Planning commission continues review of proposal for 11 homes in Plat 106, asks staff to study POA/HOA and master plan

The Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 11 voted to continue consideration of a special-use-permit request that would allow 11 residential units on 11 noncontiguous parcels in Plat 106, moving the matter to the commission's Oct. 13 meeting so staff can address outstanding issues including parking, the relationship between a proposed homeowners association and the existing property-owners association, and master-planning for the remainder of Plat 106.

The applicant seeks permission for 11 new residences in a site zoned Community Commercial at the corner of El Pueblo Boulevard and North Fountain Hills Boulevard. Under the latest proposal, nine of the residences would be single-family “cottage-style” units (conceptual plans at roughly 1,300 square feet each), and two units would be part of a two-story mixed-use pair with commercial on the first floor and residential on the second. The applicant also proposed a roughly 5,500-square-foot common area, a small dog park and a trash/recycling enclosure.

Staff planner Farhad described the application as a “significantly modified” iteration of a proposal the commission denied in January, and said the current plan addressed several earlier concerns. Farhad recommended the commission approve the SUP but warned that “there are some details that will still need to be worked out should the commission and then ultimately the council approve this project and that will be addressed at the site plan stage.” He said staff and planning department colleagues would “commit quite a bit of time in making sure those details are addressed,” specifically referencing driveway widths, architectural treatments under Chapter 19 of the zoning code and the functionality of proposed common areas.

Developer and applicant Wilson Ijim of Design Group said he had met with members of the Plat 106 property-owners association and neighbors since January and that revisions were made to increase visibility in the alley and to orient the mixed-use buildings toward Fountain Hills Boulevard. “My market target is young couples,” Wilson said, describing the project as an attempt to provide smaller, lower-cost for-sale housing for young residents working in the area.

Commissioners and public speakers, including several representatives of the Plat 106 Property Owners Association, raised multiple practical concerns: parking and alley access; the dimensions and safety of the proposed tandem garage/carport arrangements; who would maintain the dog park and common area; whether an HOA should be required; and the project’s piecemeal pattern, which commissioners said further fragments a partially developed commercial plat. Commissioner Gray said the product itself was “probably fine” but opposed the proposal because of how repeatedly Plat 106 had been subdivided and converted from commercial to residential on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Rod Warburg, president of the Plat 106 POA, said the POA takes management of the tract seriously and warned that creating an internal HOA inside an existing POA would be “an incredible mess.” Barry McBride, a POA board member, said some POA responsibilities—such as parking-lot upkeep—already are being handled by volunteers.

Technical and code questions were raised repeatedly. Staff measured an interior garage dimension near 22 feet and noted proposed driveways labeled 24 feet on the conceptual plan; staff emphasized that two-way drive aisles are typically 26 feet and that the zoning code requires covered parking for single-family homes. Staff also said questions about fire and building-code compliance for tandem garage/carport arrangements would be determined by building-safety and fire officials at the site-plan or building-permit stage.

Because ownership of several small lots differs across many owners, multiple commissioners urged a broader approach. The commission directed staff to pursue further discussions with the applicant and Plat 106 stakeholders about an HOA/POA agreement, parking/access arrangements, and whether a master plan for the remaining undeveloped portions of Plat 106 is feasible. The commission voted to continue the item to the Oct. 13 meeting to give staff time to develop those options; the continuance passed by a 5–2 vote.

Next steps: the applicant will return at the Oct. 13 Planning and Zoning meeting; staff said site-plan review and replatting (where required) would be part of subsequent administrative steps if the SUP ultimately proceeds. Several commissioners said they expect detailed site-plan review to include final driveway widths, parking calculations and the legal arrangements (HOA or covenants) needed to guarantee maintenance of shared features such as the dog park and trash enclosure.