisions of the General Plan. A recommendation for General Plan amendments to be initiated to maintain an effective, up-to-date General Plan including policy changes, clarifications, and new policy development; changes in character area; and other applicable changes. The recommendation may also include suggestions to change implementation actions priorities, as Town’s priorities shift, as well as General Plan amendments, if any, to be included in the work program for the following fiscal year. Attached is a draft report for the Commission's review and consideration. Report content includes status updates received from the lead departments for various goals and policies contained in the general plan. Based on comments from the Commission, staff will either bring the report back for further review or forward it to Council.  The attached draft report includes a brief overview of actions taken during the 2021 calendar year to implement provisions of the 2020 General Plan.     Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends forwarding the annual report to the Town Council. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to forward the General Plan Annual Report to the Town Council. Attachments 2021 Annual Report  MINUTES   Mr. Tavassoli explained that the current General Plan 2020 was adopted November 3, 2020. The state statutes require the Town to provide an annual report regarding implementation progress by the Town. He said that the adoption of the General Plan took a new approach compared to the 2010 Plan to focus on neighborhoods, environment and the economy. The Plan sought to use Character areas instead of specific land uses, as it did in the past. It also established procedures and requirements for the annual report.  He presented a page in the Implementation strategy that showed each element of the plan and the steps to achieve and implement the policies. He said that each item is prioritized.  The goals and objectives are divided and distributed to each department.  Each department is responsible for providing progress reports. There were no amendments or policy issues during the review period as noted in the report. Mr. Tavassoli highlighted that the following have taken place since the General Plan 2020 implementation: three zoning ordinances text amendments approved, McDowell Mountain Preserve Trail Master Plan, Active Transportation Plan, Community Services Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan, Grant Fund from the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and multiple Public Works projects.   In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Tavassoli said that he had not heard any complaints regarding restaurants encroaching on the Avenue of the Fountains.    Justin Weldy, Development Services Director, said that he committed to being present at the meeting should the commission have any questions related to the Public Works Engineering portion of the General Plan. Commissioner Watts commented that he was frustrated with the crosswalks at Avenue of the Fountains. Pedestrians blindly walk out on the crosswalk without looking for traffic. Mr. Weldy said that it is driver and pedestrian behavior that is very difficult to correct.  In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Weldy said that the Saguaro crosswalk project is part of the Active Transportation Plan. The Active Transportation Plan is part of the General Plan 2020 Implementation. Commissioner Corey asked for an update regarding the project located at the corner of Kingstree Blvd and Saguaro Blvd. Mr. Tavassoli said that their Special Use Permit expires in September.  The applicant is in the process of submitting a site plan.  He said he is not sure of a building permit submittal.   Commissioner Corey mentioned that water is a hot topic. He asked  how the Town monitors water usage for new development. Mr. Wesley said that when the plats are created they are part of the 100 year water assurance, approved by the ADR.       Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously   MOVED BY  Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY  Commissioner Clayton Corey to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the annual report on the implementation of the Fountain Hills General Plan 2020.    Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously      Fountain Hills General Plan Annual Report 2021 Background and Purpose Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-461.07 A. 2. states that after the municipal legislative body has adopted a general plan, the community’s planning agency shall render an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the plan and progress in its application. The Town of Fountain Hills has adopted and implemented general plans in accordance with state statutes since 2002. The Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 was adopted by the Council January 7, 2010 and was the guiding document for the Town until the voters ratified the 2020 General Plan on November 3, 2020. This annual report summarizes the Town’s implementation efforts for the 2021 calendar year. Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 The Fountain Hills General Plan 2020 was adopted by Council on May 19, 2020 and ratified by the voters on November 3, 2020 as a long-term vision for local development. The Plan did not become official for use by staff and the Town until it was ratified by the voters. Therefore, little actual implementation was reported for 2020. This report, although also brief, discusses some implementation advances in 2021 and continued efforts going into the next several years. Page 124 of the 2020 Plan includes direction regarding the annual report. It states: Each year, the Fountain Hills Development Services Department must prepare, and the Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission must review and submit to the Town Council an annual report on the status of the General Plan progress. The report must include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. A summary of General Plan amendments processed during the preceding year and those pending review, including General Plan amendments initiated by Town Council. 2. A report on the progress and status of implementation actions enumerated in the General Plan Implementation Strategy. 3. A review of policy issues which may have arisen regarding provisions of the General Plan. 4. A recommendation for General Plan amendments to be initiated to maintain an effective, up-to-date General Plan including: policy changes, clarifications, and new policy development; changes in character area; and other applicable changes. The recommendation may also include suggestions to change implementation actions priorities, as Town’s priorities shift, as well as General Plan amendments, if any, to be included in the work program for the following fiscal year. Summary of General Plan Amendments No amendments were processed in 2021. Progress on Implementation Actions This section briefly highlights progress and implementation actions as they relate to each of the eight general plan Elements and their respective goals and policies. Each goal and policy identifies an anticipated time frame for completion. The most immediate goals were to be initiated no later than six months after ratification by the voters. Due to a number of factors attributed to the pandemic and extended vacancies in various departments, including managerial positions, most of the immediate implementation efforts have been delayed and carried over into the 2022 calendar year. However, there is considerable progress to report on a number of fronts. Thriving Neighborhoods Element  Staff is currently working with a number of economic development partners to gather data for housing type and neighborhood preferences to attract working professionals and families with children through marketing efforts. (Goal 1, Policy 5)  In 2021, the Town completed 360 lane miles of street sweeping and 145,518 square yards of crack filling. (Goal 1, Policy 1)  The Town approved a zoning ordinance text amendment allowing extensions to nonconforming single-family structures to encroach into the street-side yard of a corner lot, thus accommodating more design considerations for long-term maintenance of existing homes and neighborhoods. (Goal 4) Great Places Element  The Town passed two Zoning Ordinance text amendments aimed at further promoting the long-term viability of residential, commercial and mixed-use development. These include the requirement of a Citizen Participation Plan by the applicants of all rezoning and special use permit cases, allowing residents to provide input. Another text amendment was approved to allow outdoor seating and entertainment on town-maintained sidewalks within the Town Center Commercial District with approval of an encroachment permit from Town Council. (Goal 1, Policy 4; Goal 4, Policies 6,8,)  The Community Relations department is maintaining the website as needed with the most up-to-date plans and surveys. (Goal 1, Policies 7-13)  Town Council approved public art at two new residential projects – The Havenly and Casas Del Lago.  The Public Art Committee approved a donation of a sculpture from a donor that was approved by the Town Council and installed at Fountain Park. (Goal 2, Policy 7)  The MAG regional bike map was amended to add bike lanes to Fountain Hills Blvd. (Goal 1, Policies 7- 13)  Public Works Department is engaging with an engineering firm to begin a parking study to assess the required capacity and use of existing parking facilities.(Goal 4, Policy 5)  The Town approved a special use permit case allowing a mixed-use residential/commercial development on a half-acre infill parcel at the northwest corner of Saguaro and Kingstree Blvds. Another special use permit was approved for a multi-family residential development at a 1.67-acre infill parcel near the northeast corner of Shea and Saguaro Blvds. (Goal 2, Policy 6)  The Development Services department launched the Town Online Planning and Permitting System (TOPPS) to provide a streamlined design review process when reviewing applications for revenue- generating uses. (Goal 1, Policy 1)  The Economic Development and Community Relations departments are currently working together to create community-based branding strategy. (Goal 4, Policy 1-2) Social Environment Element  The Community Services Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by Town Council in May 2021. (Goal 8, Policy 1)  A crosswalk to Desert Vista Park was constructed in Fall of 2021 providing safe means for pedestrians, bike riders and those with mobility devices to cross Saguaro Blvd. Appurtenant sidewalks were constructed to provide connectivity to over 400 residences. (Goal 3, Policies 1-6)  The Town initiated an update to the long-range sidewalk plan. (Goal 3) Connectivity, Access and Mobility Element  On June 15, 2021, the Town adopted the Active Transportation Plan covering multi-modal aspects of connectivity access and mobility. Multi-use paths were installed at Desert Vista and Four Peaks Parks. (Goal 1, Policy 1)  Town staff is working on an intergovernmental agreement with MAG to fund helmets, vests, and training for crossing guards as a result of previous Safe Routes to School grant. (Goal 1, Parcel 7)  Staff is creating a site plan checklist that will incorporate parking design and aesthetics. (Goal 2, Policies 1-4.)  Although pertaining to Goal 1 of the Great Places Element, it is also worth repeating here that bike lanes were completed at Fountain Bills Blvd. The MAG regional bike map was subsequently amended to reflect this. Public Facilities and Services Element  The Community Services Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by Town Council in May 2021. (Goal 8, Policy 1) Natural Resources and Open Space Element  The McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission revised the Preserve Trail Master Plan (adopted April 2022). (Goal 3, Policy 1)  The “Take a Pic” campaign was launched all trailheads to encourage digital maps, thus reducing waste and litter of paper maps. (Goal 3, Policy 2) Economic Development Element  The Town obtained grant funding from the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to continue cross promotion efforts to attract tourism and visitors to the area through various media. (Goal 1)  The Town continues its partnership with the Fountain Hills Unified School District and Arizona Business Advisors in attracting education-related business amenities to the BizHub (formerly Four Peaks Elementary School). (Goal 5, Policy 4) Cost of Development Element  The Development Services department launched the Town Online Planning and Permitting System (TOPPS) to provide a streamlined design review process for development and redevelopment of the Town Center, Commerce Center, Saguaro Blvd and Shea Character Areas. (Goal 4, Policy 1) Policy Issues No policy issues have arisen at this time regarding the provisions of the General Plan. Since ratification of the 2020 General Plan was relatively recent, policy issues are more likely to arise as the Town advances further into plan implementation throughout the next several years. Recommendations for Amendments No revisions to the General Plan are recommended at this time.