Fountain Hills planning commissioners approve revised downtown overlay, raise density to 50 units per acre

Fountain Hills planning commissioners voted 6-0 June 9 to recommend approval of Ordinance 25-02, the town’s proposed downtown overlay, after amending the draft to increase residential density and modify the Avenue boundary.

The vote came after a multihour public and commissioner discussion of allowed ground-floor uses, parking impacts, sidewalk widths and special-use permit requirements. Director West, the town staff presenter, told commissioners that the overlay’s goals are to “have a more active and vibrant avenue, more employment opportunities in the area, more mixed use, and to find ways to better use and maintain some of the vacant properties until they can be developed.”

The commission’s action recommends increasing the by-right residential density in the overlay area to 50 units per acre (matching density already permitted on the south side of the avenue), removing the proposed restriction on first-floor uses along part of the Avenue of the Fountains, revising the Avenue boundary to exclude a constrained corner parcel, and directing staff to amend code language to recognize existing easements or plat setbacks. The commission left existing parking rules unchanged and retained the existing special-use-permit (SUP) pathway for uses not allowed by right.

Commissioners cited several objectives behind the changes: encourage mixed use and street-level activity, avoid forcing existing businesses out, and keep redevelopment feasible for small building owners. Director West emphasized the overlay is intended to apply when new leases are signed or properties become vacant, not to displace current tenants: “all the existing uses can stay where they are and they can still be there many years in the future.”

Business and property owners who spoke at the meeting urged caution. Dory Whitridge, who said she owns two buildings on the Avenue of the Fountains and operates local businesses, told the commission she purchased those properties as office/retail buildings and that “I didn't purchase restaurant buildings. I purchased 2 buildings that were built without any thought of the electrical requirements, the plumbing, the specialty requirements that a restaurant requires.” Whitridge argued forced conversions could be costly and risk long vacancies.

Property owner Roger Isaacs said he supported changes that make redevelopment feasible but urged the commission to keep the full SUP process available and to consider lowering SUP costs: “An SUP cost people thousand dollars. So I think there's some goodness here, and I I would encourage you to consider voting.” Vice Chair Corey argued for flexibility on parking and supported allowing the corner lots to rely on common parking in Plat 208, saying visitors typically “find an empty spot and they park there.”

Commissioners debated technical elements in the draft ordinance that affect street character and walkability. The draft includes a build-to line requiring roughly 70% of a building’s frontage to be within five feet of the front property line to foster a continuous street wall; commissioners discussed allowing up to 30% of frontage to be set back to accommodate outdoor seating or other uses. Staff noted that some plats include recorded setbacks or easements (for example, along Parkview) and recommended code language be modified to recognize those exceptions.

Staff presented parking examples to illustrate potential constraints: a roughly 40,000-square-foot corner lot (used in the staff example as the Chase Bank parcel) could require about 290 parking spaces if fully redeveloped as a two-story commercial building; if all five large corner lots were redeveloped as one-story commercial buildings, staff estimated demand of more than 1,300 spaces versus about 2,500 total parking spaces in the area. Commissioners said those estimates supported keeping the current parking requirements while using shared resources such as Plat 208 when appropriate.

The motion recommending approval with the changes described was made by Commissioner Proctor and carried on a roll-call vote of 6-0 (Proctor, Corrigan, Schlossberg, Seabom, Vice Chair Corey and Chairman Kovacevic voted aye). The commission did not change the SUP fee structure at this meeting and explicitly left parking rules in the draft ordinance unchanged.

Next steps: the commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Town Council for consideration. Staff was instructed to prepare ordinance amendments reflecting the commission’s direction — the higher residential density cap, the Avenue boundary revision, the setback/easement language adjustment and the retained parking provisions — for council review.