Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ.2022.0314.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 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 March 14, 2022 to order at 6:00 p.m. and led the Commission and the public in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Peter Gray; Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Susan Dempster; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic; Commissioner Rick Watts Staff John Wesley , Development Services Director; Paula Woodward , Present: Executive Assistant 3. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Jane Bell, Fountain Hills resident, thanked the Commission for all their hard work. She thanked John Wesley for always being available to answer questions. She also thanked State Representative John Kavanaugh, Crystal Cavanaugh and Larry Meyers for their interest and research regarding sober living homes. 4. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission February 14, 2022. MOVED BY Chairman Peter Gray, SECONDED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster to CONTINUE the approval of the February 14, 2022 meeting minutes to the Planing and Zoning Commission's April 11, 2022 agenda. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously 5. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AND POSSIBLE ACTION: regarding Ordinance 22-01, amending Chapters 1, 5, 10, and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide the definitions of family and community residences, the regulations for community residences, and the zoning districts where allowed. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 2 of 19 Mr. Wesley thanked the Commission and the public for their involvement with the process of crafting an amendment pertaining to sober living. He said that there are two items on tonight's agenda: to hold a public hearing and considering an ordinance regarding modifications to group home requirements and consideration of zoning options for detoxification facilities and treatment centers. Mr. Wesley said that the proposed ordinance changes are a result of the public meetings held in previous months and especially the Commission's direction given at the February 14, 2022, meeting. Mr. Wesley gave a PowerPoint presentation which addressed the following: BACKGROUND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS — DEFINITION Amend definition of family: Maximum of four unrelated individuals Delete the existing group home definition and add: Community residence. A community residence is a residential living arrangement for five to ten individuals with disabilities, excluding staff, living as a family in a single dwelling unit who are in need of the mutual support furnished by other residents of the community residence as well as the support services, if any, provided by the staff of the community residence. Residents may be self-governing or supervised by a sponsoring entity or its staff, which provides habilitative or rehabilitative services related to the residents' disabilities. A community residence seeks to emulate a biological family to foster normalization of its residents and integrate them into the surrounding community. Its primary purpose is to provide shelter in a family-like environment. Medical treatment is incidental as in any home. Supportive inter-relationships between residents are an essential component. Community residence includes sober living homes and assisted living homes but does not include any other group living arrangement for unrelated individuals who are not disabled, nor any shelter, rooming house, boarding house or transient occupancy. Further refine the types of Community Residences with the following: Family community residence. A community residence that is a relatively permanent living arrangement with no limit on the length of tenancy as determined in practice or by the rules, charter, or other governing documents of the community residence. The minimum length of tenancy is typically a year or longer. Transitional community residence. A community residence that provides a relatively temporary living arrangement with a limit on length of tenancy more than 30 days and less than a year that is measured in weeks or months, as determined either in practice or by the rules, charter, or other governing document of the community residence. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 3 of 19 Add specific rules for community residences to Sec. 5.13 Standards • 1,200' spacing • Max. 2 people per bedroom • General rule allows up to 10, not including staff •Transitional residence, max 6 including staff •Town business license, if applicable Application Requirements • Must be licensed or registered to state or national organization • If not property owner, property owner acknowledgement of use • Description of proposed services •Acknowledge cannot house individuals who would be a threat to the community. • Copy of liability insurance • Copy of state license documents, minimum • Contact individuals • "Good Neighbor" policies (parking, noise, smoking, maintenance, loitering) • Efforts to promote safety • Floor plan designating bedrooms, living, and dining areas Registration • Required, valid for 1 year • Inspection by Fire Marshal and Building Official • Complete application submission • Provisional while obtaining state license, required to vacate if the license is not approved in 90 days • Re-register on an annual basis Waiver of Reasonable Accommodation •Allows for consideration of additional residents and/or lesser separation when requirements are met • Must demonstrate the following: •Will still emulate a family • Needed for financial or therapeutic reasons •Will not interfere with normalization and integration •Will operate consistent with licensing •Will not alter residential character of the neighborhood. • •Additional items •To help avoid clustering, Phoenix limits number to 5 in a 1/2 mile radius when considering reasonable accommodation. • Reasonable means reasonable and necessary, but could add Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 4 of 19 provision to justify why a particular property vs. another one that would meet the separation requirement. • Zoning Districts •Amending the list of permitted uses in single and multi-family to change from Group Homes to Community Residences • Missed making the change in the commercial districts; will do so with next ordinance, Chapter 10 & 18 Mr. Wesley asked for the Commission's comments. In response to Commissioner Dempster, Mr. Wesley said that there are fire code and building code requirements the Fire Marshal and the Building Inspector enforce when inspecting homes. Homes that have residents that are capable of self-preservation are slightly different than those that don't. Commissioner Dempster asked about the license waiting period timeframe. Mr. Wesley replied that the 45 day waiting period is an example he found while researching ordinances. If for some reason a license is not issued, the state would assist the Town regarding enforcement. Vice Chairman Schlossberg asked why the Town does not see the insurance as a benefited requirement. From a liability stand point it would be prudent to have a copy on file. Mr. Wesley said that the Town attorney did not see that insurance was a beneficial requirement. Mr. Wesley stated that it could be added if the Commission desires. Chairman Gray said that he had conversations with two insurance agents regarding these type of situations and they highly recommended more than run of the mill insurance. A standard home owners insurance would not cover any of these homes. He said that he would like to see more specificity regarding home insurance requirements. Commissioner Watts said that he agrees that there needs to be a minimum liability requirement, a threshold higher than a $200,000 limit. He suggested a two million dollar liability. He also mentioned that the number of persons in a home should be inclusive of staff in regards to the basic definition of community residence. Chairman Gray said that at the February 14th meeting it was noted that the Family Community Residence was a range of five to eight, not ten people. This would include any staff requiring an overnight stay. Transitional Community Residences are a range of five to six people with the same overnight stay requirement. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 5 of 19 In response to Commissioner Kovacevic, Mr. Wesley said that the state needs to see that the Town has approved the applicant before a state license is approved and issued. This proves to be tricky since the Town requires state approval in order to process the Town approval. A condition can be added that the Town approval is pending per the state license approval. Commissioner Kovacevic added that should the state not issue a license in the ninety-day period, the Town approval is revoked. Commissioner Dempster stated that she would like to see the twelve hundred feet distance between homes increase. Mr. Wesley said that Phoenix's basic separation requirement is 1320 feet between homes. He said that under a separate matter with regard to reasonable accommodations, when five homes already exist within a half mile radius committee approval is required. If there are less than five homes, the pending application is approved administratively. Chairman Gray said that research conducted by the public and fact checked by him, resulted in various federal jurisdictions' distance requirements being one-half mile or 2,640 feet. He quoted that "Since 2003, the one-half mile proximity restriction has repeatedly been upheld against Oxford House's challenges." He said that if it has been successfully held in the past it should provide well for Fountain Hills. Chairman Gray read out loud the following definitions of the City of Salisbury. Definition Enhancements: 1. Add into Family: Why — Reference case: Oxford House v City of Salisbury 2018. 1. Not dependent upon or supported by someone who does not maintain legal domicile at the particular dwelling unit and resides therein (not including any alimony or child support payments made to or for the benefit of any members of the group. 2. Maintain legal domicile at the particular dwelling unit 3. Share a single household budget 4. Share in the repair and maintenance of the dwelling unit and its grounds if any 5. Share in legal ownership or tenancy of the dwelling unit as evidenced on a deed or lease. Chairman Gray said that he would like to see the following included in the definition of family: Maintain legal domicile in the particular dwelling unit and share in legal ownership or tenancy of the dwelling unit as evidenced on a deed or lease. He said that adding these enchantments would close the loophole if individuals go after reasonable accommodations. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 6 of 19 In response to Commissioner Kovacevic, Mr. Wesley said the maximum number of occupants is four, whether they are related or not. Mr. Wesley reminded the Commission if all five definitions were adopted, staff would be forced to use the definitions to determine whether a home was occupied by a family. Some of these would be a challenge to implement. Commissioner Watts said that it would be tough to enforce item one. He suggested not including it. Chairman Gray confirmed that the Community Residences cap should indicate a maximum of eight occupants inclusive of overnight staff. He said that Family Community Residences have five to eight occupants and must meet added definitions in family. Transitional Community Residences cap would be six occupants inclusive of overnight staff. Chairman Gray said to Mr. Wesley, that he had statements, "whereas" to keep in mind for consideration. They are: Whereas the United States Census Bureau recognizes the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona to be comprised of the following facts: • Owner Occupied housing Unit rate, 78.9% •The population living in the same house 1 year ago was 84.0% • Persons per household 2.0 •The transitional community residence number (6) is 2.9X the mean number of persons per household in the 2020 census block & town. Chairman Gray commented on another point of reference regarding a federal suit against the City of Albany agreed that six residents are the optimal number. Chairman Gray said that the Town should not be providing pathways in the Town ordinance regarding Reasonable Accommodations. He said he would like to see that removed. He provided examples: • In its examination of the law of necessary and reasonable accommodation and zoning codes, the Fourth Circuit has stated the following: In enacting the FHA, Congress clearly did not contemplate abandoning the deference that courts have traditionally shown to such local zoning codes. •And the FHA does not provide a "blanket waiver of all facially neutral zoning policies and rules, regardless of the facts," Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, 825 F. Supp. 1251, 1261 (E.D. Va. 1993), which gives the disabled "carte blanche to determine where and how they would live regardless of zoning ordinances to the contrary." Thornton v. City of Allegan, 863 F. Supp. 504, 510 (W.D. Mich. 1993). • Refer to whereas: Since 1989 The FHAA requires a municipality " to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 7 of 19 services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [individuals with disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). Such accommodation need not extend beyond the enacted zoning code when such accommodation has been benchmarked and demonstrated. Chairman Gray commented that when someone seeks reasonable accommodation, they are seeking it against the base zoning code. He said that these are his thoughts and it is up for their discussion. The Commission is taking steps to update and reasonable accommodation zoning ordinances to augment the definitions of community residences to include transitional community residences. This is the reasonable accommodation to the code and it has been made in the rules and polices already. He said he did not want to see one more accommodation come out of the revised ordinance. He asked for the Commission's comments. In response to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Wesley replied that reasonable accommodation approval is more than just a simple yes or no. The applicant has to provide information and documented evidence why they need reasonable accommodation. They still need to emulate the biological family; they will not interfere with the normalization of the community and they can operate in a safe manner. Commissioner Watts said that there is still a lot of subjectivity. The definitions are quite liberal right now. Mr. Watts suggested adding the requirement of a financial statement that could be audited. Mr. Wesley said that the Town Attorney mentioned the financial viability at the last meeting. He referenced that the Town of Prescott include this in their ordinance provisions . Prescott is one of the few that include financial viability in their code. Chairman Gray stated that he is not advocating no adherence to a reasonable accommodation. He said he just wants a request to be genuine, not arbitrary. Chairman Gray said that financial viability has been brought up as a means for reasonable accommodation but is rarely approved. At the last meeting, legal counsel told the Commission that financial viability is a means for reasonable accommodation. What they failed to tell the Commission is that every time financial viability is brought up and ends up in the court system, it pertains to Oxford House. It's always brought up in the self-governed model: occupants sign a charter, there is no operator, no third party and no professional oversight. It is written on their walls that the house is democratically self-run and must be financially self-supporting. Any resident using drugs or alcohol is expelled immediately. Financial viability is unreasonable unless it is a charter scenario. It is not an accommodation for a business model. Chairman Gray went on to say that the second point to nearly all requests for reasonable accommodations is therapeutic benefit. The experts claim that more occupants result in more therapeutic benefit for the occupants, but only in the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 8 of 19 self-governed model. He stated that for this reason he would like to see the pathway to reasonable accommodation removed. Do not provide a pathway for accommodations where the Commission set the precent. Chairman Gray stated the additional measures include: Application Process: •The property owner attestations shall be enhanced to include a clause allowing Town officials to enter the premises to inspect for land use violations unannounced, including the number of occupants. •The applicant shall attest that they will provide all evidence permissible by code and authority having jurisdiction necessary in response to a code enforcement inquiry including in particular occupancy logs. • Require evidence of property's appropriate Maricopa County Tax classification for the use applied prior to registration. • Require a copy of the lease packet prescribed by ARS 9 A.A.C. 12 Section 202 the operator of the home will utilize. • Operators' certification that no OTC Licensure or medication distribution will be solicited or occur on-premises. • Certificate of Insurance Commercial Liability policy of$2M/4M and waiver of subjugation for the Town of Fountain Hills. • Conditional approval measure until all conditions are satisfied. Emphasis on: • State License to Operate • Liability insurance 2M/4M with a waiver of subjugation • Maricopa Co Tax Classification verification Enforcement: • Include code enforcement penalties applicable to the property owner only (not the operator of the residence) • $100/day for every day in violation after a 14-calendar day grace period to commence on the day of violation until the deficiency or land use violation has been corrected. • $100/day for no insurance or OHS licensure follow-up / vacate at the 45-day mark. • $100/day for any lapse in registration. (same as DHS) • Include a strike policy (or emulation of CMMS / accrediting body stoplight program): three violations as administered by a code enforcement officer in any 18mo period shall constitute revocation of registration and eviction. A violation or citation constituting a strike shall be a combination of AZ DHS and/or Town Code Enforcement violations or citations, regardless of corrective actions taken thereafter. • Knowingly providing false or misleading information on a registration application or renewal shall result in immediate termination of registration and eviction. •Town is to provide notification to the AZ DHS of any complaint against a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 9 of 19 registered address and/or any unresisted address as a matter of course. In response to Commissioner Dempster, Chairman Gray said that the eighteen months was chosen to give an opportunity to make a correction that is fair and equitable to the violator. Commissioner Watts said that the eighteen months is good because it gives each infraction a period of cure. Commissioner Watts and Commissioner Demspter asked if the State or if the Town's Building Department had set timeframes for violation corrections. Mr. Wesley said that there is no set timeframe. The building department reviews each case individually. In response to Vice Chairman Schlossberg, Mr. Wesley said that there are two full-time code enforcement officers and they are always busy. They would be handling these violations. Mr. Wesley commented that in other Town civil penalties, the violation period is a twelve month period. The Town already has it so that if an applicant did not get their license within a certain period, they would not be approved. The non-approval status deemed by the Town would be provided by the State. Chairman Gray said that the Department of Health Services is not going to let a provider operate if there are known violations. He said a third violation within the twelve month period would be an automatic revocation of registration. They would not be able to renew at a later time. He proposed dropping the eighteen months to twelve months regarding the violation period. The following members of the public spoke: State Representative John Kavanagh, Crystal Cavanaugh, Liz Gildersleeve, Lori Troller, Larry Meyers, and Carl Weir. Chairman Gray called for a short recess. Chairman Gray resumed the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Steve Bagnani, Fountain Hills resident, stated that this was the first time he had addressed a Commission. He said that the Town may want to look into how the AZDHS Joint Commission takes action when there are deficiencies. They use a red, green, yellow, light approach. He said that this is an industry that needs to be regulated. Chairman Gray closed the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Corey, Mr. Wesley said that staff had not looked into the red, green, yellow light approach. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 10 of 19 Commissioner Watts asked when the Commission's proposed changes would be completed and forwarded to the Town Council. Mr. Wesley replied that since Chairman Gray has the proposals typed out and if the Commission is in agreement, the proposed ordinance would go before the Town Council on April 5, 2022. If more time is needed by the Commission, a specific meeting date would need to be determined. If the meeting is a "special meeting" the public notices may need to be published. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley said that the provisions for Chapter 12 and Chapter 18, referencing group homes for the handicap, will be included in the Planning and Zoning Commission April 11, 2022 meeting. Chairman Gray said that while talking with DHS, they acknowledged they would welcome formal communications, as it relates to any land use changes, from the Town. They would also evaluate license applications and renewals with that in mind. Mr. Wesley advised that with this discussion staff would make note of the DHS comments. The Commission can mention it as part of the motion, not part of the amendment. Chairman Gray asked for confirmation regarding the insurance requirement. Vice Chairman Schlossberg recommended that the insurance policy should be $2 million per occurrence and $4 million in aggregate with a waiver of subrogation for the Town. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley said that the detailed information provided in the application would determine if the applicants are qualified for a Family Community Residence or Transitional Community Residence. Staff would marry up what information the applicant provided. During mandatory fire safety inspections it would become evident if there were any differences. The state license is very specific. It would be easy to observe anything that deviates from the license. Chairman Gray said that he would like to review the family definitions to ensure they are what they need to be. He said an important piece would be to make sure that the applicant can say that the home residents use that address as their legal domicile. Mr. Wesley said that this type of description would be better to fall under the transitional Residence than Family Residence. He stated that the Commission could make a motion and he would make it work. Chairman Gray said he would like to draft a motion, should there be discussion, and then formally make a motion. Draft Motion: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 11 of 19 • Modifications to the definition of family; that a family maintain legal domicile at the particular dwelling unit, maintain legal domicile at the particular dwelling unit and share legal ownership as evidenced on a deed or lease. Applied in spirit, not direct application. •Adjustment to the maximum number of beds or occupants in Community Residences reduced from ten to eight maximum as discussed at the February 14, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission. •Transitional Community Residences maintained 5- 6 occupants/6 beds (6cap) inclusive of overnight stays. • Increase the separation requirement in any community residence to 2,460'. Measurement from property line to property line in the nearest straight line. • Remove the guidelines as it relates to reasonable accommodation as called out in the "whereas." •Additional measures to include in the application process to add a clause allowing Town officials to enter the premises to inspect unannounced including the number of occupants. •The applicant shall attest that they will provide all evidence permissible by code and authority having jurisdiction necessary in response to a code enforcement inquiry in particular occupancy logs. • Require evidence of property's appropriate Maricopa County Tax classification for the land use applied prior to registration. • Require a copy of the lease packet prescribed by ARS 9 A.A.C. 12 Section 202 the operator of the home will utilize. • Operators' certification that no OTC Licensure or medication distribution will be solicited or occur on-premises. • Require Certificate of Insurance Commercial Liability policy of Liability insurances 2M/4M with a waiver of subjugation for the town of Fountain Hills. • Include code enforcement penalties applicable to the property owner only (not the operator of the residence) $100/day for every day in violation after a 14-calendar day grace period to commence on the day of violation until the deficiency or land use violation has been corrected. $100/day for no insurance or DHS licensure follow-up / vacate at 45-day mark. $100/day for any lapse in registration. • Include a strike policy (or emulation of CMMS / accrediting body stoplight program): three violations as administered by a code enforcement officer in any 12 month period shall constitute revocation of registration and eviction. A violation or citation constituting a strike shall be a combination of AZ DHS and/or Town Code Enforcement violations or citations, regardless of corrective actions taken thereafter. • Knowingly providing false or misleading information on a registration application or renewal shall result in immediate termination of registration and eviction. •Town is to provide notification to the AZ DHS of any complaint against a registered address and/or any unregistered address as a matter of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 12 of 19 course. •Town staff to administratively notify the Department of Health Services of any updates to zoning ordinances that may affect the administrative process in application or application renewal reviews by the department. • Conditional approval threshold for the application process allows for rectification of deficiencies but does not allow operators to commence operation without state license and full approval of registration. • Request for Town to research working with the League of Cities and Towns, AZ DHS and • Inclusion of all violations by the Town and other agencies. 1. Whereas 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." 2. Whereas municipal zoning laws must weigh the rights and freedoms of its individual citizens against the concerns of all that combine synergistically to require a delicate balance of the physical, aesthetic, safety, environmental, fiscal, and health aspects of an organized community. "Although the procedures of a zoning board may limit an application for a permit to one particular use, it has been said that the board cannot, in a proper and reasonable discharge of its function, ignore the total picture, of which it has personal knowledge, and act on a piecemeal basis." 3. Whereas the FHAA generally prohibits zoning practices that discriminate against individuals with disabilities by "making unavailability or denying housing to those persons" 4. Whereas Since 1989 The FHAA requires a municipality "to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [individuals with disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B). Such accommodation need not extend beyond the enacted zoning code when such accommodation has been benchmarked and demonstrated. 5. Whereas the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that jurisdiction can establish a cap on the number of unrelated persons who can occupy a dwelling unit. The Fair Housing Act requires jurisdictions to make reasonable accommodations for community residences for people with disabilities by making narrow exceptions to these caps. Belle Terre v Borass, 416 U.S. 1 (1974). Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 13 of 19 6. Whereas the United States Census Bureau recognizes the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona to be comprised of the following facts: a. Town Population, Census April 1, 2020 - 23,820 b. Owner Occupied housing Unit rate, 78.9% c. Population living in the same house 1 year ago 84.0% d. Persons per household 2.07 7. Whereas the transitional community residence number (6) is 2.9X the mean number of persons per household in the census block & town. 8. Whereas a community residence seeks to achieve "normalization" of their residents and incorporate them into the social fabric of the surrounding community (known as "community integration"). 9. Whereas a community residence seeks to emulate a family in how they function (see definition of family) the residents with disabilities learn or re-learn the same life skills and social behaviors of a family. In response to Commissioner Kovacevic, Chairman Gray amended the draft motion to include detailed contact information on the application. MOVED BY Chairman Peter Gray, SECONDED BY Commissioner Dan Kovacevic to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve Ordinance 2022-01 and the updates to Chapters 1 , 5,10, and 11 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as stated in the draft motion. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously 6. REVIEW AND DISCUSS: possible Zoning Ordinance text amendments to address drug and alcohol treatment centers and detoxification facilities. Mr. Wesley explained that at the Town Council retreat in February 2021, staff was asked to make recommendations to the Zoning Ordinance specific to drug and alcohol treatment centers and detoxification facilities. He gave a PowerPoint presentation which addressed the following: BACKGROUND •Zoning Ordinance provides a list of permitted uses by the zoning district • Detoxification facilities not specifically listed •Treatment Centers defined, but not listed in zoning districts • Uses are placed based on the intent of the zoning district and land use characteristics and the impact of other similar uses • Mostly do not see these uses listed in other zoning ordinances • Discussion with Prescott and Gilbert— treat as other medical uses Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 14 of 19 • Mesa requires approval of a Council Use Permit for detox centers in commercial zoning districts Commercial Zoning Districts C-1. Neighborhood Commercial and Professional Zoning District: The Neighborhood Commercial and Professional District is established to provide a location for modest, well-designed commercial enterprises to serve the surrounding residential neighborhood, as well as to provide for services to the community, which is not detrimental to the integrity of the surrounding residential neighborhood, and to provide for the appropriate location of professional offices throughout the community. The intent of this district is to integrate limited commercial activity and professional offices with residential land uses in a climate favorable to both. Particular attention is to be paid to the interface between commercial or professional uses and the residential uses within the same neighborhood. C-2. Intermediate Commercial Zoning District: The principal purpose of this Zoning District is to provide for the sale of commodities and the performance of services and other activities in locations for which the market area extends beyond the immediate residential neighborhoods. Principal uses permitted in this Zoning District include furniture stores, hotels, motels, restaurants, and some commercial recreation and cultural facilities, such as movies and instruction in art and music. This Zoning District is designed for application at major street intersections. C-3. General Commercial Zoning District: The principal purpose of this Zoning District is to provide for commercial uses concerned with wholesale or distribution activities in locations where there is adequate access to major streets or highways. Principal uses permitted in this Zoning District include retail and wholesale commerce and commercial entertainment. Town Center Commercial Zoning District: The principal purpose of this zoning district is to provide for a variety of pedestrian-oriented retail, office, lodging, residential and civic land uses in the Town Center area. The intent of the district is to encourage the development and sustainability of a vibrant mixed-use area where residents and visitors can live, work, shop, dine, be entertained, enjoy community and cultural events and contribute to the economic viability of the Town Center area and the Town as a whole. Useful Definitions Clinic: A place for the provision of group medical services, not involving overnight housing of patients. (While the land uses listed in Chapter 12 never specifically list "clinics", medical services and uses are allowed in all commercial zoning districts, C-O to C-3.) Detoxification: The process of clearing the body of drugs or alcohol. Drug and Alcohol Detoxification Facilities: Facilities engaged in either Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 15 of 19 inpatient or outpatient treatment and care of individuals going through withdrawal and detoxification from drugs or alcohol. The facilities can provide either, or both, acute, inpatient services, or sub-acute, outpatient services. Partial Hospitalization: A type of program used to treat mental illness and substance abuse. In partial hospitalization, the patient continues to reside at home, but commutes to a treatment center up to seven days a week. Partial hospitalization focuses on the overall treatment of the individual and is intended to avert or reduce in-patient care. Treatment Center: Facilities providing lodging and meals and, primarily, treatment, training or education as a part of an alcoholism or drug addiction program Existing Medical Businesses Existing businesses in Town with similar land use characteristics, zoning districts were located: Fountain Hills Recovery, outpatient treatment center— C-2 Smith Healthcare, chiropractor— C-2 Southwest Kidney & Dialysis — C-2 Fountain Hills Clinic, walk-in primary medical clinic — C-2 4C Medical Group, primary and specialty care — C-2 BPS Integrated Medical, primary care clinic— C-2 Health Care with Heart, heart doctors — C-2 Similar Uses in Zoning Ordinance Allowed Uses in all Commercial Districts: Dentists, physicians, and other medical offices Counselors Medical and clinical laboratories Pharmacies Retail, restaurant, entertainment Similar Uses in Zoning Ordinance Additional Uses allowed in C-2 and C-3: Bars Health spas and public gyms Pool halls or billiard centers Uses requiring a Special Use Permit in all Commercial Districts: Group Homes Single and multifamily dwellings Uses requiring a Special Use Permit in C-2 or C-3 Convenience stores Cabinet shops Automobile fuel dispensing Vehicle storage Construction equipment sales, rentals Temporary storage facilities Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 16 of 19 Detox Facilities Sub-acute/Outpatient Typically daytime business hours Clients come and go, sometimes receive medication to help with detox Acute/Inpatient 24/7 Patients under medical supervised detox process Generally a 5 — 7 day process Detox Facilities - Options Zoning Districts Suggest C-2 and/or C-3, especially for acute/inpatient Could add standard conditions or requirements such as: Place for indoor waiting "Good Neighbor" policy to address potential impacts of people waiting Contact person for complaints or issues Inpatient, patient discharge policy Treatment Centers Outpatient Typically daytime business hours, can extend into the evening Clients come for treatment ( medication, counseling, group meetings) Can have outpatient detox as part of the program/process Inpatient Person resides at the facility while getting treatment 24/7 operation Process usually lasts 30 — 90 days Treatment Center— Options Zoning Districts C -1 through TCCD are options Suggest C-2 and/or C-3, especially for acute/inpatient Could consider requiring a Special Use Permit Could add standard conditions or requirements such as: Place for indoor waiting "Good Neighbor" policy to address potential impacts of people waiting Contact person for complaints or issues Inpatient, patient discharge policy Mr. Wesley concluded by stating that staff is looking for Commission direction on how to address Detox and Treatment uses. He said that it appears to be very similar to the C-2 and C-3 type uses. The Commission may want to add a Special Use Permit as a requirement depending on the needs. He said that based on the Commission's input and direction, he would return with an ordinance for consideration and recommendation. He said that he could bring back revisions at the April 11, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 17 of 19 Commissioner Dempster asked if a Special Use Permit would be required in the C-1 and C-2 districts. Mr. Wesley replied that they would not be required in the C-2 and C-3 districts but would be required in the CC and C-1 districts. He said that distance requirements between the facility and churches, schools, etc. could be provided at the next meeting. There is a residential area that is adjacent to C-2: north of Palisades and near Bashas and Safeway. Commissioner Corey commented that he liked the requirement for an indoor waiting area and the discharge policy. He asked, should drug testing be required in the ordinance. Mr. Wesley said that there is more freedom with in-patient treatment and detoxification centers since they are not state-mandated like the sober-living homes. The in-patient treatment centers usually have residents on lock down and they do not go anywhere. Chairman Gray asked if it was possible to look at walking minutes within the different districts. The point would be to review the migration possibilities of where one might end up when on foot. Chairman Gray mentioned that he would like staff to bring information back to the Commission regarding: bed capacity, relationship of existing centers (in the valley) in relation to schools and environmental impacts and to reference a handout that covers property valuation in proximity to detox centers and subsections such as opioid use detox centers. Mr. Wesley said that he found eight treatment centers, one in Fountain Hills and the others in Scottsdale. He said he visited the Phoenix detox center suggested by Mr. Meyers. While there, he witnessed people milling around and loitering, which could cause some concern. The centers he observed in Mesa did not appear to have any such issue. One of them was across the street from a school. Vice Chairman Schlossberg asked how specific and exclusive the recommendations can be for detox locations. He said he could think of very few places he would want one of these to exist. Mr. Wesley replied that if there are rational land use reasons and impact description, the Town can regulate accordingly. In response to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Wesley said that in Mesa a Special Use Permit requires Council approval for detox centers in commercial zoning districts. Commissioner Watts suggested creating some sort of buffer zone between public spaces and residential areas would be a good consideration. The quality of the facility is dependent on the operator. The operator should be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 18 of 19 held accountable for the behavior of their clientele. Commissioner Kovacevic asked that staff review the regulation of hours, particularly an outpatient facility. Mr. Wesley said that can be reviewed but a good reason must be defined. Chairman Gray inquired about a loitering ordinance that could be related to the detox center ordinance. The following members of the public spoke: Larry Meyers, Liz Gildersleeve, Alan Grosso, Bob Strasser, Jane Bell and Lori Troller. Chairman Gray confirmed that the detoxification and treatment centers discussion would continue at the April 11 , 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Wesley confirmed that if the discussion continues next month, it is likely a public hearing will take place in May. 7. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. None 8. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director. None 9. REPORT from Development Services Director. None 10. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held March 14, 2022, adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of March 14, 2022 19 of 19 PLANNING ONING COMMISSION Ch an Pete ray ATTESTED AND PREPARED BY LO 4,0 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 March 14, 2022. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this day of April 4, 2022. Ld1/4_ 6Thr-P Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant