Peoria Planning and Zoning Commission members on Oct. 2, 2025 heard a staff presentation on a proposed middle-housing code amendment intended to meet a state deadline of Jan. 1, 2026 and to comply with a 2024 legislative bill referenced in materials as "House Bill 27 21." The study-session presentation outlined where the city must allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and townhouses and sought input on several areas where the bill leaves local discretion.

The amendment matters because the state law requires Peoria to allow middle housing by right in specified scenarios or face a penalty that would require the city to allow it without locally adopted limits until the city adopts its code. "If we don't have the code amendment in place by the deadline, January 1, we have to allow it without any limitations, until we have the language completed and then codified," Director Hockas said during the presentation.

City staff described two specific situations the law creates: allowing middle housing by right on single-family zoned parcels within 1 mile of the city's central business district (identified in the meeting as the P83 entertainment area) and permitting middle housing in at least 20% of any new development of 10 contiguous acres or more. Staff recommended interpreting the 20% requirement as 20% of gross acreage of a development parcel, not 20% of units, and asked the commission for feedback on several other implementation choices.

Staff also summarized areas of local discretion and recommended approaches. Elias Valencia, a city planner, said staff proposes to: exclude planned area developments (PADs) and planned community developments (PCDs) from the statutory definition of single-family residential for this purpose; continue using existing local development controls such as setbacks and lot-coverage rather than adopting floor-area-ratio (FAR) limits (Peoria does not use FAR in single-family zones); and update parking rules consistent with the bill's provision that middle-housing units may require no more than one off-street parking space per unit.

On enforceability of homeowners' association restrictions, Director Hockas told the commission, "The bill is silent on HOA compliance. While it doesn't preempt an HOA's authority, it also doesn't expressly grant authority to a municipality." He said CC&Rs are private contracts between an HOA and its residents and the city would not be party to enforcement: "If someone came into the department and they, on a qualifying lot and they wanted to submit plans for, let's say, a duplex in a single family lot, and it met all of our requirements, we would be obligated to approve those plans and issue that permit." Staff noted any HOA enforcement would be a civil matter between the HOA and a property owner.

Commissioners asked about neighborhood character, height and parking. Staff noted that existing single-family residential districts in the city have a maximum building height of 30 feet and said middle-housing would be subject to that same cap. On parking, staff said the state bill allows the city to require no more than one space per middle-housing unit; however, Peoria's existing single-family parking rules still apply to single-family homes and can require two or three spaces depending on street width and allowable on-site parking. "Despite the impetus to treat single family and middle housing the same way, this would require that we allow no more or require no more than one space for middle housing unit," Director Hockas said.

A recurring concern from commissioners and staff was the potential mismatch between statewide preemption and local design objectives. Commissioner Cottrell noted the bill offers limited local discretion and asked whether cities are seeing appeals; staff responded that because the statute and related guidance provide narrow discretion, Peoria's ordinance is intentionally closely aligned with the bill and similar to other cities' approaches.

On unit counts, staff said the bill "does not expressly authorize a maximum unit count" and the draft ordinance therefore would not impose an arbitrary cap; instead, applicable development standards (setbacks, lot coverage, height, parking) would limit what fits on a given lot. Regarding the 20% provision, staff said it will be applied to gross acreage of a new development parcel rather than unit count so that a percentage is calculated on area rather than potentially variable unit mixes.

Staff also sought guidance on how to interpret the statute's exemption language. The bill explicitly excludes parcels that lack water or sewer service and areas within the vicinity of a military airport; staff recommended treating other references to "urban services" as requiring electrical and refuse service in addition to water and sewer for a site to qualify for middle housing.

Commissioners provided several points for staff to refine in the draft: clarify HOA interactions in written materials that will be available to residents, reassess parking implications for safety and emergency access, and confirm where PAD/PCD parcels should be treated as exempt or included. Commissioner Gaynor suggested adding response-area or service-capacity language if the commission wanted to consider public safety staffing when defining "urban services;" staff acknowledged that would require a practical way to administer such a rule.

Next steps: staff said the draft ordinance and supporting materials are posted online and that the commission will receive an updated draft at its next meeting. Staff told the commission they plan to return to the commission in two weeks with revisions and, if recommended by the commission, bring the item to the City Council on Nov. 18 for potential final action.

Background and sources: the presentation materials provided a copy of the proposed draft ordinance, a briefing sheet summarizing the bill, and a full copy of the state bill referenced in staff materials as "House Bill 27 21." The meeting record shows the matter was a study session item and no formal zoning ordinance was adopted at the Oct. 2 hearing.

Ending: Commissioners thanked staff for research and outreach, including coordination with the League of Arizona Cities. The commission did not take a formal vote on the text amendment at the Oct. 2 meeting; staff will bring a revised draft back for further commission review.