Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ.2021.1108.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Chairman Gray called the meeting of August 9, 2021, to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Peter Gray; Vice Chairman Scott Schlossberg; Commissioner Jessie Brunswig; Commissioner Clayton Corey; Commissioner Susan Dempster; Commissioner Dan Kovacevic; Commissioner Roderick Watts, Jr. Staff Development Services Director John Wesley; Senior Planner Farhad Present: Tavassoli; Executive Assistant Paula Woodward 3. CALL TO THE PUBLIC David Caribardi, Fountain Hills resident, said that a preliminary plat was submitted on 8/25 by a developer for an 13 home subdivision at 16400 Log Lane/parcel # 176-21-201. We are asking the Town to not grant or allow any form of waivers/ variances/cuts &fills/or re-zoning resulting in the development of this single family lot. This proposed subdivision is a major Safety Issue - much more vehicle traffic would be exiting from Log Lane, which is a very steep/short driveway to one house and cannot safely handle heavier traffic stacking up at the Golden Eagle stop sign awaiting the opportunity to complete left/right turns onto Golden Eagle at the mid-point of one of the steepest streets in the Town with a speed limit of 35mph (downhillers reach55mph).This area is a favorite of walkers & bikers due to the challenge of the climb! Golden Eagle is the major artery into Town for the entire northwest quadrant. Log Lane is in violation of current Town Safety guidelines due to its proximity to Paradox, the Town should not compound this unsafe situation by increasing the vehicle traffic by 10 to 12 times beyond the one house currently entering/exiting Log Lane onto Golden Eagle! Please make the safety of walkers/bikers&motorists the Town's#1 priority! For Safety Issues alone this proposal should be disallowed by the Town. Additionally, this development is on a very steep/narrow ridge and would most likely require many ordinance & zoning revisions- be in violation of hillside disturbance rules - require many special cut & fill waivers be the cause of future soil erosion—it presents difficulty meeting road frontage/lot size/set-back requirements— plus the current length of Log Lane has no pedestrian sidewalk for pedestrians (required in any new subdivision)! Zoning is to PROTECT our residents and our town from poor development deals! We need to STOP bailing out bad investment decisions Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 2 of 12 made by developers via the Town granting waivers/revisions/changes! This property was advertised and sold as a single residence lot- it always has been for 31 years and should remain so! The prior owner informed the buyer/developer of the restriction on further development, and they both signed/notarized at closing a document attesting to this fact vowing no attempt to develop! Had this Property been developable it would have been sold as such for 2 to 3 times the money paid. I met several years ago with the then head of Develpm't Services (Bob Rodgers). My concern was the possible development of the Log Lane lot in the future-and he ASSURED me that this could NEVER occur (not even a single additional lot). As I sat in his office amid the Officaldom of City Hall I felt confident to build our home(at 16225 Cerro Alto) three years ago, and we moved here as permanent residents from MI.This scenario has played out with many of the newer owners in the area, as they asked the same questions and were told by Town staff/real estate agents/closing agents that no further development could ever occur on this property. If this development is allowed, it will negatively impact the property values & resale ability of 37 adjacent residences. Had we thought this was ever possible, we would have built elsewhere. There should be no variances of any kind! Zoning is to protect our residents and our town! 4. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: approving the regular meeting minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Septmeber 13, 2021. MOVED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY Commissioner Dan Kovacevic to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 13, 2021. Vote: 7 -0- Unanimously 5. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION,AND POSSIBLE ACTION: SPECIAL USE PERMIT to allow 17 residential units on a 1.62-acre property generally located north of the northeast corner of N. Saguaro Boulevard and E. Shea Boulevard (AKA 9637 N. Saguaro Boulevard; APN#176-10-805) on the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. Chairman Gray opened the public hearing and Mr. Tavassoli reviewed the application. He said that the 1.62 acre subject property located at the corner of Saguaro and Shea Blvd is vacant and zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial and Professional.)The zoning is meant to provide a location for modest well-designed commercial enterprises to serve the surrounding neighborhood. It is part of the Redrock Business Center. Currently the center houses: an indoor car showroom, a fraternal order, a butcher shop and wellness center. The Monterra Ranch Condominiums are adjacent to the north and the former MCO realty office is to the south. REQUEST REVIEW STANDARDS Nature of Use Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 3 of 12 Special Conditions Proposed location of buildings, parking, etc. Traffic impacts and influences on adjacent uses Mr. Tavassoli said that the applicant is proposing a small development with six townhome-style buildings consisting of a total of 17, three-story residential units.The bottom floors of each unit will have a two-car garage. The top floors are living areas and balconies. The purpose for the special use permit request is to allow a residential use in a commercial district, as required by the zoning ordinance.The primary ingress/egress will be off of Saguaro Blvd, with limited access from the interior of the Redrock Business Center.The applicant will maintain a 20-foot building setback from the Monterra Ranch condominiums to the north, which is the required building setback to a residentially zoned property, and will contain a landscaped open area. The building height is twenty-five feet.The density would be nine and a half dwelling units per acre. These units would be for sale not rental units.The garage doors would not face Saguaro Blvd. In addition to the two car garages the applicant is providing nine parking stalls. The minimum requirement is five parking stalls. Staff recommends approval of the 17 residential units at the property at 9637 N. Saguaro Blvd. Staff believes that introducing residential would be less impactful than what the underlying zoning would allow for—C-1. In the past a proposal fora sixty-seven unit hotel was unanimously denied. Mr.Tavassoli concluded the applicant was present and available for any questions. In response to Vice Chairman Schlossberg, Kirk Harr, applicant, said that the set back and buffer between Monterra Ranch and the project would be twenty-five feet. The buffer would be the masonry wall and landscaping. The plan is to have as much open space as possible. Mr.Tavassoli identified on the site plan the dumpster area, guest parking, and buildings for Commissioner Dempster. Mr. Harr said that all units are three bedroom, two bathroom upper level. The interior buildings are all four unit buildings. The entry to the middle units are centered and the entrances to the outside buildings on the outside edge. The goal was to create more privacy. All bedrooms have access to outside decks. Discussion took place regarding the traffic flow impact on the alley way that runs along the property line that feeds in to businesses at the south end. Mr. Tavassoli said since this is a Special Use Permit the traffic control is not as detailed. The traffic flow would be examined in detail during the design review process. The primary egress/ingress would be Saguaro Blvd. and he did not think there would be much impact. The alley way marked "Trevino" is not a public right-of-way. Chairman Gray asked if the Redrock Business Center is in agreement with the proposed residential development. Mr.Tavassoli said he did not have any contact with the Redrock Business Center Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 4 of 12 regarding the proposed development. In response to Commissioner Corey, Mr. Tavassoli said the minimum space between the buildings is six feet. Larry Myers, Fountain Hills resident, said that he emailed the Commission with his thoughts on this project. He said he feels like he is living in Groundhog Day referencing the Fountain Hills Medical Center. He stated, "Why is this even before the Commission when there are so many unanswered questions." He believes that the traffic will be a big issue and a traffic study should be required along with a better prepared site plan. Chairman Gray asked if the mandatory notification letters were sent to the Redrock Business Center and the adjacent Monterra Ranch Condominiums. Mr.Tavassoli said that close to seventy letters were sent and he only received one inquiry from an owner at the Monterra Ranch Condominiums Chairman Gray asked if there was an opportunity to review the civil plans and the drive cut off Saguaro Blvd before approving the SUP. He said it may be time to modify the entrance that is immediately after the right turn from Shea Blvd on to Sagauro Blvd. Commissioner Brunswig suggested a "right hand turn only" from the proposed site's driveway. Mr.Tavassoli replied that it can certainly be discussed with the Town Engineer. Commissioner Dempster said these are great points but are not applicable to the SUP this evening. The details brought up tonight would be part of a detail review that would be submitted at a later time. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr.Tavassoli said there is not a public hearing that would follow approval of the Special Use Permit. Staff would encourage the public to review the site plan. There is no formal notification of the site plan. Vice Chairman Schlossberg said that he would welcome this project and the Monterra Ranch Community would be happy with this next to them. The vacant lot is an eyesore and serves as a turnaround for large delivery trucks. It does not exceed the twenty-five height maximum. This is a gateway area for Fountain Hills.The lot has been empty for so many years. Commissioner Corey suggested that the Commissioner could request a traffic study with the approval of the SUP. There are different ways to access the property. People may learn to exit or enter where they feel most comfortable. What if one of the tenants lease to a business with more traffic. There is no control over that. It happens naturally. Chairman Gray stated that a traditional traffic study is not going to make a difference. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 5 of 12 It needs to be specific to the access of Saguaro Blvd and the relationship to the Redrock Business Center. MOVED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey, SECONDED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve a Special Use Permit to allow for 17 residential units on a 1.62-acre property generally located north of the northeast corner of N. Saguaro Boulevard and E. Shea Boulevard (AKA 9637 N. Saguaro Boulevard; APN#176-10-805) on the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district with the stipulation of traffic study related to access on Saguaro Blvd is provided. Vote: 7-0- Unanimously 6. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Regarding Ordinance 21-17, amending Chapter 10, Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts, Section 10.04, General Provisions, to add design standards for single-family dwellings. Mr. Wesley explained that the proposed text amendment is to amend the Single Family Residential Zoning Districts, Chapter 10.04, to add design standards for single-family dwellings.He said recently staff has reviewed a few plans for single- family homes that look a lot like duplexes from the exterior and could easily be modified to become a duplex residential design standard.He referenced recent concerns from a neighborhood where this type of home design could be built on other vacant lots in the area that would also look like duplexes instead of single-family homes. Staff agreed to look at the possible changes to the ordinance to address the concern. Mr. Wesley gave a PowerPoint Presentation that reviewed: BACKGROUND EXAMPLES PROPOSAL DRAFT ORDINANCE Mr. Wesley concluded with telling the Commission that a decision doesn't have to be made tonight and they may have questions that require further research. In response to Vice Chairman Schlossberg, Mr. Wesley said that a single family home would only be allowed to have one metric meter. Commissioner Dempster commented that she is a real estate agent and that looking at the two examples shown in the PowerPoint Presentation, she would not expect those floor plans for a single family residence. She said she would consider them to be a duplex. She said she contacted a local architect for architectural guidelines. She was told when there is more than one entrance on the front elevation it is considered Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 6 of 12 a duplex. In her profession when a mirror image layout is present it is called a Gemini or twin home. She emphasized that this definition is used throughout the real estate industry. In response to Commissioner Corey, Mr. Wesley said that if an application is received with more than one kitchen area, the other non-primary kitchen(s) cannot equal more than 50%countertop square footage of the primary kitchen. Chairman Gray asked if the fire wall could be used as the main guide to determine what qualifies a single family residence, duplex, etc. Mr. Wesley said that the appearance from the street is part of the equation.The fire wall can be reviewed as one of the components. Commissioner Watts asked, is this a problem today or are we anticipating a problem. He suggested that there may be an educational opportunity for the building inspectors. Mr. Wesley replied that there was a situation for one neighborhood and another recent submittal that brought this to staffs attention. In order to prevent similar issues in the future staff choose to amend the ordinance now.There are changes in the market related to vacation rentals that increase concern regarding how dwellings might be designed and built within a single-family zoning districts. Discussion ensued regarding garages, their placement, what defines a kitchen and in-law suites. Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. Ron Thompson, Fountain Hills resident, spoke to the commission and submitted the following in writing: Representing 27 households in the neighborhood of a new home being built in R1- single-family zoning on E Palomino Blvd, I would like to demonstrate the need for modifications proposed in this agenda item to prevent a very duplex-looking and duplex-functioning home being built in R1- single family for the future. Such two-family-looking structures detract from our property values, neighborhood desirability, and highlight how a clever builder and architect can so widely deviate from single family home appearance and function without actually violating current codes or ordinances. We don't want the house being built in this instance setting a precedent. Chairman Gray closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dempster commented that this is very complex.There are two main components—exterior and interior. She said the intent at what is presented that there are many loopholes. She said that 157 multi-family properties are listed on the Maricopa County Accessor or website.They are primarily located on Saguaro Blvd. and Fountain Hills Blvd. Mr. Wesley commented that staff will make adjustments to the ordinance based on Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 7 of 12 the Commissions feedback. MOVED BY Chairman Peter Gray, SECONDED BY Commissioner Jessie Brunswig to continue to the December 13, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting, Regarding Ordinance 21-17, amending Chapter 10, Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts, Section 10.04, General Provisions, to add design standards for single-family dwellings. Vote: 7-0- Unanimously 7. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Regarding Ordinance 21-18, amending Chapter 4 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) and Chapter 10 (Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts) by adding new provisions for extensions to nonconforming structures on corner lots zoned for single-family residential use. Chairman Gray opened the public hearing and Mr. Tavassoli gave a PowerPoint Presentation that covered: BACKGROUND CURRENT ORDINANCE PROPOSED AMENDMENT Mr. Tavassoli said that this text amendment only pertains to corner lots. A corner lot always has a street side yard and a street front yard. The front property line is the shorter of two sides. In most cases the minimum building set back for a street side yard is twenty-feet especially in small-lot subdivisions. The interior side opposite that is either five feet or seven feet. Mr. Tavassoli explained that a non-conforming structure that was legally built not in compliance with the current zoning standards— is "grandfathered." This proposed text amendment would allow extension to encroach within the minimum build set back line on the street side yard. This only applies to nonconforming structures on corner lots and they must stay behind the existing wall plan and no closer than ten foot property line. In response to Chairman Gray, Mr. Tavassoli said that the structure needs to be flush with wall plane. Commissioner Kovacevic asked what the reason for this text amendment was. Mr.Tavassoli explained that over the past few years staff has received several building permit applications for residences on corner lots with additions being on the street-side yard of single-family homes (not along the front yard) in small front sub-divisions. Recently a case was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors for a variance request claiming an undue hardship. The case was for a corner lot with a non-conforming structure that wanted to build an addition. The board reviewed the case and felt it did not meet the criteria for approval. There was communication Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 8 of 12 between the applicant and Town management. Staff was directed to propose ordinance language that would allow a modest change to the ordinance. Commissioner Kovacevic expressed concern that the driver's sight line may be blocked on street located on the street side yard. In response to Commissioner Watts, Mr. Tavassoli said it applies to extensions only, including patios. Chairman Gray opened the public hearing. Heather Donnelly, Fountain Hills resident and applicant for the extension, explained that her home was built before the setbacks were put in place. She would like to build an addition to accommodate her father who lives with her. She noted that there must be other people in Town with the same situation. Chairman Gray closed the public hearing. MOVED BY Commissioner Susan Dempster, SECONDED BY Commissioner Clayton Corey to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve Ordinance 21-18, amending Chapter 4 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) and Chapter 10 (Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts) by adding new provisions for extensions to nonconforming structures on corner lots zoned for single-family residential use. Vote: 7-0- Unanimously The Commission took a ten-minute recess. 8. DISCUSSION and provide direction to staff regarding timing and process to prepare an ordinance to address detoxification facilities. Mr. Wesley said that at the September Commission meeting Chairman Gray suggested that it would be a good time for the Town to proactively explore the issue of providing for detoxification facilities. Staff agreed to place this on the November agenda for discussion and possible direction by the Commission. Last Spring a text amendment was proposed addressing the issue of detoxification facilities because it was not specifically listed in the zoning ordinance and there had been some inquires to establish such a use in the Town. The Commission voted to recommend denial of the ordinance and the Town Council did not address the topic. As the Commission and Council continued the discussion regarding the hospital use there was a lot of concern expressed from the public about allowing detoxification facilities in Fountain Hills. The Town Attorney advised the Council the Town cannot legally prohibit such uses in the Town. Mr. Wesley explained that given this is an issue and the Town is required to provide the use, it has been proposed to move forward to consider a possible amendment to allow the use and ensure the public will have the opportunity to be part of the process. He said the Commission needs to determine if the Commission is Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 9 of 12 ready to address this topic and if so establish a path to investigate and involve the public as options for making the recommendation to the Council. Mrs. Wesley reviewed the options as stated in the staff report. The options are: Which zoning districts should this use be allowed in? The only likely choices are C-2, C-3, IND-1 and IND-2. Should the use require approval of a Special Use Permit in one or more districts? The answer is likely to be "Yes". This will allow the Council to establish appropriate and necessary conditions of approval on the use based on ordinance requirements and the specific location. What, if any, standard conditions of approval should be placed on this type of use? This is likely the most significant question with the widest range of possibilities that will have to be reviewed and discussed to address the needs of the community but not be overly burdensome to the business. Mr. Wesley said that given these questions, and assuming the Commission does agree to move forward with addressing this topic, staff is suggesting the following general process and timeline for the consideration: November- P&Z general discussion and initial thoughts on the issue and direction for staff review January- Input from staff based on initial comments and questions from the Commission. Commission and public discussion of the topic. This will be an opportunity for the Commission and public to provide further input and comments to staff regarding how this use should be addressed and what possible impacts need to mitigated through the ordinance requirements February- staff follow-up on research and preliminary findings to address ideas and comments received March/April - public hearing on proposed ordinance John Meredith, Fountain Hills resident, said that the parking and traffic is aggravated by putting in the hospital. He said the last two years the property next to him is a rental property leased for commercial use as a sober living home. He said that he feels that there is no will in the Town to correct this issue. These sober living homes are violating the zoning ordinances. Andy Bennett, Director of Risk Management of Fountain Hills Recovery, said he also works for Recovery Consultants. He said that looking at statistics there are about 1700 people who need treatment in Fountain Hills. Currently, there is local location for them to get treatment. He is in support of the sober living home facilities. Larry Myers, Fountain Hills resident, said that he does not live next to a sober living home but he does have one located close to him. He said he has seen these people - they are not local Fountain Hills residents. He said he doesn't deny there is a need for Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 10 of 12 these places. He had a bad experienced with a property he owned in Texas regarding sober living homes. This will be worse than Prescott if the Town does not get a handle on it. Chairman Gray commented that we need to be really careful what is on the agenda for future meetings. He reminded the Commission the topic is to address the active process of detoxification facilities in a commercial zoning district not sober living residential homes. Mr. Wesley said that he understands that Chairman Gray's direction is for staff to research and come back with a text amendment in early 2022. He asked the Commission what they would like staff to focus on. Commissioner Brunswig asked if a public meeting was ever held on this type of topic. Chairman Gray said that since the January Commission meeting is already established he agreed that meeting would be good place for public input. Mr. Wesley said if the Commissioners think a Commission meeting is too formal of a meeting for public input, a separate meeting can be scheduled in January. At a January meeting we would want to make sure the Town Attorney would be present to answer legal questions. He is also available between now and the January meeting to assist staff and the Commission. Mr. Wesley said he would check with the Town Manager, Grady Miller, who is aware of the Commissions review of the topic, how involved the Town Council would like to be at this point in the process. Mr. Wesley said from what he heard at the Town Council meeting there was some recognition there to address the topic without the pressure of a specific request. In response to Commissioner Dempster, Mr. Wesley said that the Town Attorney rendered his opinion at a Town Council meeting stating that the Town cannot deny the use of detoxification facilities. Chairman Gray requested the Town provide more than one opinion to weigh in on the topic. He asked for staff to research similar services located in the Town. He said that would be where to find the federal tie regarding the inclusion piece. If the Town allows similar services that is where the Town Attorney is setting his disposition. If there are similar services then look to their scope and scale and tie it all together. Commissioner Watts said whether it is taxation, licensing, or oversight there needs to be a goal and needs to be what is best for the Town. Chairman Gray asked for staff to look at any economic impacts, town service impacts (MCSO) and any revenue impacts for adding services rendered. Commissioner Corey said another matrix to look at would be the number of people who were helped (positively impacted) at this type of facility in Town. In response to Vice Chairman Schlossberg, Mr. Wesley replied to his knowledge there are no detox facilities in Fountain Hills at this time. There are two to three sober Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 11 of 12 living homes.Through those homes the treatment is provided in and out of the home. Fountain Hills Recovery and Springboard Recovery provide sober living homes and out of home treatment. The treatment for Fountain Hills Recovery advertises partial hospitalization which is not located in Fountain Hills. Chairman Gray asked if the partial hospitalization programs are not going to be classified as detox programs. He said this needs to be very clear between sober living and the commercial business. Mr. Wesley said he agreed and it is a concern. He asked that the Commission keep in mind that the Sober Living Homes are a type of group home just as Senior Assisted Living Homes are a type of group home. There are services provided there that are not questioned. Commissioner Brunswig reminded the Commission and staff that state law will limit what the Town can and cannot do with sober living homes. Mr. Wesley replied the focus is detox. Commissioner Watts suggested that sober living and detox should be worked on simultaneously so that there is a clear definition. Chairman Gray suggested that the ordinances that have touch points with group homes, limits of residences and occupancy. Anything that falls under that pretense. Mr. Wesley acknowledged there are connections—if detox facilities are allowed there could be more sober living homes since one feeds the other. Maybe the caps of occupants need to be limited for the homes. Chairman Gray said that everyone talks about the Prescott model (which is primarily sober living not detox) and to understand it better to help us. Chairman Gray asked that a briefing presentation regarding detox research for the December meeting would be most ideal. Mr. Wesley agreed and concluded by saying that January has the option to have a public meeting or to push it forward. 9. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH to staff. None. 10. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS from Development Services Director. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 8, 2021 12 of 12 Mr. Wesley said he has a list to follow up on the single family design issues and the sober living.item. 11. REPORT from Development Services Director. Mr. Wesley said that the electronic permitting system that went live October 4, 2021, has been performing well for staff and the public.There have been very few issues. He told the Commission that the Town Council is wrapping up their review of the temporary sign ordinance. 12. ADJOURNMENT The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held November 8, 2021, adjourned at 9:15 p.m. P NING D ZO I G COMMISSION Chairman Peter Gray ATTEES�TEDr A, / AND PREPAREDBY: �� p AJ Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Planning and Zoning Commission Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the November 8, 2021. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 29th day of November, 2021. CALA ())4,..„).„,„,, Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant