Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Downtown Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines to recommend proposed downtown density change after residents urge market study
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission considered revisions to the downtown overlay density (Ordinance 26‑02) and after public comment and discussion voted 2–4 not to recommend adoption. Commissioners and residents cited concerns about retail viability, downtown vision and a lack of market analysis.
The Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission on March 9 considered amendments to the downtown overlay (Ordinance 26‑02) that would adjust permitted residential density in the Plat 208 area. After public comment and commissioner discussion, a motion to recommend adoption failed on a 2–4 roll‑call vote.
Staff presented projections for different density scenarios, noted the distinction between net buildable‑lot density and gross block density (which includes common parking areas), and recommended maintaining a 35‑units‑per‑acre standard by right while capping gross block density at 15 units per acre as an overall maximum. Staff said converting the downtown to greater residential capacity could add several hundred dwelling units over time but stressed practical constraints such as the complexity of redeveloping joint parking lots owned by many stakeholders.
Public commenters urged caution. Crystal Kavanaugh and others said adding large numbers of apartments risks creating part‑time residents who do not produce sustained sales tax, argued that rooftop restaurants and destination businesses would better support downtown vibrancy, and called for a market study and clearer vision before raising density limits. Larry Myers said the downtown needs a cohesive vision and staff/commission follow‑through rather than piecemeal increases in apartment supply.
Commission debate focused on tradeoffs: higher density could increase rooftops that attract retail, but commissioners expressed concern about whether local market demand, parking and property‑owner consent constraints would produce the intended commercial outcomes. Commissioner Corrigan and others said they wanted a market and implementation study and expressed concern about restricting what owners can do with their ground‑floor spaces. Commissioner Proctor moved to recommend adoption of Ordinance 26‑02; the motion was seconded but failed on roll call (Proctor and Chair Kova Savic voted in favor; four commissioners voted no).
Outcome: The commission did not forward a recommendation to Town Council (vote 2–4). Staff will return to council with the record of the commission’s discussion; several commissioners urged pursuing a market study and design vision work to guide any future density changes.
Votes at a glance: Motion to recommend adoption of Ordinance 26‑02 (downtown overlay density language) — Mover: Commissioner Proctor; Second: Commissioner McDermott; Vote: Proctor Aye, Chair Kova Savic Aye; Commissioner Seavum No, Commissioner Schlossberg No, Commissioner Corrigan No, Commissioner McDermott No (2–4).
