Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates allowing office uses in residential zones; no vote taken
Summary
Staff proposed a text amendment (ordinance 26‑10) to permit certain office uses in residential districts by special use permit for existing non‑residential buildings; commissioners raised neighborhood protection and economic concerns and asked staff to study options further.
Town staff presented ordinance 26‑10 and opened a substantial discussion May 11 on whether to allow office uses in residential zoning districts through a special use permit process.
Director Wesley said the proposal grew out of recent talks with the Fountain Hills School District about reusing underutilized school buildings. He described a draft approach that would allow office uses only on lots meeting specific conditions: a minimum two‑acre lot size; a historic, existing non‑residential use; reuse of an existing building only (no footprint expansion); restricted signage and outdoor activity; on‑site parking; weekday operation generally limited to 7 a.m.–6 p.m.; and approvals limited to the applicant and non‑transferable.
Vice Chair Gray and several commissioners strongly urged caution. Gray said the intent of school parcels is community service and warned approving office uses risks "opening Pandora's box" that could allow commercial entities into residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Proctor and others raised similar concerns about neighborhood impacts and the potential for unintended commercialization that could undercut the town's commercial core. Commissioner McDermott asked whether other valley jurisdictions had successful office‑reuse models; staff said most examples involve demolition and redevelopment or conversion to multi‑residential rather than office reuse.
Commissioner Spiel said he supported providing options if the school district presented a plan and suggested staff could tighten tenant controls and operational limits. Staff concluded it would take commissioners' feedback, study options further, and return with a refined proposal if warranted. No motion or vote was taken on ordinance 26‑10 during the May 11 meeting.
The record shows a careful weighing of two concerns: preventing inappropriate commercial uses in neighborhoods and avoiding long‑term vacancy and deterioration of large institutional buildings. Staff will refine options and report back to the commission for further public hearings.
