By Roland Murphy for AZBEX
Early last month, we reported on a proposed 316-unit multifamily proposal that would redevelop a largely vacant shopping center at the SEC of Shea Blvd. and Technology Drive in Fountain Hills. As part of that article, we also continued our coverage on the difficulty of securing project approvals in Fountain Hills and other communities around the state. (AZBEX, Dec. 8, 2023)
Since that article ran, the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the Town Council deny the requested rezoning, citing objections to the project’s density. Opponents speaking at the Dec. 11 hearing cited the standard concerns about density, traffic and impacts to neighborhood and community character.
Our initial reporting, as well as our coverage of another proposed development rejected by Council in June, noted that Fountain Hills’ population has been stagnant for the past 20 years and gave voice to supporters’ arguments that density, modernity and new development are exactly what the Town needs to shake off the doldrums that have settled upon it in an era where most other Arizona communities have thrived. (AZBEX, June 16, 2023)
That reporting and those arguments drew some heated responses, including public comment before the Town Council and, after the December article, a flurry of comments on social media.
Interestingly, however, it appears to have also motivated supporters to step forward to counter the opposition and lend their voices to revitalization efforts.
The Projects
Fountain Hills is a community comprised almost entirely of single-family residences, many of which sit on comparatively large lots. Both household incomes and resident ages are higher than most other communities in the state. The community has experienced no population growth in more than 20 years, with some years even showing slight population declines, a nearly unheard of circumstance in a state that has consistently been a national leader in in-migration.
Over the years, the community has developed a reputation as one of the most difficult municipalities for the development of any project type other than owner-occupied single-family residential. A vocal portion of the population, and several of their representatives on Town Council, have been adamantly opposed to any potential development that could be perceived as even slightly altering the existing local character.
On June 6, Council denied a rezoning request for an 80-unit multifamily development known as Senderos at Fountain Hills. The proposed site sat on two lots, one with multifamily zoning and one with single-family. The developer had requested the lots be combined to allow for 80 units in four buildings that would have been distributed across the property and not interfered with views from existing residences.
By right, the developer could have chosen to build 70 units on the multifamily portion with no change in zoning. That development would, however, have been more dense and had a marked impact on the neighborhood’s existing character.
Despite the more accommodating plan, which was enthusiastically supported by the local chamber of commerce as a population draw for struggling area businesses, Council rejected the request, leading the developer to announce it would go ahead with the less attractive 70-unit plan.
The current proposal, Village at Four Peaks, has even greater appeal at first glance. The 6.7-acre property lies within a commercial center—known as the Target Center—that has been plagued by vacancy, with some portions unoccupied since the early 2000s.
Sandor Development’s proposal constitutes a complete redevelopment of the western, mostly vacant retail portion of the plaza to create a four-story residential community with a wraparound parking structure. Arguments made in favor of the development included the revitalization of a vacant, unappealing retail plaza; the addition of new, younger professional residents, a built-in customer base for Target and other retailers, and an opportunity for the town to shed its reputation as a development-hostile community.
Despite the fact that the project’s density is one of its core benefits, roughly a dozen opponents at the Planning and Zoning hearing railed against that very aspect and were supported by Commission members, who recommended denial of the request.
The Commentary
After the hearing, and following our Dec. 8 article, a flurry of comments appeared on social media. As is often the case, many commenters railed against the inclusion of “subsidized” or “affordable housing,” even though Village at Four Peaks is proposed as entirely luxury, market rate residences with no affordably designated components.
Several commenters on Facebook also expressed opposition to multifamily housing as a social construct, with one person saying, “This sounds like an add (sic) for the left inclusion and equity plan.”
Another said, “Fountain Hills is just fine the way it is. Low price (sic) housing brings in undesirable problems.”
One particular lightning rod for commentary was our article’s statement, “Put bluntly, Fountain Hills’ population is older, whiter and wealthier than most other communities in the state. It has a history of leaning toward single-family development almost exclusively and has a higher than average bent toward large-lot homes.”
One respondent said, “Old, white and wealthy are not ‘bad’ things. Not everyone seeks to live in a ‘melting pot.’ You know what you’re getting when you move here.”
Another said, “Living in Fountain Hills is and should remain a special privilege,” which led another commenter to respond, “I like FH whiter and wealthier. I do not see that as an issue and not a reason to stop people from moving here.”
Still, another replied to the same comment with, “So, you want to forcefully change the demographics of FH? What else? Please find another target for your ‘globalism.’”
Many respondents in the same sets of Facebook threads expressed support for the project. Speaking about the Planning and Zoning recommendation for denial, one said, “Looks like an opportunity missed, right location, need and help blighted vacant shopping area. This is the only project in years I would have supported.”
Another supporter wrote, “I’m all for it. People need housing and we have the space available. We can’t think if we stop all future building that this town will survive.”
While it’s not uncommon for supporters and opponents to square off on social media, a far more unusual situation arose from the Commission’s denial and the ensuing public discussion. According to the Dec. 27 print edition of the Fountain Hills Times Independent, several community members attended the Dec. 19 Town Council meeting to express their support for the Villages at Fountain Hills plan to the Town Council during the “Call to the Public” portion of the meeting.
Town Council is scheduled to hear the case on Jan. 17. The project was not on the Dec. 19 agenda, and Council members are prohibited from responding to comments made on non-agenda items.
The report quotes several speakers who came to express their support, including the following: “Pam Cap was the first to speak and she noted that an article on the proposed project on the Arizona Building Exchange (sic) website highlighted the difficulty developers have getting land use approvals in Fountain Hills. The town is carrying that reputation, Cap noted.
“‘This (project) will bring people closer to work in Fountain Hills and increase revenue by $500,000,’ she said. ‘Listen to the people who have the information, not to the fearmongers.’”
Another speaker praised the wraparound design and the benefit to Target and other businesses.
A former Town Council member said he understood the concerns but that the commercial benefits led him to believe the project would succeed, saying, “This plan is perfect for the area. It is a ‘win-win.’”
Perhaps the most interesting item from the article was statements made to Council by Planning and Zoning Commissioners. Commissioner Clayton Corey said the proposal embodies the goal of revitalizing the Shea Corridor under the General Plan, is consistent with the Town’s planning documents and would be a catalyst for economic growth.
Commissioner Scott Schlossberg, who had been unable to attend the Dec. 11 hearing and said he would have voted in favor, expressed his support for the project and told Council, “I would urge you to ignore the recommendation of the Commission and approve the rezoning.”
The article also quotes retired Planning and Zoning Commissioner Gene Schlecta, who gave some of the most pointed commentary in the piece. “This may be the last chance you have to (prevent) having an empty shell of a plaza on Shea Boulevard. This project will bring year-round young professionals to live here. What would be the impact of an empty shell on the main thoroughfare?”
While there were, of course, some residents who voiced opposition, it cannot be overstated how rare an occurrence it is for community members – in Fountain Hills or anywhere else – to come before a Council to express support. Opponents are generally far more motivated to speak out than supporters, and for multiple supporters to present their views to Council at a meeting in which the project under consideration is not even an agenda item is virtually unprecedented.
We asked Jason Morris of Withey Morris Baugh—the law firm representing the Village at Four Peaks requests before the Town—to comment on the statements of support. “Personally, I am quite pleasantly surprised to see this outpouring of public support in advance of the upcoming Council meeting,” he said. “All too often, the opponents are the only ones who muster enough motivation to step forward and make their voices heard, which sometimes leads to the misconception that resistance to change and growth is a majority position. We have tried to demonstrate from the outset that this proposal is vital to the re-invigoration of the town as a whole, and we are delighted to see that information reaching members of the community. We hope they will step forward again to make their voices heard on Jan. 17.”
