Fountain Hills planners discuss Chapter 6 sign rules; motion to recommend no change withdrawn

Planning and Zoning Commission members in Fountain Hills reviewed potential updates to Chapter 6 of the town zoning ordinance on May 12, 2025, including provisions for A-frame, banner, yard, railing and wall signs, but did not adopt changes after a motion to recommend no change was withdrawn.

The discussion grew from Council direction earlier in the year to re-evaluate the sign code. John (staff) summarized current rules: one A-frame sign per business (two if two public entrances), a six-square-foot limit for a single A-frame (nine square feet cumulative for two), and display only between sunrise and sunset. He said Council had suggested ideas including allowing up to four A-frame signs and increasing size limits, and asked the commission for feedback.

Commissioners broadly expressed concerns about visual clutter if allowances were loosened. "I just my my biggest concern is we increase the number of A-frame signs, and if every business in the village put up 4 A-frame signs, it would look like a flea market," Chairman Kovacevic said. Commissioner Corey and others said they supported businesses but worried that more signs left out overnight would create clutter; Corey suggested using the Special Use Permit (SUP) process for case-by-case exceptions. Commissioner Slossberg opposed leaving signs up overnight, and Commissioner Gray said the current ordinance was "pretty **** good" and questioned whether there had been a groundswell of merchant complaints to justify changes.

Staff described current banner rules: an initial permit valid 30 days with up to four renewals (totaling up to 150 days) and a $50 renewal fee; Council discussion included extending initial permits to 90 days and allowing renewals to approach a year for special cases. On yard signs, the present code allows two per residential property; commissioners discussed allowing as many as four during election season while keeping limits during other times and possibly imposing short-term limits (30–60 days) for contractor/for-sale signs to avoid perpetual display.

Commissioners debated adding formal railing-sign language because some businesses in alcoves lack street visibility, while others argued railing signs risked encroaching on façade signage and would likely be resisted by shopping-center owners and building landlords. The commission also discussed the example of Spooner Physical Therapy, whose site configuration prompted questions about whether additional wall signs could be allowed in lieu of freestanding or projecting signs.

Toward the close of the sign discussion Commissioner Proctor moved that the commission recommend no changes to the current sign ordinance; the motion was seconded. After staff advised that the matter had not been advertised as an action item and that staff planned further review, Proctor withdrew the motion and his second was withdrawn, leaving no formal recommendation to Council. Staff said they would review the transcript and deliberations, consider input, and — if warranted — bring a text-amendment proposal back to the commission for a noticed meeting before forwarding anything to Town Council.

Public comment included a short statement from Betsy LaVoy of the Chamber of Commerce, who provided letters from the Avenue Merchants Association and the Chamber board supporting downtown strategies and the merchants' sign preferences. "It brings with it a lot of weight of what the business community would like to see happen," LaVoy said.

Next steps: staff will review the verbatim record, refine options (including possible SUP pathways for unique cases), and schedule a future, publicly noticed commission meeting if a text amendment is proposed. No amendments were adopted at the May 12 meeting.