Fountain Hills Planning Commission continues review of proposal to add 11 homes in Plat 106

Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, voted 5‑2 to continue consideration of a special‑use permit that would allow 11 residential units on 11 noncontiguous parcels in Plat 106. The commission set an Oct. 13, 2025, date for the next hearing and asked staff to pursue follow‑up on homeowner/POA arrangements, parking and access dimensions and a broader master plan for the undeveloped portions of Plat 106.

The proposal, presented by planner Farhad Tavasoli and developer Wilson Ijum of Design Group, would place nine cottage‑style single‑family units and two mixed‑use buildings on scattered lots in the community‑commercial zoning district north of El Pueblo Boulevard between Fountain Hills Boulevard and Ivory Drive. Two of the mixed‑use parcels would feature commercial space on the ground floor and residential units above; each mixed‑use footprint was described as about 1,250 square feet. Staff noted the applicant added common‑area features in the latest plan, including a roughly 5,500‑square‑foot open area, a dog park and new parking along an alley.

"We believe the use is consistent with the character type and believe it's a good infill opportunity," Tavasoli told the commission, and added staff was "recommending approval based on this latest iteration." He cautioned that several site‑level details would be resolved at site‑plan review.

Developers and commissioners debated multiple implementation details during a nearly three‑hour discussion. Commissioners raised concerns about the project's fragmentation — 11 units scattered on individually owned small parcels — and whether repeated piecemeal conversions within Plat 106 are undermining the long‑term viability of that commercial area. "This is making a mess out of a marquee corner," Commissioner Gray said, urging consideration of a master plan for the broader Plat 106 area before approving more conversions.

Commissioners and staff also pressed technical concerns: driveway widths and tandem garage lengths, safe backing and visibility at alley access, and building‑fire code/egress questions. Staff and the applicant discussed a driveway labeled as 24 feet on the concept plan and noted planning practice often expects a 20‑foot driveway; commissioners asked staff to seek 20‑foot driveway dimensions at the site‑plan stage. The applicant described the garages as a combined garage/carport arrangement and said he had reoriented units and given up lots to improve visibility and circulation.

Applicant Wilson Ijum, who said he has negotiated to acquire some lots and worked with the Plat 106 property owners' association, said the units would be sold as single‑family lots targeted to young households rather than rentals. "My market target is young, young couples," Ijum said, and he told commissioners he would maintain the proposed dog park and that he would work with the POA and, if necessary, form an HOA or condo agreement to handle maintenance and CC&Rs.

Residents and POA representatives spoke during public comment. Rod Warburg, president of the Tract 106 property owners association, said the area identified as "open space" on plan graphics is intended as a pedestrian and parking connection, not a planted park. "This is going to be a pathway. It isn't going to be open space, it will be a pathway to connect parking lots," Warburg said. Barry McBride, another POA board member, told commissioners the POA takes management seriously and that some POA members already fund maintenance costs.

Other public commenters raised issues the commission asked staff to note, including questions about who would pay for maintenance of the common area and dog park, whether an HOA could coexist inside a larger POA, compatibility with adjacent dwellings and the church (the applicant described a 10‑foot separation to the church and said second‑floor windows would meet egress requirements), and health‑and‑siting concerns related to nearby wireless infrastructure.

Commissioners did not take a final vote on the special‑use permit. Instead the commission voted to continue the hearing to Oct. 13, 2025, and directed staff to: (1) explore legal and practical options for an HOA or equivalent mechanism to address maintenance, trash, and parking on common parcels that the applicant proposes to use; (2) consider whether a master plan for undeveloped portions of Plat 106 is warranted; (3) confirm driveway/parking dimensions and resolve tandem garage/clearance questions at the site‑plan stage; and (4) ensure required approvals from the Plat 106 POA are documented before permits are issued.

The Oct. 13 hearing will be the next formal opportunity for commissioners to act; staff said site‑plan and replatting processes would follow if the commission and then council eventually approve the SUP. The commission's continuance passed on a roll call vote with five aye votes and two nay votes (Commissioners Corrigan, Gray, Steven, Vice Chair Corey and Chairman Kovacevic voted yes; Commissioners Proctor and Schlossberg voted no).