[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6574422,"mediaKeyId","3076645-b931826a4047d410c233973cd606b89b","parentId",3076645,"title","Fountain Hills planning commission continues debate on downtown overlay ordinance to June 9","audioSeconds",3407,"startMs",609000,"endMs",4016000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3076645-b931826a4047d410c233973cd606b89b&start=609&end=4016","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3076645-b931826a4047d410c233973cd606b89b/thumbnail_609000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6574422/Fountain-Hills/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Fountain-Hills-planning-commission-continues-debate-on-downtown-overlay-ordinance-to-June-9","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574422-aee13fb195db7e40c36e58f9519657bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201910&Signature=A~eJ-DsvQXBDCo9HJPPWoRT9B1btG8oeHQxX9O-4j~MBAyXLlpQs0zIj4IIPA294Feztljruob9QmqBSA7Do~rJB5T5eNHUFqv4UC7wEERHFhpLiuNHUt~cuMbxuJAbrea-BCPOxj0iooPZ8DzbQzKSN1fvSIOX1apDgQxGLRcr1QTbpslLHHAMqkuEPDy8EPJlLhl-x6eFxfE0ygZSpbcguN9cl4xHgIjYrd1VN2yrrRA-Ua922AEgfSwckkWQYuQX8IKNzpcTFjDVygFza2mPWGAUdArhEGJqyPVq3UGDtPh4elH85hsNWMbdIG-jyCMB4YIrIosOm2TVhy3FfUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Fountain Hills","date","2025-04-22T03:52:29.237Z","article","The Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission on April 21 continued consideration of Ordinance 25-02, a proposed downtown overlay that would create a three-part “downtown overlay” including an Avenue District with requirements for active ground-floor uses, modified residential density limits and new special-use permit rules for some first-floor uses.

The commission voted unanimously to continue the item to the June 9 regular meeting so staff can return with revised calculations and additional stakeholder input. Commissioner Gray made the motion to continue and Commissioner Proctor seconded; a roll call recorded six ayes and no nays.

Why it matters: The ordinance would change what types of businesses can locate along the Avenue of the Fountains, alter how many residential units are allowed on upper floors and affect how parking obligations are applied to several large corner parcels in Plat 208. Property owners and business representatives said the proposed text could limit use of existing buildings and leave large parcels hard to redevelop.

Staff presentation and proposal

A planning staff member summarized the ordinance as a consolidation of two existing overlay zones into a single downtown overlay with three subdistricts. The presentation described an Avenue District where, within about 50 feet of the right-of-way, the ordinance would prioritize ‘‘active’’ ground-floor uses such as restaurants, cafes and retail; other first-floor uses could still be allowed only by special-use permit. The staff presentation also proposed raising allowable residential density on upper floors to about 30 units per acre (described in the draft as calculated from square footage per floor) and retaining a provision that would allow up to a 50 percent parking reduction on large corner lots through a special-use permit.

Public comments and property-owner concerns

Several property owners addressed the commission during the public comment period. Suzanne Isaacs, who identified herself as a nearby building owner, said residents and property owners were unaware the meeting was scheduled and urged better public notice. Roger Isaacs, a property owner on the Avenue, told commissioners he had only seen the latest revision the morning of the meeting and said he did not believe the draft was ready to forward to council. Isaacs said the proposed change from a units-per-acre approach to a square-foot-per-unit calculation could prevent multiple vacant parcels from being redeveloped and would make it difficult for large corner lots to meet parking requirements if they were converted to higher-intensity uses.

Larry Myers, who said he serves on a committee seeking potential corporate employers for Fountain Hills, urged a broader vision for the Innovation District and argued that attracting an employer could organically revitalize the avenue.

Commission discussion and staff clarifications

Commissioners focused much of their discussion on three linked concerns: how large corner lots in Plat 208 would be treated; whether Verde River Drive should be used as a pedestrian connector and be included in the Avenue District; and how parking reductions for corner lots would affect the feasibility of restaurants or other high-activity uses.

Staff noted that four large corner lots created when Plat 208 was developed had historically been required to provide their own parking, and that those lots had been allowed a 50 percent parking reduction only by special-use permit in a prior update. The staff member also said the South Side of the avenue was not proposed for inclusion in the overlay because a development agreement (DA) tied to that property would lock it to its existing base zoning even if an overlay were applied.

Commissioners proposed several options to address owner concerns, including:
- Revising the density calculation language (units per acre versus square footage per floor).
- Seeking further input from the Plat 208 association about whether the 50 percent parking reduction is adequate or should be increased.
- Considering limited exemptions or tailored treatment for the large corner lots so existing uses are not inadvertently prohibited.

Formal action

The commission voted to continue Ordinance 25-02 to the June 9 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to allow staff to return with clarifications and additional analysis, including further review of the density calculations and parking impacts on the identified corner lots. Motion to continue: Commissioner Gray. Second: Commissioner Proctor. Vote: Corrigan — yes; Gray — yes; Proctor — yes; Seaman — yes; Vice Chair Corey — yes; Chairman Kova Sevic — yes (6–0).

What’s next

Staff told commissioners it will prepare additional materials for the June 9 meeting, including revised density language and more detailed parking calculations for the affected Plat 208 parcels, and plans to solicit further input from the Plat 208 board and the Avenue merchants. The commission did not forward a recommendation to council; rather, it continued discussion to allow more stakeholder outreach and data-driven refinements.

Ending note: The ordinance, if later recommended by the commission and adopted by town council, would change how the Avenue of the Fountains is regulated for uses, density and parking, and property owners with development agreements or special plat provisions would be key stakeholders in shaping the final text.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","April 21, 2025 Planning and Zoning Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission on April 21 continued consideration of Ordinance 25-02, a proposed downtown overlay that would create an Avenue District with active ground-floor uses, altered residential-density calculations and changes to parking rules, and voted to take the item up again June 9.","taxTitle","Fountain Hills, Maricopa County, Arizona","taxId",58389,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6574414,"Commission delays sign-code changes to May after resident and former-planner testimony",99,5152000,5251000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3076645-b931826a4047d410c233973cd606b89b&start=5152&end=5251","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3076645-b931826a4047d410c233973cd606b89b/thumbnail_5152000.jpg","/articles/6574414/Fountain-Hills/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Commission-delays-sign-code-changes-to-May-after-resident-and-former-planner-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574414-b8d089d8b8d020ddd2889f0bdb7b125c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201910&Signature=EodPT05e27Kzy~Xahs5xd5ox2IY1sBYjTcr5EVtdM1bBh1Er7cqa3sY7c7wA4X~6IYS2G3fo4OIn-ReSz4wKE7H25HKme62m1bG5YkXakedq2Ss5y3aDUoSRHgT5vHfQNj75DgjUfHQjHqUS0cfVc1EdkYEf0znv5e2cZuKRScubyv36NSdS7jvX8segUpvH0PSnRb9vLOKoWWWb25jxidglpmEESbsS7CVLwMSKUvW9O2jf7AihbphF7iYvNn5ucnrrMH01CXkuklHM~Cc0PyZtvpOCUmBGvwDGArb84n-vxmL~uKeyqPHgsdCm-~sLpNNxfdrjShHnXfe9QyAC1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6–0 on April 21 to defer proposed amendments to the town sign code (agenda item 7) to the commission’s May meeting after public comment urged caution on changes to A-frame and yard sign rules.

Why it matters: The sign-code review could alter the number, size and display times for temporary signs used by businesses and residents. Public testimony at the meeting argued for retaining sunrise-to-sunset limits, keeping A-frame sign counts low and preserving current size limits to protect safety and Fountain Hills’ visual character.

Public testimony and commission action

Gene Schlachta, a 30-year Fountain Hills resident who served previously on town planning staff and the commission, urged commissioners to preserve existing limitations and said increasing the number or display time of A-frame signs would harm town aesthetics and could create safety hazards. Schlachta specifically opposed increasing the number of permitted A-frame signs from one to four and increasing yard-sign limits.

Following public comment, Commissioner Grama moved and Commissioner Corrigan seconded a motion to take the sign-code item up at the May meeting; the motion passed on a roll-call vote with six ayes (Corrigan, Gray, Proctor, Seaman, Vice Chair Corey and Chairman Kova Sevic).

Next steps

Staff will present the sign-code proposal at the May meeting so commissioners can hear a fuller presentation and gather additional public input before any recommended changes are forwarded to council.","The Planning and Zoning Commission moved consideration of proposed sign-code changes (agenda item 7) to the May meeting following public comments urging retention of current limits on A-frame and yard signs and requests for broader resident outreach.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6574417,"Commission begins rewrite of wireless communications rules, asks staff to return with Campanelli draft elements",736,4311000,5047000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3076645-b931826a4047d410c233973cd606b89b&start=4311&end=5047","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3076645-b931826a4047d410c233973cd606b89b/thumbnail_4311000.jpg","/articles/6574417/Fountain-Hills/Maricopa-County/Arizona/Commission-begins-rewrite-of-wireless-communications-rules-asks-staff-to-return-with-Campanelli-draft-elements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574417-2131ec78ba739484e6bb0e1c18d771f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771201910&Signature=JoX4-wJq88eI1Vwj0Y7yDq1PgKelBdnVgIWPOCAPJDd9u1mQf5VNCs377zzO0yedNuKDotdsZi61w75rdL2QWyICCATDzDu~kJ6zqd9gJMsTXoAMfudlUe4UWSj4Xm7SCQ3VjfEqgMDh8E5yF5l1Ry2m3zaHAECcLQT8eoGLb-Q0ywcxYZ2vwA8-isn5-ue3FILlLylGIVx-pvu3g0UGMCgr0Nd422mcXxaBzOQO6h0ukKxu6~FWlxwlJPVDDBucf33OgKr-6cSfbiC96iVvvmMY1DNm0uhfVDBweXTSZup5~nKc2BpwrTzJ27SBWnuivbQVuOA4ajWhed1sUHTjVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning and Zoning Commission on April 21 resumed a multi-meeting review of Chapter 17, the town’s code on wireless communication towers and antennas, and directed staff to bring back a consolidated draft for the May meeting that draws from attorney Michael Campanelli’s model ordinance while addressing local issues such as setbacks, stealth or camouflage design, and equipment vaulting.

Why it matters: Changes to Chapter 17 could affect where towers and poles may be sited, the required separation from residences, whether equipment must be placed underground, and the process for public review. Those rules interact with Chapter 16 (right-of-way and small-cell deployments), which commissioners said should be reviewed in tandem to avoid unintended outcomes.

Staff briefing and commission direction

A planning staff member reviewed prior council direction to examine the current ordinance and the Campanelli draft. Staff outlined topics where commissioners had asked for additional detail: stealth/camouflage technology; noise limits and generator sound mitigation; vaults or underground equipment; separation and setback distances from residential uses; colocation expectations and power/fiber; and application procedures distinguishing administrative from public-review proposals.

Commissioners asked staff to return with a draft that more closely incorporates Campanelli’s recommended language while reconciling procedural differences with the town’s existing code. Several commissioners emphasized that Chapter 16 (right-of-way small-cell rules) and Chapter 17 (parcel-based towers) should be considered together because stricter rules for parcel-based towers could drive providers to deploy more small cells in the public right-of-way.

Separation, fall-zone and effective-prohibition concerns

Commission discussion focused on setbacks from residential uses and the risk of effectively prohibiting service if separation distances are set too large. Staff said the previously discussed option would require an SUP for all towers and prohibit towers within 300 feet of residential uses, with the commission’s direction that no exception be permitted below a 300-foot threshold. Commissioners questioned whether that standard would leave few viable sites and asked staff to produce maps showing where a 300-foot separation (and other alternatives) would leave available space.

Operational details discussed

Commissioners and commenters raised other specific topics for the draft ordinance:
- Require undergrounding of power and fiber to cabinets if feasible and consider vaulting of equipment.
- Institute RF testing requirements beyond post-construction testing, including consideration of random or annual testing and stronger documentation of claimed “gap” service evidence (for example, drop-call records or independent drive tests).
- Strengthen provisions for stealth/camouflage design and dark-sky compliance and add clear building-code and structural review standards.
- Consider security, maintenance bonds and indemnification language tied to tower installations.

Public comments

Several members of the public spoke in favor of a stronger ordinance. Larry Myers urged the commission to adopt rules that would support a broader innovation strategy and attract employers. Laurie Treller, who has worked on telecom ordinance issues, told commissioners the Campanelli draft was intentionally written to survive litigation and recommended using that draft as the foundation. Gene Schlachta urged broad resident outreach and warned against relaxing sign and aesthetic controls while changes are considered.

Next steps

Staff said it will bring a consolidated draft that incorporates the Campanelli model language where appropriate and reconciles it with the town’s procedural code for the commission’s May meeting; commissioners requested maps and technical analysis showing how different separation distances would affect available tower locations. No formal vote was taken on the substance of the ordinance; the commission provided direction to staff and scheduled further review.","Planning commissioners resumed a months‑long review of Chapter 17 (wireless communications) and gave staff direction to prepare a draft ordinance that incorporates key elements of the Campanelli model ordinance, examines setbacks and separation distances, and considers underground equipment/vaults, RF testing and colocation requirements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Fountain Hills planning commission continues debate on downtown overlay ordinance to June 9

Commission delays sign-code changes to May after resident and former-planner testimony

Commission begins rewrite of wireless communications rules, asks staff to return with Campanelli draft elements