Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ.2022.0214.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Chairman Gray called the meeting of February 14, 2022, to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Peter Gray; Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Susan Dempster; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic; Commissioner Roderick Watts, Jr. Staff Development Services Director John Wesley; Town Attorney Present: Aaron Arnson; Attorney John Paladini; 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 January 10, 2022. MOVED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 10, 2022. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously 5. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION: regarding a site plan for Park Place Phase II (16845 E. Avenue of the Fountains) and Phase Ill (13000 block of N. Verde River, west side). Mr. Wesley said that the site plans are for the Park Place phase II located at 16845 E Avenue of the Fountains and Phase Ill located at 13000 block of North Verde River, West side. He explained that the Park Place (three-phase, five building, mixed use project) overall development was approved by the Town council in June of 2016. The overall master plan for the property included five buildings, up to 420 dwellings and 43,000 square feet of commercial space. The actual dwelling units were reduced to 380 and actual retail space to 41,000 square feet. The overall parking spaces are 150 more than required. He said 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 2 of 17 that under the current Zoning Ordinance the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council do not typically review and take action on site plans. However, the Development Agreement requirement is for the review and approval by the Commission and Council. He noted that the Development Agreement uses the term "Concept Plan" which has since been changed in the Zoning Ordinance to "Site Plan." "Concept Plan" and "Site Plan" are one and the same. Mr. Wesley said although the project appears to meet technical requirements, specific issues would need to be resolved in order for the project to move forward. Specific issues to resolve for Phase II, Building E & F are: relocation of the electric boxes out of the right-of-way, solid waste enclosure location, size and accessibility, water feature access and all required site plan pages resubmitted with the approved plans. Staff is concerned with the Avenue of the Fountains streetscape. Issues to resolve for Phase III, building B are: relocation of the utility box-cannot be located in the right-of-way or Art Walk, Fountain Hills Sanitary District Well, Paul Nordin Parkway right-of-way abandonment, new Town parking lot spaces and need a complete plan submittal. Bart Shea, N-Shea Group, the Developer of Park Place, said that it is seven years into the development and it was a two-year process to actually attain the development agreement with the Town. Mr. Shea said that Park Place is successful with 480 residential units and commercial. Currently, the commercial is about 25% under current market for retail space. He said he is providing all the tenant improvements for free. He said they are 100% committed to the is project but in order to meet the parking requirements, the Art Walk would have to be removed. In response to Commissioner Dempster, Mr. Shea said that seventy-two parking spaces would be gained by removing the Art Walk and the buffer area. There are no issues with the current buildings.There is a 20% parking reduction allowed but are not acting on that. The site for residential and commercial is 100% parked. If the Town wants to make an amendment to parking it can be met. Commissioner Dempster expressed concern that losing the buffer between the project and Park Place was not a good idea. Some people bought in the "At the Town Center" with the understanding a buffer would exist between the two properties. Commissioner Watts asked about the retention location. Mr. Shea said that the retention area is underground. It is underneath the parking area and pumps out to the Town storm drain. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley replied the current General Plan 2020 is applicable to this project. Mr. Wesley confirmed that, as stated in the Development Agreement, the art fee for the Park Place project was reduced to 50% of the standard art fee charged to developers. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 3 of 17 Mr. Wesley said that the project was short 3 parking spaces. The requirement is130 parking spaces. Chairman Gray expressed concern regarding the commercial space in building F. The site plan is not clear to how the public would access the area or even know about it. In regard to the "marquis corner" located at AOTF and Saguaro Blvd. he stated that he could not in good faith approve non-retail at the location. He said there is not enough information regarding the continuity of the facades between then and now. In regard to building B, he said it deserves more than surface parking. Mr. Shea said he believes he is not bound by the 2020 General Plan. In the past, The Town Council made sure that retail would not park on that corner. Parking would eat up too much of the area so that retail would not fit. It does not make sense. The Town cannot handle as much retail as it thinks it can. He said that he did not disagree but this is not a redesign. Today is to review the site plan that it fits inside the Development Agreement. In response to Commissioner Dempster, Mr. Shea said the buildings will be all rentals. The average rent in Park Place is $1600 - $1800. It may not be affordable but more affordable than a home or condo. Mr. Shea said he believes the project is in conformance with the downtown TCCD. The current Park Place commercial occupancy is 65%. Discussion took place among the Commission regarding parking, commercial below grade, continuity of the Avenue, permitted uses — residential and commercial, development agreement and retail on the corner. Mr. Shea pointed out to the Chairman that it is stated in the Development Agreement "residential only in building F." He said all the commercial space was used up on the other end of the Avenue. He said that he is asking for the Commission to vote to recommend approval to the Town Council. In response to Commissioner Corey, Mr. Wesley said that in the original land use plan there were two parking lots called, "new Town parking" allocating 130 parking spaces. Due to circumstances out of Mr. Shea's control the 130 parking spaces were not possible. By changing the design, 127 parking places would be possible. 130 spaces are required by the Development Agreement. Some tweaks can be made to pick up the 3 spaces. Larry Meyers, Fountain Hills resident, said that he doesn't care what the development agreement says, the Art Walk needs to be done right. He said that downtown will not become vibrant with a bunch of apartments. He suggested that giving up the parking spaces is well worth making the Art Walk tie in with the Centennial Circle. Ed Stizza, Fountain Hills resident, said he would like to see the premiere corner not become just corners of a building. That corner provides an iconic view. He said he appreciates the Commission looking at this project in detail. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 4 of 17 Chairman Gray asked if Mr. Shea is interested in a continuance. Mr. Shea said he didn't think he would have enough time for a continuance before the DA expires. He said that he would be willing to make some changes. Commissioner Kovacevic said he had a hard time going against the development agreement. The Town should honor the agreement. The Art Walk is a better plan then not and would agree to make parking accommodations to allow for the Art Walk. Commissioner Corey noted that there is a walk ability theme in the downtown area. The Art Walk ties in with that idea. This is also a great way to preserve some green space in Town. Chairman Gray asked Mr. Wesley what he though about managing the administrative process should the Commission provide changes. Mr. Wesley replied that that things within the scope of work that are outlined in the staff report are understood and ready to work through. The challenge would be the location of additional commercial space in building F. There are a lot of snowball effects that start happening that cannot be understood in order to take action. The agreement is to get this project on the March 1, 2022 Town Council meeting. There is not much timeframe to keep things on track for March. Mr. Wesley replied to Commissioner Watts that he was not sure Mr. Shea was referring to early in the evening regarding deviations. There is a 20% parking reduction allowed in the development agreement. MOVED BY Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg, SECONDED BY Chairman Peter Gray to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the site plan for Park Place Phase II (16845 E Avenue of the Fountains) and Phase III located at (13000 block of North Verde River) with the following stipulations: Return to design of the Art Walk to the size shown on the 2016 approved Land Use Plan; Amend the Development Agreement not to require the 130 Town Parking Lot spaces or find alternatives for required spaces; Further by considering "bookending" Avenue of the Fountains with F&B or similar Indoor/outdoor interactive space mirroring the functional nature of the opposing corner: Prior to the building permit issuance: Address all the items listed in the staff report in revised final site plan for approval; Complete the abandonment of the Paul Nordin Parkway right-of-way; complete and final any easements and maintenance agreements as required by the Development Agreement. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 5 of 17 6. REVIEW, DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON options for possible ordinance language updating regulations for group homes. Mr. Wesley stated that tonight's discussion is directed towards group homes and associated regulations with that particular issue. The companion topic - detox facilities is not part of tonight's presentation or discussion. Staff plans to work on that issue and have it ready for the ready for next meeting. Detoxification is a medical non-residential activity and is not permitted in residential districts. The Town understands there is concern that some level of detoxification may be taking place in sober living homes which would be a violation. A person in a sober living home can be in a partial hospitalization program and go to treatment away for the sober living home during the day. Mr. Wesley provided definitions and requirements that will improve the opportunity to enforce the proper use of group homes as a place of residence not for treatment. Mr. Wesley said that no changes have been made to the rules and regulations, since the 1993 Town zoning ordinance. The industry has changed quite a bit since then and warrants updates to the ordinance. Group homes have been approved and in Town since at least 2005. There are 13 licensed and approved group homes in Fountain Hills. Two sober living homes have relocated and three new ones have been approved (1 assisted living, 2 sober living). Mr. Wesley explained that the registration process begins with checking the location meets the separation requirement. Once the application is accepted and requirements met, an onsite inspection is performed by the Fire Marshal and Building Official for life-safety compliance. The applicant is required to have a state license and a Fountain Hills business license. Mr. Wesley said recently there has been push back regarding requirements for local registration of a few homes. Part of the enforcement process would be to contact the property owner as means to obtain compliance. The Town has worked with the State when it appears the home is operating outside the allowances in the ordinance. It was suggested that the Town kick these homes out or shut them down. The Town does not have the authority to just shut down a sober living home. The Town largely relies on the State. Mr. Wesley provided a fact sheet with details regarding the Fair Housing Act and definition of community residence. He said the Town Attorney is present to answer any questions. Mr. Wesley reviewed possible amendments to the zoning ordinance definitions in order to clarify allowed activities and address some of the citizens concerns regarding the possible non-residential in these homes. He said it would assist with future regulation and enforcement compared to the current limited definition. He recommended the following definition as a possible amendment change: Community residence - A community residence is a residential living Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 6 of 17 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 habilitate 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. Mr. Wesley said that further definition of a community residence can be based on the distinction of the home: long-term residency is more similar to single-family land use and short-term residency is less similar to single-family land use. There would be some registration and regulation based on the difference in community impact. The home cannot be regulated based on the disability type. He recommended the following subtypes to the definition as a possible amendment change: 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 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. Mr. Wesley explained that there are regulatory requirements for homes. The goal is to allow the homes but to prevent an over concentration that changes the neighborhood setting. Currently, Fountain Hills requires a 1200 feet separation between these homes. The distance ranges surveyed from other cities and towns are from 800 feet to1320 feet. The recommendation would be to maintain what is currently used in Fountain Hills. He said another regulatory requirement is licensing. Not all community residences require a state license. The recommendation would be to require a license or certificate from the State of Arizona Department of Health or by the Arizona Recovery Housing Association or "Permanent "Oxford House Charter. The Oxford House is a national organization that has a set of recognized standards. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 7 of 17 As part of the application process, Mr. Wesley recommended that the following information be required: if the property is rented, the property owner agree to the use as a community residence; the scope of service provided; length of residency; whether or not residents are ambulatory and acknowledge that persons do not constitute a direct threat; agree to register any resident sex offenders. More information would be required for a transitional community residence, such as: providing a staff contact person in the event of neighborhood concerns; require the contact person to provide staff with a follow-up regarding how the compliant was addressed; a good neighbor policy placing requirements on residents and visitors regarding issues such as parking, noise, smoking, cleanliness of property and loitering; comply with ARS 36-2062 requirement to promote safety in the surrounding neighborhood. In regard to the number of occupants, Mr. Wesley recommended a limit maximum number of 8 residents in a single-family district. The Town would continue to require life safety inspections prior to completing registration; allow up to 120 days to complete licensing or certification process; maximum 45 days to vacate the property if a license/ certification is not received or revoked. Mr. Wesley said that another item to consider is the waiver of reasonable accommodation. To avoid legal issues, it would be helpful to establish a procedure to address and process requests for waivers. In conclusion, Mr. Wesley said that staff understands the concerns of citizens about the current ordinance and the allowance of group homes. Although the federal law requires that the Town provide and allow homes for residential use, staff has recommended several amendments to the ordinance to address citizen concerns. He said that staff is looking to the Commission for direction on modifications to include in the revised ordinance. In response to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Wesley said that currently in Fountain Hills there are 9 assisted living homes which are geared toward senior living and then there are 4 homes relating to sober living. The 9 homes would be considered long-term living homes. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley explained that the suggested number of occupants was derived by doubling the number of the maximum amount of unrelated individual's occupied under one dwelling definition. A family residence would be 12 or more months occupancy. A person setting up a group home would tell us what a typical stay would entail in that group home. Staff would be excluded from the occupancy number. Mr. Wesley said in regard to Chairman Gray's concern regarding the separation requirement. There are noise ordinances that apply to anyone and would be applied the same if a violation exists in a group home. Chairman Gray stated that he struggles to understand the difference in all the protections that are afforded to an individual and how those same protections are afforded to a commercial business entity. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 8 of 17 Jon Paladini, Town Attorney, said he was the city attorney in Prescott for nine years, from 2013 to just recent. He explained the situation Prescott experienced with sober living homes. At one point in Prescott, population of about 40,000 people, had 225 sober homes. Prescott had two HUD investigations and two DOJ investigations in attempts to regulate group homes, similar to what Fountain Hills is trying to do here. Prescott was fortunate enough to actually win or be exonerated, if you will, by those investigations. We brought the HUD investigators to town and drove them around and showed the clustering problem. Separation is an important piece when it comes to these homes. Group homes for the disabled are intended to integrate disabled persons into the society or into the neighborhood. If there is a clustering problem or have clustering, it creates what are called social service zones or institutionalized zones. So, the people of the disabled people are living amongst just disabled people or the majority, and that's not the intent of the Fair Housing Act. Prescott sort of invented, if you will, this distinction between the family, community, residents and a transitional community residence. They're both group home and considered group homes for the disabled. Residences were allowed in single family residence or single-family zones by right and the transitional residents were allowed in multifamily by right. The reason for that is the transitional residences have a month to month or maybe a yearlong residency which is more like multifamily housing where it's a lease, and it's a year-to-year lease. Family community residences are more emulate more of a family if you will, and so those are allowed in single family residences. Prescott adopted a heavy layer of operational regulation, which was taken away from the city by state law and now DHS regulates. What goes on inside those four walls is regulated by Department of Health Services. Chairman Gray said he appreciates the protection that the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act provide. He asked, how is that same right afforded to a commercial business when they go out and seek to acquire rent without having those individuals under their care already. So, we've lost that direct relationship between the protection of the individual and that individual's right to reside and migrated over to the business. Mr. Paladini said that Individuals are protected by the Fair Housing Act. There is something called a direct threat exclusion and that direct threat exclusion excludes from that Fair Housing Act protection. People who are currently using controlled substances, illegal controlled substances without a prescription and other people who pose a direct threat, primarily parolees, could be considered that and type two and three sex offenders. These types of folks cannot be prohibited from being covered or being allowed in the group, in the Community Residence center in town. This is a big concern and the group homes don't want these individuals either. In court cases, the protections that apply to the residents or the disabled persons to be able to have a combination of the Fair Housing Act. The operator of that group home also has standing because they're the ones providing the housing of a group home. The Oxford House model that was mentioned by Mr. Wesley is unique. It is self-governed, there isn't an outside operator. The house follows a charter from the Oxford House Organization, and they run it themselves. Group home operators do have Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 9 of 17 standing to seek injunctive relief and damages against a municipality that doesn't provide the proper reasonable accommodation under the zoning code. Generally, when it comes to lawsuits and challenges to regulations is it's the operators that are bringing the suit. They may bring on board one or two of their residents, as sort of named party. The operators are the ones that are going to have the protection because they're the ones offering the residential. In the case law says that group homes for the disabled are considered a residence or residential use, but they have to emulate a family. When a business operates one or more group homes, that business, the office of that business or the headquarters of that business can't be operating out of the residence, they have to operate in a commercial zone, an office zone or a business zone. The residential component can be placed or is allowed to be placed in the residential zone. There is that distinction between the two. So when your business licensing the business, you can regulate the business office, but I would not recommend licensing the individual homes because they're considered residences. Chairman Gray asked, isn't that what we're asking to do, though? Mr. Paladini said that the tracking is primarily for that separation compliance. The Department of Health services is regulating these sorts of operations inside the home. The zoning code regulates the land used impact. If you have four disabled persons living in a home, there is no regulation at all. They are simply, as a matter of right. The five, eight or ten occupancy is where they become group homes or community residences, depending on the type of residency. Trying to push that top number down of occupants is tricky. Ten occupants are a safe number, eight is a risk. Twelve occupants take it to institutional living, so it can limit at ten with the possible reasonable accommodation to eleven or twelve occupants. Once above that, it prohibits that in residential zones. There are reasons why you have six, eight or ten persons in a home that are required as part of the accommodation. Two main reasons, particularly in a sober type home, are that from a therapeutic standpoint, the higher occupancy number is actually better than a lower number because it's a larger group. Studies show that a larger occupancy number is better therapeutically. Another reasonable accommodation also includes the financial ability to operate. The whole point is that the setting has to emulate a family. Mr. Paladini said that these homes are not allowed to provide partial detox or some sort of medical care. The purpose of these homes is to be residential and that's it. They cannot provide more than what would normally transpire in a regular family environment. The distribution of medication can happen to some degree, just like parents distribute medication to their kids, whether it's prescription or not. Chairman Gray asked, where is the line between detoxification and sober living? Is there a municipal level zoning level consideration? Mr. Paladini said to be careful using terminology. He said detoxification is a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 10 of 17 five-to-seven-day process. The addict goes through a five-to-seven-day chemical, medically supervised detox.The first five to seven days detoxification is full hospitalization. They don't get to go home at night. The addict stays in the clinic or the facility for the five to seven days to medically detoxify off of whatever the addiction is. Then they go into this treatment facility an intensive in-house facility for 30 to 40 days. They are managing the addiction. There the other model described is a partial hospitalization. If the partial hospitalization is two components, a residential component and a medical component, the medical component must be conducted from a land use standpoint. In a business office, commercial or wherever medical treatment is allowed clinical type facilities. The residential component is strictly in residential zones. The Community residence is where they watch TV, sleep, shower, eat there may be some type of group therapy The function of the group home is supposed to emulate a family. It's not intended to be a clinical setting. if you have that operation where you have the medical treatment here and the residential component here, the residential component is allowed in your residential zones. Chairman Gray stated that the jurisdiction in this case is the Department of Health Services. Mr. Paladini said it is not. It is actually the zoning code. If it violates the zoning code then that's a code enforcement matter. The challenge is discovering what's going on in the home. The state licensing of those sober homes prohibits any kind of clinical therapeutic treatment in the home. It's intended to regulate the operation in the residential home. The reason that state law came into effect was precisely what Mr. Wesley was talking about. In Prescott, it was discovered that they were inadequately operated. The city regulated it and then the state stepped in. Once it's discovered through your collaboration with the Department of Health Services that the operator is running or is operating something other than a residence in that residential zone, then code enforcement action is taken. The regulations that Mr. Wesley is proposing will help. If somebody is doing something in one of those homes that's not allowed or if the neighbor suspects, they are going to let the Town and Community know. Vice Chairman Schlossberg asked about occupancy limit enforcement. Mr. Paladini said that's a tough one. There is the ability to regulate through the building code and typically two persons per bedroom is allowed. In a 3-bedroom house, even though their upper limit would be eight or ten occupants, it is possible to limit those people to six because you're allowing two people per bedroom. The general rule of thumb is for every 70 square feet of space, you can have one person.100 square foot bedroom, 10' by 10', which is kind of typical is two people. That's the other way you would want to look at and limiting that number of persons because it's a quality-of-life issue for those people. It's undesirable to put two bunk beds in a 10' by 10' room and cram, eight to ten people into a two-bedroom house. It's not allowed for beds to be put in the living room, garage or things like that. That is another tool in the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 11 of 17 toolbox to regulate the number of people to a home. The only way to enforce any of this is to find out about it and be able to prove it. It's the way the system works. Chairman Gray asked Mr. Paladini what was his experience in Prescott with reasonable accommodation. Mr. Paladini replied that Prescott's top number was twelve occupants for the Community residences. It was six to eight occupants so one through five was a matter of right. Prescott rarely got requests because once above twelve occupants, it's a real burden to prove that more than twelve is needed. More commonly asked was to make a reasonable accommodation to the separation buffer. A significant number of the "fly by night" operators disappeared because insurance no longer paid, it is mostly all out of pocket. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Paladini said that a reasonable accommodation request would be handled administratively. A public meeting or hearing would not be part of the process since the address remains confidential. A staff member is appointed to review and approve/deny the request. There are two primary reasons for reasonable accommodation; financial viability and therapeutic reasons. In response to the Commission, Mr. Paladini said that the Prescott model is exactly what John has proposed in the staff report. Commissioner Watts asked if there is a way to tie the demographics, the census data, to zoning and say that the average in this particular locale is three occupants, and so the maximum is three. He said he would like to see the occupancy numbers lower than what staff proposed. Mr. Paladini said that there are two different measurements. A family that's related by blood or marriage has an unlimited number of people that can live in a residential zone, an unrelated group of people is up to four as a matter of right. The five to eight occupants are what is really the reasonable accommodation. That's the first step in reasonable accommodation. To allow for disabled people to live in the community, four is a matter of right. Five to eight occupants are aggressive.Ten occupants is a safe number. Five to ten occupants are the sweet spot when it comes to being able to defend challenges. . It is limited by the number of bedrooms in the house. A 3-bedroom house, will have six occupants, two people to each room. If there's a seven-bedroom house, the cap is eight to ten occupants. In a three-bedroom house, the six occupants do not include the manager. Commissioner Watts asked if it is mandatory for the manager be on site 24/7? Mr. Paladini said that there are two ways the manager can act: as a shift worker or as the manager living there. Typically, there is one house manager and six to seven residents. The manager is able to leave the house to do whatever normal people do when they leave the house. Since four occupants is Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 12 of 17 a matter of right, six would be risky. Most challenges come from the upper number, eight to ten unrelated living together and the separation requirement. The eight, ten and twelve occupant number is justifiable because it is supported by studies that show eight to twelve people are financially supportable and it is a good therapeutic number. The distance buffer is used to prevent clustering and allow the integration of the residents in the community. The buffer separation applies to all group homes not just sober living. In response to Vice Chairman Schlossberg, Mr. Paladini confirmed that based on the separation buffer requirement in Fountain Hills, it would be possible for twenty-five sober living homes to exist at one time in Town. As long as they meet the requirements, they are allowed. Mr. Paladini mentioned that a bill was introduced last week allowing no restrictions to buffer zones for cities and towns or an amendment to no more than 500 feet. Chairman Gray asked for clarification regarding the transitional component. Mr. Paladini said that if these residential components are a week to ten days, they are not residential. The intent of a residential sober home is a transition from the treatment facility, whether it's in house or that partial hospitalization, to living on their own. It is a three-to-six-month transition. It's something the Town will want to look in to. He said he thinks it's worthwhile to say if this partial hospitalization operations are using homes for seven to ten days, then it's closer to Airbnb's than it is to a group home for the disabled. A transitional community residence is relatively short. It's really a transient stay. This is something staff can look in to and is an interesting twist. Chairman Gray said that he would like staff to look into the transitional community residence. Commissioner Watts said that to the point of the seven to ten days, there are organizations that have what they refer to as intensive outpatient programs. Residents work during the day and in the evening, they migrate to these houses. That's a sudden influx of people. How is that regulated. Mr. Paladini replied that it really doesn't fit into a group home for the disabled. Even though these folks aren't disabled, it doesn't emulate a family. It's more like an Airbnb rental. If there are violations on the premise such as narcotics use, they're not protected by Fair Housing Act. The house and the occupants may lose their protection. Under Fair Housing Act it's no longer a group home. Now it's just a party house, for instance. The code enforcement tools would be used for disorderly conduct type issues or laws. There was a concern in Prescott that this was going to happen, so they adopted a disturbance or disorderly residence ordinance. The process included law enforcement showing up a certain amount of times equaled the property owner charged a fee. These types of ordinances are often found in college towns. Prescott just looked at some and tweaked it to fit Prescott. Bottom line is if they are in violation, they Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 13 of 17 are no longer protected under the Fair Housing Act. They are considered a direct threat. Mr. Paladini said in his opinion, if it is throughout the entire house, they could lose their zoning group and report them to the Department of Health Services. The zoning code, code enforcement, building code, law enforcement and the Department of Health Services are all multiple tools that can be cobbled together and used as appropriate. Dr. Carol Rogala, said that she has been in practice for 27 years, board certified in emergency medicine, addiction medicine and primary care psychiatry. She said that this is big business. There are lists of all the people • who own sober livings, and they're passed around the rehab community. Their rehab community includes people like myself, drug counselors and the patients themselves and various social workers. If an individual cannot pay, they are tossed out. There are lines of people waiting to get in. She said that the term Intense outpatient sounds confusing when you hear the words. It is 3 hours a day of counseling for 3 or 4 days. A lot of times this is set up by the court system. A lot of these people have been to detox and then go to sober living. They've been court-ordered to do various things. If they don't, depending on whatever their conviction was, they can get into a lot of trouble. So intense outpatient, they're not seeing a doctor. There's no medical care, even though it says outpatient, it's counseling. As far as a detox facility here and maybe there are plans for another one, but the truth of the matter is well over 90% of patients are done outpatient There is no reason for these luxury rehabs other than people have money, and they do it. John Kavanagh, State Representative and Fountain Hills resident, said this situation is one of the worst threats he has ever seen to Fountain Hills. He said that the first thing to is to push the envelope in terms of regulations and laws. He said that if an attorney says there is a 70% chance of losing, that's a 30% chance of winning. It's worth the effort to do that. He said he spent six years on the Fountain Hills Town Council and always said to the attorneys "stop telling me what I can't do, tell me what I can do for our community." The second thing is to be prepared to defend this in court. Ensure that the Town Council is totally behind & pushing the envelope - doing all they can. If not, the Town's reputation is that they roll over on these issues. The third is something residents have to do if they live near one of these homes, they must document problems. In court documentation is key. He said he met with residents and an enforcement person from the Department of Health Services. The meeting resulted in some potentially valuable information about these sober living homes doing more than they're supposed to be doing, and about the qualifications of a supervising doctor. The enforcement person from the Department of Health Service promised to investigate. In addition, it was learned that unfortunately, sex offenders can't be kept out of a sober living home, but they must be on the registry. The bottom line is this is a big threat to the Town. The Town has to do whatever it can reasonably to keep the ordinances strong and enforce them strong. It needs the backing of a Town Council who ultimately have to pass these rules, tell staff to adopt those regulations and stick behind them, even if it means a court battle. He said that he wants Fountain Hills to be safe and do whatever it takes to keep it safe. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 14 of 17 Cathy Marx, Fountain Hills resident, said that she lives on East Nicholas Drive, two houses away from a practicing sober living home. They're practicing how to live soberly, which means mistakes. She said she was told that a drug drop off was observed in front of her house..She said she asked people who find drug paraphernalia to collect it. She held up a bag with items found in the neighborhood. She said this is the reality of citizens and is so tired of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens having no rights, everyone seems to have more rights than we do. So that's being said, we are documenting. She said the collection she held up in the bag was only two weeks' worth. She said she is glad these were collected before a child picked it up and put it in its mouth. That's what we're living with. She thanked the Commission and said keep up the good work, it is appreciated. Larry Myers, Fountain Hills resident, said this situation is similar to what he experienced in Austin, TX. He said Miss Marks is right because the Fair Housing Act and the Americans for Disabilities Act, while saying they are creating equality, are creating greater equality for the disabled. He recently spoke with Mr. Wesley regarding one of the sober living homes. Mr. Wesley informed him that the Town does not have the authority to shut them down and referred him to the state agency. He said that when he called the State, he found out there was only one person working down there and they would look it to it. That conversation took place on February 1st. He said he supports what Representative Kavanaugh said about pushing the envelope. The citizens have as many rights as do the disabled. We are equal. It is about equality. Crystal Cavanaugh, Fountain Hills resident, said that she supports the Commission for trying to provide the residents with protective ordinances, specifically outlining requirements for these group homes to slash home based businesses within the residential neighborhoods, including businesses. She said that the state is the entity providing the oversight and monitoring of these licensed sober living homes, but this is an illusion. When she called the Arizona Department of Health Services, she found out that the state has no regular monitoring of the homes other than a yearly visit, and clearly not enough staff assigned to achieve this. There is one man, Wesley Sisson, who is solely responsible for overseeing the ever-growing sober living industry located within our residential neighborhoods. One man for all of Arizona. These yearly visits are actually scheduled in advance. They're not even spontaneous. The homes know precisely when the state is coming, how difficult is it to be in compliance for one day when the homes are given you a heads-up. The sober living licensing stipulates these homes must not provide the clients with any onsite medical or clinical services or medication administration. The state determines that a current medication list for a recovery client is on file, but they don't actually monitor which medications are being provided and where this even occurs. Currently, there are no local oversight of these sober living homes. Where is the accountability for the clients, the neighbors and the community? Local code enforcement is limited by whether they have obtained their $50 business license and the clustering of homes. And of course, we're always threatened with interference or discrimination towards the protective Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 15 of 17 group even when it's not the case. This is an unacceptable level of monitoring that our community is told to depend on and we desperately need to be allowed some level of oversight at the local level, in addition to modifications of state regulations for the benefit of all involved, as Representative John Kavanaugh indicated, a small group of us have been addressing concerns with him and others from the state. Hopefully, some resolution can occur and the ordinances put forth from tonight are the strongest possible to be used as a valuable tool towards achieving some level of equitable accountability. Liz Gildersleeve, Fountain Hills resident, thanked the Commission for leading the issue of stronger ordinances in our Town for sober homes and detoxification facilities. Stronger ordinances and regulations will only benefit homeowners and the neighborhoods. From the Town's current lack of strong ordinances and minimal oversight, these recovery businesses have been working overtime the last few months to paint themselves as saintly victims whose only desire is to help people with drug and alcohol addictions. To the Fountain Hills residents in this room, there is no shame in asking your Town officials to better regulate and oversee the sober homes in your neighborhoods and be proactive about violations. Continue to speak up, ask questions, demand action and accountability. No one moved to Fountain Hills to be surrounded by sober homes. She said she thoroughly enjoyed hearing the discussion tonight and is hopeful that the Town staff will work with the Commission to finally put pen to paper and create fearless, bold, detailed-oriented ordinances that will benefit the Town. Steve Baggio, Fountain Hills resident, said that Fountain Hills does not need any more sober homes in a Town with a population of 24,000 and with a large population of seasonal residents. Regulations and zoning restrictions need to be in place so that our neighborhoods can become more family orientated and not filled with sober homes in short-term vacation rentals in every block. There is a problem with people and families trying to find homes for sale in this Town as is and do not need to add to this problem. Many of us left big cities and big city problems to live in Fountain Hills. If the Town allows more sober homes, Fountain Hills will lose its charm and the small town feel that we all adore. Let us work together to make Fountain Hills the great Town it should be, and not to let it turn into decay and a half-empty urban wasteland of a town that motorists hit the gas pedal when they approach. He asked the Commission to do what's in the best interest of saving our neighborhoods and not lining the pockets of business operators that live nowhere close to Fountain Hills. Chairman Gray thanked the speakers and the public for attending the meeting. Mr. Paladini noted the Town can preclude or prohibit level 2 and 3 sex offenders from residing in any of the homes. Chairman Gray said he is in agreement with the following: clarification of the definitions, number of occupants, family cap at four occupants, the group home cap at eight occupants. He said he would like to see the transitional home cap at six occupants. He said the 1200 feet separation is essential because of the a Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 16 of 17 Town topography. The addition of the prohibition of level 2 and 3 sex offenders. Commissioner Watts agreed with Chairman Gray but suggested that the six occupants should include the manager. Commissioner Kovacevic suggested that the categories be clearly stated in the ordinance. He suggested three categories: less than 30 days stay in a more restricted zoning class, 30-to-365-day stay would fall under a multi-family and greater than 365 days would fall under a single-family zoning district. He agreed that the manager should count as one of the six occupants. In response to Commissioner Dempster, Mr. Wesley said that the definition "Community Residence" term is used throughout the industry. Although the definition says "self-governing", the ordinance can be written to include staff in the total number of occupants. Chairman Gray asked that the Town's legal department look into the definition of the 7 to 14 days stay range which seems to be the model in Fountain Hills today. He asked if the proof of insurance information can be requested during the application process. Commissioner Watts noted that at a previous meeting a Commission discussion decided that an additional insurer be named as a Fountain Hills requirement. Commissioner Dempster noted that the application needed revisions. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Wesley confirmed that there is a two-week notification requirement, to schedule an earlier meeting would be challenging. In response to Commissioner Watts, Chairman Gray replied that a moratorium cannot be placed on sober living homes. Chairman Gray concluded the discussion by saying there was no motion or vote to be made. He thanked the public, Staff and the Commission for their time. 7. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. None. 8. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director. None. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of February 14, 2022 17 of 17 Mr. Wesley said he would be reviewing the Commissions input regarding the group homes. He said that he will present the updates to the ordinance regarding group homes at the next meeting scheduled on March 14, 2022. 9. REPORT from Development Services Director. None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held February 14, 2022, adjourned at 10:16 p.m. PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION airman P ATTESTED AND PREPARED BY: Pc LaidailLA 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 February 14, 2022. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this day of March 31, 2022. 11nn ulp-A,JeLj Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant I I I