Fountain Hills Commission Approves Toll Brothers Aspen Drive Rezoning; Downtown Density Amendment Squeaks Through on Tie-Break Vote Amid Vision Disputes

All right. I'd like to call to order the notice of regular meeting of the planning and zoning commission for today, Monday, March 9th, 2026. Please stand. Say the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence. To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, thank you. Paula, please take the role. Chair Kova, present. Vice Chair Gray, Commissioner Proctctor, present. Commissioner Seam, present. Commissioner Schllober, here.

Commissioner Coran, here. Commissioner McDermott, here. Okay, I'd like to read the statement of participation. Anyone wishing to address the commission regarding items listed on the agenda or during call to the public must completely fill out a request to comment card located in the back of the council chambers and hand it to the clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Once the meeting is started, late request to speak cannot be accepted.

When your name is called, please approach the podium, speak into the microphone, state your name, and if you're a resident for the public record. Comments may not exceed three minutes. It is the policy of the commission not to comment on items brought forth under call to the public.

However, staff can be directed to report back to the commission at a future date or to schedule items raised for a future future commission agenda to avoid disruption of the meeting to maintain decorum and provide for an equal and uninterrupted presentation. Applause is not permitted except during proclamations, awards, and recognitions. All meeting participants must maintain proper decorum as specified in section six of the council [snorts] rules of procedure.

Uh we're this is our first meeting uh subject to the same rules as council. Uh we're limited to 30 minutes per agenda item of public comment. Three minutes each and it we will have a hard stop at three minutes. Uh so please uh speak fast and we'll get more people in and please don't repeat points that have already been made and we'll get more people in. We like to get as many speakers in as we possibly can. Okay. Uh, summary of current events by director director Wesley.

So, commissioners, good to see you this evening to have such a full house tonight. We don't get that very often. It's good to have the public turnout. Uh, given the other items on your agenda this evening, I don't have any updates to take your time with tonight. Thank you. U we don't have a consent agenda, so we can move on to the regular agenda. Uh consideration and possible action approving the regular meeting minutes of the planning and zoning commission from February 9th, 2026.

Can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? I I opposed. 6. Okay. Item B, public hearing consideration and possible action reszone of approximately 20 acres located approximately 600 feet south of the southeast corner of Golden Eagle Boulevard and Nyak Drive to allow development of 20 n 29 single family residential lots. Uh Farhad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh members of the commission and the public.

uh wanted to amend slightly your uh recitation uh about the the reszone request. Um the the request is from R135 to R110A to allow what the applicant is now proposing as a 25 lot single family lot uh development at the former uh school site on Aspen Drive. Um the location for which you've uh described. So to begin, I'll I'll talk a little bit more about the project location and the details of the request.

It's approximately a 20 acre site and to be more precise, it's about 19.35 acres uh located uh at the uh location you just described off of uh Aspen and uh Nyak in the uh I guess you could say the northern half of um of the town. Uh the closest major street being Golden Eagle Boulevard to the east. The request is again reszone from R135 which allows a minimum of of one dwelling unit per 35,000 square ft to R110A which allows one unit per 10,000 square ft.

And the purpose is to develop a singlestory residential subdivision uh for 25 lots. A little bit of background. The property is currently owned by the Fountain Hills Unified School District. Was previously considered for uh use as a school. Um believe it's been planned that way since the 70s. Um the district initiated a public disposal process a couple years ago in 2024 and the sale was approved by voters uh in November of uh 2024.

And currently uh Toll Brothers is under escrow uh with the school district and is coming before you with this reszone proposal. A little bit about about the site context and conditions. Uh I showed this aerial on the upper right hand corner earlier. Um it is about a 20 acre property. Um it is uh bifurcated by the uh by a natural wash on the western portion.

Um the regulatory flood plane um and the erosion setback zone pretty much constitute the the wash corridor there which is approximately uh 9 acres altogether. Um the uh the wash serves as a drainage and wildlife habitat and uh I want to say on the onset there's no construction proposed in the wash. Uh I did provide a zoning map here on the lower right hand corner uh highlighting the the site.

Um it's zoomed out a little bit more compared to the uh the aerial photograph, but you can see to the north and east is an existing neighborhood uh zoned R110, which and the difference between the R110 and the R110A is is lot coverage. lot uh coverage allowed under the R110A is a little bit more. It's at 40% lot coverage area under roof and to the east uh across or rather to the west across the wash uh that allows for uh lower density development. Um although it's well across the wash here.

Uh so this area here where I got my cursor running uh R135 approximately right here and then R143 to the south of there. So the proposed reasonzoning again R110A to allow for compatibility and flexibility uh flexibility with regards to the type of uh product being offered uh in relation to the uh lot sizes and compatibility with the uh the adjacent neighborhoods to the east and to the north.

Um the applicant is proposing singlestory homes although the the zoning designation R110A would allow two-story homes and more on that a little bit. Uh typical lot size would be 80 by 130 or approximately uh 10,400 square ft. Uh some of the setbacks to keep in mind, a front minimum minimum setback of 20 ft, 7 feet on each side and a rear setback uh of 20 ft. And that's a setback measured from the property line to the exterior wall of any uh any home.

And again, homes are limited to one story with a maximum lot coverage of 40%. This was the applicant what what I have before you is the applicant's original proposal which uh came in with the uh the original request and is included in the staff report.

Um since then, uh actually since uh uh Thursday, uh with uh following discussions with uh residents within the neighborhood, uh the applicant is now proposing to eliminate the uh four of the 29 lots to the north and followed by providing a new plan uh seen here. By eliminating those lots, the applicant is proposing uh open space to the north. Um a centralized uh a smaller open space feature here uh in this tract over here where I got my cursor running.

And as I mentioned, the areas that you see outside the rendered area uh within the property lines, of course, the applicant is proposing to maintain that as open space.

at the very least the areas shaded in blue which is the the regulatory FEMA flood plane and the erosion setback zone which you don't see here but it is just behind these uh proposed lots uh to the west of the site or I should say the west of the uh developed uh area open space and density so the the density under the R10A uh would allow 4.35 five dwelling units per acre for the whole site gross.

Uh what the applicant is proposing uh the the density is proposed at 1.29 dwelling units per acre gross. And by that I mean it includes the whole area within the uh the boundary. If you want to just take a look at the uh developable area here on the east side of the property, uh it's about 3.13 dwelling units per acre. So that's about at least uh 10 acres of permanent and open space.

Uh the applicant might uh have a more precise number, but uh that includes again the natural wash, the northern edge of the site as well as the centralized uh tract. And uh by the way, there's two uh points uh of a vehicular access uh leading into the site. As far as general general plan conformance, uh it seems the uh through our analysis that uh that the proposal supports reuse of under uh is consistent with the general plan support of reuse of under underutilized school district property.

Uh it's compatible with the adjacent R110 neighborhoods to the east and to the north. Uh and it protects views and neighborhood character by limiting uh as the applicant is proposing uh to uh the development of singlestory homes while preserving natural resources particularly along the wash. Uh I've provided a citizen participation summary here briefly. Uh notices were mailed out uh beyond the 300 ft minimum um from the the site boundaries.

There was a neighborhood meeting uh on January 20th of which is what those notices were were announcing uh in which there were at least 65 uh attendees. There was additional outreach and followup by the applicant with the public. Um some of the key topics discussed were density, drainage, wildlife views and traffic. Uh the community feedback at the meeting uh was mixed there.

There was quite a bit of opposition with a few expressions of support for the uh the singlestory product as well as the uh the fact that the applicant who was uh um proposing to preserve the wash there was some uh correspondence received very recently March 5th that's uh last Thursday we did receive a petition of opposition in which uh 123 opposed the reszone uh it is noted uh with Uh some of the very few of the names in the uh um the petition expressed uh opposition to the Toll Brothers proposal, but um open to the idea of reszoning uh the property.

That's about uh as much detail I have it at this point. But we also received uh six letters of support on that date uh as well. And if there are any more, um I'm sure the uh uh the applicant will uh inform. As far as our analysis, uh staff believes, uh the reasonzoning maintains a single family use that's consistent with the area, the design response to the natural wash constraints.

The single story restriction protects neighbors uh views with uh fewer traffic impacts than the potential school that was originally proposed and supports a broad uh the project uh would support a broader educational reinvestment through uh the sale of the uh the district-owned site. So uh in your staff reports uh I did include a couple of proposed stipulations for approval.

Uh one being that the final plat which would uh would come well after the preliminary plat uh granted the reszone is approved the final plat uh we will require that uh there be a note limiting homes to one story and also another note uh establishing a non-develop non-developable area for the flood plane and uh erosion setback area that I uh pointed out earlier which is approximately ly 9 acres of the site.

We are uh with uh after discussing um uh additional stipulations with the applicant, the applicant did agree uh since um this [clears throat] morning to include uh a stipulation that would limit the total number of lots to 25. um as depicted in the the latest and greatest uh uh lot uh layout um which I presented earlier. It's not included in your packets, but um if if need if you need me to pull it up, uh I will.

Um but um certainly uh if there are other um stipulations for approval um that uh uh we may need to be considered that can also be um discussed at this uh at this function. So, our suggested motion uh staff suggested motion is to move to approve the resoning request from R135 to R110A subject to the three uh conditions uh that were listed earlier. With that, I'll conclude my presentation. Um I've uploaded uh the uh applicant's presentation as well to follow.

It's all right with the commissioners. Let's hear the applicant first before we ask questions. Okay. You know what? I'll just pull up the PowerPoint more full screen. Mr. Speaker, thank you chair, members of the planning commission, Ashley Marsh for your records, 40 North Central with Gamage and Burnham. Um, thank you very much for an opportunity to address your planning commission tonight on behalf of Toll Brothers.

I will try to keep my remarks brief as we have a full house, but greatly appreciate your time, attention, and consideration of Tol's proposal. Um, so as I mentioned, my name is Ashley Marsh. I am a zoning and land use attorney at Gamage and Burnham. With me this evening is Dennis Nukem. He's senior land use planner. And Brian Vicaro, also of our office. And I have the pleasure of introducing Bob Flity. He is the division president of Toll Brothers. And Mark Maloney, land director of Toll.

We also have our engineering team here, Ryan Rab and Fonnie Khalatla. And I apologize Ponyie, I always butcher your last name. Um, but they were the civil engineers who put together the development plan. So any technical questions, I will refer to greater minds than myself. and have Fonnie and Ryan address those for you. Um really appreciate the thorough and um robust presentation from from Farhod. So I'll try to be brief in my remarks as he's covered a lot of ground.

But want to start off again by thanking you the commission um for your time this evening and for indulging me in a few minutes. And before I get started um with any of the substantive details, I do want to thank members of the community who've come out and who have come out tonight to to voice their um opinions about our proposal, given us a lot to consider, and we're happy to come back with a revised proposal tonight from where we originally submitted.

So, thank you to members of the community as well. I just didn't want to get rocking and rolling and forget to acknowledge their important part in this process. Uh so as Farhad m mentioned we are in the northwest part of uh Fountain Hills here. We're about a 19 acre site. Um and this piece of property was originally platted in the 1970s 1972 1973 as a 19 acre elementary school site.

So the vision for this property um since the 70s has always been a school site and this is just the plat showing that that is the demarcation for it. Um, with that the site inherited uh some larger zoning R135 which would accommodate 35,000 square foot lots and also accommodates um schools. So think uh your public school which it was intended for charter school and also a church. Um but completely surrounding it in all the developable areas is R110 zoning.

And so when you look at the the zoning map, you say, "Wow, that is um R135," but it's always intended to be a school-owned property. So it never really got a zoning designation to match for residential developments. It's a holdover, for lack of a better description, from the 70s. As I mentioned, the R110 zoning is really what's developed around this site.

And if you take a closer look at what's um transpired since the platting of the 70s, you see quite a bit of residential development in the R110 area, but you don't see development in the R135 and the R143 around us. And that is because of topographical concerns where those larger land use designations are, but really all the developable area is R 110.

And I say that um and want to show you this slide here which we've marked up that really shows some of the topography considerations when you look at where this 19 acre site is which is outlined in the yellow. So where you see the R110 designations again that's where um development has occurred. Those are those existing residences. Those are um single family residential homes. And then you really get quite a few of the wash corridors. You get terrain.

get dams and you actually get a town owned parcel on our south side. So, I just bring this up to show that the developable condition um is really in those R110 areas. Much of those other zoning districts are undevelopable land. And this is just a shot showing straight on of what this site looks like. As you can see, it's relatively flat on the entryway and then does have that wash corridor and the crest um up back which is some hillside condition of that property.

Um, Farhad mentioned this in his remarks and I'm I'm sure you're familiar with it, so I won't belabor this point, but uh, this particular piece of property was subject to a 2024 special election um, in November 2024. There were two properties that the school district put up for properties that were underutilized, right? They weren't being um, fulfilled to their their greatest potential here. And these properties went to a ballot initiative in November of 2024.

Um the proceeds from this sale if uh if consummated will go into reinvesting buildings, transportation, and really support some much needed aid to the school for the health of the district. Um this was overwhelmingly approved by the residents of Fountain Hills. 69% voted yes, and Toll Brothers was unanimously chosen as the buyer um in May of 2025.

So when Tol looked at this site, um just to give you a little bit of background, um I really give them all the the credit because they really wanted to fit something that would fit the existing fabric of this community. Right? It's 20 acres surrounded predominantly by R110 homes. It was envisioned as a school site and they really did quite a bit of leg work to say, "We enjoy Fountain Hills. We like building in Fountain Hills.

What could we build on this vacant, underutilized school site that matches the existing zoning that matches the existing fabric and a product that we can um successfully bling bring to this area. Um when they looked at it and Farhad mentioned it in his presentation um that was really important to them to keep these in the same size and scale and so they looked at all the R110 around it and said we have something that matches which would be an R110A.

Uh but we don't feel it's appropriate to do two stories. We don't feel it's appropriate to build in the wash corridor. We understand that's important for purposes of not only drainage, but there's a wildlife consideration. We think the expectation of the neighborhood is that this wash corridor would be preserved. And so that's where this 29 unit plan really came into fruition because it allows Toll Brothers to build a singlestory product. So one story where two would be allowed.

It allows Toll Brothers to preserve that wash corridor which in and of itself is approximately 10 acres. So quite significant amount of land to reserve as open space and really fits with what is existing there which is R110 lots. And the only significant distinction between that R110 and R110A which we're proposing is lot coverage. And you saw that in your staff report and you saw that in Mr.

Chavisolei's remarks that lot coverage goes from 30 to 40% and that's what allows the single story to happen because instead of building vertically you're building now horizontally and that 40% coverage isn't envisioned for every home you are zoning to a maximum. So, no home could be more than 40% coverage, but it's really meant to accommodate that, you know, buyer or two that might want the garage extension, that might want the extended patio.

Not each of these homes will have 40% maxed out lot coverage, but it does allow for that profile to remain singlestory for each nine of those 29 lots. Um, what the other thing that we wanted to look at, and again, I give uh total credit for this, is they didn't want to overwhelm the site. So that was a a low density number at about 1.5 dwelling units per acre and they wanted to retain similar circulation patterns in the area.

So you see the horse shape on this site for the circulation same as the neighbors to the north. So we really tried to mirror the circulation, make sure that these were all singlestory homes, stay out of that wash corridor again, not just for drainage considerations because it was important to toll not to build in there to follow those back property lines to the neighbors to the north and to really again propose something that we felt was very much similar in size and scale to the existing homes.

Um, Farhod stole my thunder a little bit with the the X's.

Um but we did go ahead and have an continued um engagement with the neighbors and what we heard was you know we're concerned about density, we're concerned about wildlife, we're concerned about drainage, we're concerned about open space and so in looking at the site plan um with a little bit of of those considerations in mind um toll and has heard from those neighbors has heard the feedback and has have elected to um eliminate 14% of their site plan.

So removing four lots from that northwest corner to create another open space area um to address some of those concerns about drainage to create something meaningful where you've got now 1.3 additional acres of open space. So we're at over 11 acres of open space between these improvements and the wash corridor and really um be responsive to some of that feedback. Um with this revision um we are still able to do the singlestory lots.

we are still able to remain that similar circulation and we're still able to stay out of that wash corridor. So the revised plan um as mentioned includes 25 lots at approximately 1.3 dwelling units per acre which is really a low density project. Um this is more than half of the site open space. We're only at 19 acres. We've got over 11 now as preserved open space. And um in in doing so, you know, we have eliminated a home off of Aspen.

We've created another natural open space corridor and have taken some of that community feedback and implemented it on a site that Toll knows that they can deliver. Um with this, we hope to provide certainty to the neighbors. We've got some stipulation language that we proposed this morning. That's stipulation three that would follow the case that would allow for those 25 homes to be built and a stipulation that follows the site plan.

So, the revised 25 units instead of the 29 we originally submitted with. Um, just as a conceptual rendering, this one's a little outdated. This one showed the 29 homes, but as you can see, this really does fit into the existing homes. Um, and that same kind of footprint. Uh, the R110 homes are 10,000 foot lot as are these. And this is just a perspective to show that wash corridor maintained, those crestfuse maintained, and this vacant flat underutilized uh school district lot being developed.

Just for a couple examples of homes, um we are very excited to offer a product of again that single story. There'll be four different models, each of them with about four different facades, some a little bit more traditional craftsman, some with a little bit more modern architecture. And then within this um potential homeowners will be able to choose from a menu of colors and choices.

So um just on these 25 lots, I think I've reiterated four* 4 were 16 and we haven't even gotten to the color palette yet. So there'll be some great variation from home to home. Big points that we've heard from the community. Again, we've been out there talking to folks and trying to make sure we understood the concerns. And probably the number one concern we heard from was traffic and how um these 25 lots will go ahead and and create some additional traffic considerations.

Um absolutely with any type of development you'll get more traffic there, but it is far less than the envisioned school site. And again, I showed you that plat map from 1972. Um this road was planned to be a school. That's what the original um dedication was for, for lack of a better description. That column that I've highlighted shows the AM peak and the PM peak hours. Those are when you really experience traffic volumes.

Um when you're sitting in traffic at the end of the day or in the morning. Um as you can see in these boxes, it's quite a bit different. Uh hundreds of trips reduced in the morning. Um if you were to move forward with a charter school or with an elementary school. And we have on this bottom column here single family detached 15 dwelling units per acre, excuse me, 15 dwelling units. Um that would be the number allowed by right under the R135.

And so I would love to draw your attention just to that bottom row with the difference and this is at 29 units. You'll see that we are um our our excuse me, our traffic engineer has calculated that those AM peaks are only nine more trips than if this site were be developed as by right with 15 homes and only 14 more trips in the afternoon.

So really really low traffic differentiation between what was there by right um from homes and pretty significant traffic differentiation if this were to be developed as a school either elementary school or charter school and this doesn't account for you know buses back and forth whatnot um this is just trips um I went ahead and did some napkin math and I'm an attorney and and not a mathematician here but just as the reduction uh 14% across the board here those trips get even less um when you take those homes out.

So, six trips and 10 trips are what would be anticipated in those peak hours than if this site were to develop by right. So, we understand there's a lot of traffic concerns. Um and we've taken a look at what those volumes look like. Um again, based on the charter school and elementary school developed by Wright, we think that this is a much improved traffic condition than if it were to build as a school.

Um, another thing we've heard is, uh, folks like to use Aspen, um, to to walk and to meet their neighbors, and we appreciate that. That is wonderful, um, that folks are using Aspen and and walking their dog in the morning. Um, one thing that we've noticed is that there's no sidewalks out in front of the frontage. And with development of this site, we will be installing a sidewalk along Aspen Drive um, as part of our frontage.

And we've also approached the town on extending the sidewalk so that this entire strip of undeveloped property and hopefully my cursor showing up. Um, this is a town-owned parcel here and we've approached the town about extending the sidewalk so that this entire stretch of frontage along Aspen will have a sidewalk to get people off the road um when they're walking or rec participating in any type of recreational activity.

Um the [snorts] little thumbnail sketch is just a cross-section of what that might look like. But it's really exciting for Toll to be able to get pedestrians off the road and doing some um some street. And I apologize this exhibit hasn't been updated on the northwest corner. It shows that lot one, but that is a vacant lot. The other big point of feedback we've heard a lot of concern about is grading and drainage.

Um, Tol currently has a preliminary plat pending with the town and as part of that preliminary plat. That's where you do a lot of those fine tune engineering details. You don't necessarily submit a grading and drainage plan with a straight reszoning request, but we've got our engineers here for any specific questions. Um, Huitt Zers is a phenomenal engineering firm, civil firm. They've already submitted a grading and drainage plan to the town as part of the preliminary um, plat.

And I just show these documents to to show that we we've done a review of grading and drainage. That engineered document is planning with town. And this is a a sketch, if you will, um kind of showing some of the current existing drainage conditions in red with how our proposal will improve actually the current existing drain grading and drainage on this site. Um, for a very elementary explanation, we understand that water comes and over over tops aspen for lack of a better description.

And any improvements um that we make will improve that drainage condition because the flows will come from that north site, be able to be um mitigated and managed and get them out to the wash. So, if you indulge me just for a second, you'll see we've got a note that the existing drainage channel is currently filled with silts at the north part. A drainage track will be regraded to remove any low points and convey water to the wash. So, red current, blue improved.

Um, there's currently a low area that's ponding water based on a recent topo study. This open space will be regraded to remove these low points and again convey water to the wash. Um, we understand that again that storm water is topping over the existing ribbon curb into the property. A curbs proposed along Aspen Drive in front of the parcel to increase street capacity. And then there is another existing low point. There'll be a storm drain to convey water.

And this is all going to help current conditions get that water into the wash. We've also gotten some feedback that our lot sizes are um not compatible with the existing neighborhood. I'll just briefly uh explain this slide. It's kind of self-explanatory, but the R110 and R110A zoning districts require both 10,000 square foot lots. So, we feel that we are compatible with the existing lot sizes in the neighborhood. You will see that there are a couple existing lots that are larger.

Those are on sloped conditions. So, just point that out because where our particular piece of property sits, I showed you it's relatively flat. Those are consistent with other lot sizes up and down Aspen, but there are a couple larger lots when those are, you know, taking into consideration slope and what's actually buildable up there.

So, in summary, um we are very excited to request this resoning proposal for the vacant school-owned property from R135 to R110A to accommodate those 25 single family lots. Um this is a development of vacant land.

it school home again development of vacant land will bring additional housing stock to Fountain Hills more opportunities for home ownership increases your tax base we are almost identical to the adjacent R110 zoning that increase in lot coverage which we've shared quite a few times now is just to accommodate those singlestory homes this creates certainty for the development of this parcel again this was a ballot measure this piece of property will be sold it will be developed And by doing this process, there is a limitation on density.

There's preservation of open space. There's a commitment to single stories. So, there's a lot of great features that come with this resoning request and that will carry with um through the development of the site. We do have staff support. I know there's a lot of folks here and I will uh kind of relinquish my stage here for lack of a better description. and I'm happy to answer any questions.

And chair, I would appreciate an opportunity to address your commission again after we've heard from some folks. Okay. Thank you, Ashley. Commissioners, any questions for staff or for petitioner? Uh either anybody can answer the question, but the estimated price point for these homes Uh, thank you. Through the chair. Um, we are anticipating the base price to be one to $1.2 million for these homes. Okay. And then gated or non-gated? Not gated. Not gated. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, just two quick questions and maybe this is for Ashley, too, but uh, from what I understand from your presentation, you're presenting two storm drains on Aspen. Is that right? To come out to the wash. um through the chair. If you don't mind if I have uh Ryan Rob uh answer this two storm drains question. He's he's the one who engineered it. I want to make sure you get the right information.

Hi chair, uh planning commissioners, my name is Ryan Rab, 5050 North 40th Street, Phoenix, uh with you at Zers. Um it's really one storm drain system. Uh the slide is now up there. I don't know if I can use the pointer also. So the low point currently on Aspen is at at approximately this location and we would be building curb and sidewalk along the entire street. It drains to the southeast and it would be collected in this storm drain system that would come down and dump out into the wash.

Thank you. And uh the second question I had maybe for you maybe not. Um from what I see now there are no contiguous lots with prior property. In other words, what I'm saying is that that it appears that the that the four lots that have been taken out uh were adjacent or contiguous to other existing properties. So, that's no longer the case. Is that right through the chair? That's absolutely accurate.

There are no contiguous lots um on our revised site plan and I'll just pull that up for your review, but absolutely correct. Thank you. Uh thank you, chair. I have a question for Ashley. Um Ashley, could you talk to us a little bit about the the remaining nine acres of the property? What what happens to that property through the chair? Thank you for that question, Commissioner McDermott.

Um so we are not proposing any type of building on those nine acres and I believe you're talking to Ashbrook wash corridor. Um we are working with the town on whether they would like them dedicated, a conservation easement, if they would like a drainage and grading easement. We have the pre-plat pre-plat in. It does not show any construction there. It shows, you know, future dedication.

And we're happy to work with the town on if it would like to be conveyed or if they would like us to keep it and and maintain it, but there's no building in that area. Okay. Okay. Uh, second question I have, and perhaps this is for for for Ryan, but could you talk to us a little bit about the street parking because it it it looks like the proposed road is it it looks like it's the same width as Aspen, but you could tell us a little bit more about that.

Uh, through the chair, um, these are proposed to be public roads. So, we are happy to work with the town on um on Aspen Drive. Um, our own roads toll restricts parking on those roads. So, we're not anticipating there to be, you know, cars in and um excuse me, uh up and down these roads overnight. You know, if someone comes for a football game, whatnot. And we're happy to work with the town along Aspen Drive. It is their road.

And then last question on the on the the parcels themselves, are they would they be driveways for two cars or four cars or what what what's the size you envision for that? Through the chair, they are envisioned to accommodate at least two vehicles. um on site and again if someone neglected additional parking they have the garages available to them but at least two cars for sure. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I have a a couple of questions. Will there be an HOA?

Just [clears throat] going to stay up here till you excuse me chair. Uh yes there will be an HOA that uh is created and maintains the open space areas and enforces their CCNRs. Okay. And um we uh spoke about striping on Aspen. I now understand public works will not allow striping on Aspen because it's not on any of the other residential roads in town. Is that through the chair correct in that? Thank you for that.

We have proposed striping from um basically up to Golden Eagle to create a bike lane and two lanes of traffic. We shared an exhibit with public works. We have not gotten um confirmation that that would be accepted uh yet. We we'd be happy to do it, but the feedback is that public works is not too excited about that plan. Yeah. And and I thought I had heard about sidewalk extension. Um can we visit that for a second? Um, and that shows it going across the uh um what would it be?

The entrance to the wash. Um it is it possible to get that extended up to Golden Eagle? I thought I'd heard that. Thank you for that question, Chair. We have proposed expending it across this vacant piece of property where the town owns this property. To extend it up to Golden Eagle would be to put it through these neighboring properties um which are privately owned. It would require changing driveways. Um we really wouldn't want to encroach on these neighbors.

There's also some significant topographical constraints that we need to think about in doing so. This street slopes upward. Um, so we are happy to make the extension across that town owned property to get people around this curve and that's what this line shows. Um, but we really wouldn't want someone's driveway rearranged uh to extend that sidewalk up to Golden Eagle.

And the uh last item I that I recall from meeting was there were some existing ponding situations on was it on Aspen Drive and what is the proposal to remediate that? Thank you, chair. Um, so I just bring up this exhibit again and I'm happy to have Ryan come and address any other um, concerns, but essentially um, there is some ponding in this area where the open space cursor is. Um, there's low pawning water and the open space will be regraded to remove these points and convey it into the wash.

So there's some here. Um, there's also a little bit and I Ryan, if you want to come and and correct me here, we understand there's a little bit a low point on the street. Um, and it the the the curb will help get these flows back into the wash. Okay. Um, respect to the wash. Um, I know you mentioned that you may not be dedicating or providing an easement for the for the town.

Um, if this were to move forward, I I would hope that you have more discussions with the town about having them maintain it so there's continuity and there's not well they should have maintain this part or that part or whatever it might be because they do get overgrown and they do provide or we do end up with water issues.

Uh so I hope that that you and the town can have some discussions about that and and u rather than depending on the HOA because if the HOA doesn't have the money to do it for whatever reason who's going to who they fall back on right so that hopefully that can be um pursued as well through the chair we would be happy to dedicate it to the town. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you very much. Paula, do we have any comment cards? We do. We do. Chair. We have eight speaker cards for the project.

We have seven speaker cards against the project and seven non-speaking cards um against the project and nine online for against the project. So the speaker cards with that said we're going to be calling speakers in incre increments of three. So be ready to go because this session is only 30 minutes total for public comment. So, the first speaker I have is Tammy Bell and then it will be Jean Serrano and then Richard Wowski. Good evening, chair, members of Planning and Zoning Commission.

My name is Tammy Bell. I have been a resident in Fountain Hills for 21 years and have been living on Aspen for 17 of those. So, I want to thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this proposed development on Aspen Drive. These decisions, I know, are not simple, and I do appreciate the responsibility you carry to hear our concerns and also consider the long-term needs of our town. As a resident, I am directly affected by this proposal.

So, I have explored the project in great detail. I have consulted with the town's engineering team on my own. I have listened to the neighbors and I have engaged directly with the developer to explore my concerns and um solutions. I've been very impressed with Toll Brothers. I want to say their representatives, they have genuine interest to listen to us. They have met with the residents in an open forum as well as in our individual homes and have addressed concerns wherever possible.

This level of personal engagement has been greatly appreciated. I cannot imagine what the developer could have done more to reasonably hear, understand, and address the concerns of the surrounding residents. What Toll Brothers is proposing tonight provides me great certainty.

A high quality builder with established reputation, single level homes, cooperation with the town on traffic, drainage, pedestrian safety, and preserved areas, limiting lot coverage to no more than 40% and all with demonstrating willingness to work with our neighbors. By contrast, maintaining the current zoning could allow uses with far greater traffic and impact in my neighborhood. Realistic alternatives could include a 17 two-story homes with absolutely no neighborhood input.

A private or charter school with large drop off and pickup activity. I don't know if you guys have ever been near basis on Shay, but I do not want that on my street. A church with large parking areas or 25 single level homes with drainage enhancements, public safety and traffic considerations, and designated preserved areas. If you were to give me all these realistic options, I cho my choice is clearly the proposal you have in front of you today.

While these homes may not target young families, they do serve long-term health of Fountain Hills.

This proposal aligns with the general plan, supporting orderly and predictable growth, sustains the town's tax base and financial stability, supports local businesses and services, maintains and protects our property values, provides neighbors certainty through thoughtful design and consideration of our neighborhood, and supports our largest employer in town, the Fountain Hills Unified School District, allowing it to progress.

For all of these reasons, I am in favor of the reasonzoning request and I respectfully urge you to consider approving it tonight as well. Thank you for your time. Good evening. My name is Jean Serrano and I live at 15213 East Shootout Plaza. I want to focus specifically on Toll Brothers assert assert assertion that this development will attract families and young working professionals to Fountain Hills consistent with goal three of the general plan. The numbers simply do not support that claim.

The average home price in Fountain Hills is already approximately 700,000. The average household income is roughly 140,000. at that level income. Even purchasing an average home in town is financially challenging. Toll Brothers is proposing homes starting at 1.2 million and above. Homes at this price point are not designed for teachers, nurses, first responders, young professionals, or young families.

They are designed for buyers with established wealth such as retirees, second home owners, and of individuals with mature financial portfolios. There is nothing wrong with serving that market segment, but it is misleading to suggest that 25 luxury homes will diversify our age demographics, improve housing affordability, or attracting work working families to Fountain Hills.

All five of my daughters have moved out of Fountain Hills to find housing for their young families as they can't afford it here. This proposal does not address affordable housing need. It does not create sustainable or attainable housing. It does not support the workforce that keeps this community functioning. It simply increases density at the top end of the market. Goal three of the general plan is about sustaining and strengthening our community.

Toll Brothers proposal does not advance that goal. The planning and zoning commission should not allow a marketing narrative to substitute for the economic realities of our town. Multi-million dollar homes will not attract families and young working professionals to Fountain Hills. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Uh, my name is Rich Rkowsky. As of this summer, I'll be a 25-y year resident of Fountain Hills. I'm also president of the Fountain Hills School Board.

Uh, although tonight, I am speaking for myself and not as a representative of the board as a whole. Uh, I do support the proposed resoning of the Aspen property, and here are some of my reasons. Uh, as we heard in November 2024, the Fountain Hills voters expressed their will, 69% to 31%. The district is listening to and acting upon the will of the voters.

Uh, the sale will be of significant financial benefit to the district, schools, the students, and parents by generating funds to keep our school buildings in safe and proper condition, and to address needed roof replacement and HVAC systems awaiting attention. The sale will financially benefit taxpayers by reper repurposing vacant property which is not and will not be needed for school build a school building. This will help us preserve other funds for teacher salaries and classroom use.

We heard that the reasonzoning plan preserves the wash and significant open space among the entire parcel of land. Uh the proposed reszoning as we heard also matches the density of the existing homes on Aspen and the adjacent streets. Uh we heard it about the singlestory homes to preserve views. Uh as we also heard the current zoning would allow two-story homes on the property.

The designs of the new homes are likely to have a positive effect and increase the property values of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Uh so for all these reasons and others I urge you to vote to approve the proposal. Thank you. Next group of speakers will be in order of Liza Moridge, Dale Tilsar, and Matt Wilson. Good evening, chair, commissioners. Um, Liza Morick, two-year resident here.

The only I oppose this and the reason being when I first moved over here to Scottsdale, when I moved to Scottsdale from Chicago 2019, I saw a Darrow being built and it was beautiful and the homes are very pretty. It's still being built and it's just homes upon homes upon homes. And when I found out that that style of home was coming to Fountain Hills, I was actually just really just not happy about it at all.

I think that we have an amazing, beautiful town here in Fountain Hills and the style of these Toll Brother homes is just not something that we need over here on this side of our community. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Dave Tzer. My address is 15856 North Aspen Drive. and I've been a resident one year this month. We moved to Fountain Hills because it was really quiet and nice. Originally from Seattle area, no traffic, a lot a lot of things really good about it.

We found out shortly after we bought our home that the school was selling the property. There's a couple comments that have been made in the last few weeks that I want to clarify. I keep hearing about originally it's going to be a school. We've even even been told as residents if you don't accept this they might put a school there. We know there's not going to be a school there. The reason why we know it is because we can't fill the school buildings that we have today.

So we we just want to make sure that we're factual in our statements and we would appreciate that as residents. The other thing is we're going to have someone if he comes up, if he has the ability to come up to talk about traffic, it's not about the the flow of the traffic. It's not about the density or the or how much traffic. It's about the design of Aspen Drive. We have two blind corners up on the map up on the coming right out of the uh new homes. That is already dangerous to the residents.

The residents have contacted the town on several occasions asked for help. They've had no response. The other thing is there is one driveway from one of our residents that faces the road. It's that far right road going out. The house across the street is their house. Uh fact she's here. Yeah. Um the driveway faces the road, the the road coming out. So it's really dangerous for them to try to get their car out of the driveway and move down the road. And we've mentioned these things.

But what I the other thing I want to talk about is lot coverage. We hear lot coverage is similar. I just want to be clear on the facts. I'm glad Ashley brought up the map to show that it isn't all u 30% in Aspen Drive neighborhood. There are some lot there is some coverage of lots a lot smaller than 30%. Or 40%. But the last thing that I really want to talk about is how much I'm for toll brothers. I'm four toll brothers because they actually came to our house.

They spent an hour and a half and we've had a couple conversations. We had a we had a zoom meeting with them. They came to our house and talked to us because they put in the letter if you have any questions come talk to us or we'll come see you. And they did that. They spent an hour and a half and they listened to our concerns. They negotiated us for that hour and a half.

We said, "Hey, density is an issue." That's when they re agreed to rem Well, it took him a day or two to think about it, but that's when they removed the four homes, which went right back to some of the neighbors houses. Okay, time's up. Last last point, I just want to say I [snorts] appreciate Toll Brothers. I support Toll Brothers as a developer and I support their plan because who knows what we're going to get otherwise. Okay. Thank you, commissioners.

Thank you for holding the hearing tonight. My name is Matt Wilson. I live on 15824 North Eagles Nest Drive. I'm within that 300 foot range that you've seen on the map over here. [sighs] I've talked to a lot of neighbors about this program, about what's going on to get a feel for how everybody, you know, feels in the community about this. I can tell you a few things. First of all, nobody wants a school built there. Nobody's expecting a school built there.

Maybe I'm a relic from the 70s as well, but you know, nobody's expecting that to happen. And nobody's also under the impression that this land should not be design uh developed. Everybody understands that this land was going to be sold and it was going to be developed. I think um when you go back to the actual study that was done by the school board where they came back and did a study on the land saying what is the feasibility of sale? What's it valued at?

What could we reasonably put on there in its current zoning? They came back and said this is about 12 to 14 homes and that was a study done by Nathan and Associates back in 2024 for the sale. That is what people went to the polls with. When they had this ballot right here and they went to the polls, they were expecting 12 to 14 homes down the street. And you know, they could live with that. That's not a big deal there. But now what's happening is we're moving the goalpost in the middle.

You know, we're we're adjusting things so that we're accommodating the developer instead of saying, "No, this is what we felt it was designed for. This is what it's zoned for. This is pretty much what the community went to the polls to vote for, and now we're asking that to be changed over here." I don't think anybody is under the impression that this shouldn't be developed.

What I'm saying is that we need to take a look at exactly this because the density that's being proposed between 10 and 10A doesn't sound like a big deal, but that lot coverage on there is going to make it a lot closer together for the homes. And personally, when I moved out here, and I've been here 13 years, I didn't like the homes that were close together. I'd like to have a little bit of space between my neighbors.

That seven foot buffer between homes, I don't even think that's as far as between you and Mr. Kosvik. I don't think that's even that far here. And that's exactly what we're proposing. So, I know there's a lot of other topics on the plan tonight that they're speaking about the traffic, which that is a dangerous curve. I've walked it many times. I've driven it. I'm shocked that there's not been an accident there before.

Mark my words, if you don't do anything on that one, sooner or later someday, somebody is going to get hurt if nothing's going to happen. But my proposal on this is why do we have to go back to R10, R110A for the density on this one? Why is R8 R118 not an option in here? Could we not find a program that develops it at that level as well? Would that not find a middle ground between what a developer's needs are and between what the community could accept? That's my point. I'll yield my time.

Thank you. [applause] Next speakers will be Bert Wolf, Robert Baronoff, and excuse me, Carmina Ray Deamore. Good evening. I am Bert Wolf. I'm a resident. There is no need for the opponents of this proposal to bash another area in town to advance their parochial agenda. The toll development in Aderero Canyon contains multiple examples of nationally award-winning architecture. There is a consistency and a rhythm to the architecture that other areas in town do not necessarily possess.

Does it appeal to everyone? Nothing does. Yet, the fact remains that hundreds of these homes have been bought in this beautiful area of our town and home buyers preferences are revealed by the purchasing choices when they are affordable to them. Now, let's turn to the proposal at issue. I support the proposed reasonzoning. Beyond preserving some 12 acres as open space, Tol seeks to build single family homes on lots of at least 10,000 square ft, which is by definition lowdensity housing.

There are already many homes on 10,000 foot lots in the immediate vicinity of this parcel. 10,000 square foot lots are therefore compatible with the character of the neighborhood as it currently exists. We have many examples within a quarter mile or less of the proposed development. According to the county assessor's office, here are nearly 2 dozen homes with lots just 10,000 and 10,999 square ft except for 15844 North Aspen, which abuts this parcel and is 9,878 square ft.

So there's 15844 and6011, 018, 042, 050, 058, and 16220 on North Aspen. There's 15,633, 656, 802, 814, 815, 819, 820, and 824 on North Eagle Nest. There's 15404 and 405 on East Roundup, and 15208 and 214 on East Shootout. There's also 15860 on North Nyak, 15205 on East Rusty Nail, and 15403 on East Wrangler. Further, R10A lot coverage at 40% is just 10% more than R10 lot coverage at 30%.

The minimum yield, excuse me, the minimum yard setbacks are the same for the front and the side and differ by only five yards in the rear. Proposed resoning at R10A need not be identical in every respect, but rather merely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. And plainly, here it is. Moreover, toll builds beautiful homes. The proposed homes are expected to be new and modern with very attractive designs.

This proposal is an asset to the neighborhood, will likely increase the property values there, and is good for the town. For a variety of reasons that others have expressed, the proposal serves the public interest. Mindful of this commission's time limits, I will stop there. Thank you all so much. Good evening. My name is Robert Baronoff. I live on Golden Eagle Boulevard. Um, on the card I had to fill out, I was asked if I was for or against the agenda item. Let me be clear.

I am neither for nor against the project at it. Excuse me, against the project itself at this point. I am against the planning and zoning commission passing or recommending the project at this time because I feel that it would be premature. There are a number of outstanding issues that I believe in the name of due diligence need to be resolved before one can make that determination.

As others have number one, as others have mentioned in more detail, I believe an independent traffic study needs to be done. I know number two, I know that Toll Brothers to their credit has addressed certain water runoff issues in their proposal, but I don't believe it is good practice to rely on a party that has such a vested interest in the outcome.

Therefore, I think the town needs to hire an independent hydraologist to study the impact of their development plans on drainage, runoff, flooding, etc. Number three, likewise, we need a study analyzing the potential impact of the project on wildlife. We all know that the wash is home to and used as a traffic route by coyotes, havalanas, bobcats, rabbits, and even the occasional hila monster, which by the way became the first venomous animal in North America to receive legal protection in 1952.

We need a study on how these animals will be impacted. Number four, there is an outstanding legal question as to whether or not the property in question is subject to rules and oversight of the neighborhood property owners association or NPOA. Toll Brothers says that it is not, but the NPOA insists that it is. To support its case, Toll Brothers points to a 1973 amendment to the Declaration of Reservations.

This amendment however doesn't say that the deletion nor the unrestricted use of lot 4 block two from the recorded plat is in perpetuity only until there is a determination as to how the lots will be developed. Well, that time is now. So the legal question is is this property once again subject to NPOA restrictions? Has it been subject to them all along as asserted by the NPOA itself or at least since 1974 when the declarant decided to give the land to the school system?

Or is Toll brothers correct that they are not bound by the NPOA? Under any circumstances until we know the answer, I think it's premature to proceed. Number five, the information you received prior to tonight's meeting of course was for 29 houses. Now, we're talking about 25 houses, and we obviously need some assurance that it's the 25 home plan that would be under consideration, not the 29 home plan.

In closing, let me say that I and other neighbors appreciate Toll Brother's willingness to respond to neighborhood concerns, but there's more to be done, more independent impact studies and legal questions that need to be resolved before this project is ready to move forward. Thank you for your time. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board. My name is Carmen Deore with my my wife Ray Deore. We preside at 15844 North Aspen Drive.

And if you look at that plan, we are the most affected on that entire project. We have met with the Toll brothers, their attorneys, their representatives, and I have to um say that they were extremely uh amicable. [clears throat] They personally came to our homes and met with us. They addressed our concerns and for that they were able to remove four of those homes, two of which were going to be behind us. one on the side of our house and one directly behind us.

So for that I say thank you very much for your compassion and your dedication. What I do want to say though is that I noticed in the paperwork for tonight the agenda you're already recommending approving this. I ask you, each and every one of you, to not rubber stamp this project until you get the facts straight. You've heard an awful lot of things going on. Most aren't true.

A lot is true, but you as representatives of this community have the responsibility to hear our voice, not the not the commissioner's voice. You need to hear us. Having said that, we've talked about traffic and the traffic safety. Two Fridays ago, we had Friedell Friday on on the internet standing there with I don't know some supervisors, superintendent of the school saying, "We've been here for 20 minutes now at 10:00 a.m. on a Friday and four cars have gone by.

Holy cow, that what kind of traffic could that be? Are you kidding? Seriously, please do your due diligence. That is not a traffic study. In closing, I want to say that my wife and I are in favor. If this goes through and moves forward, we are in favor of Toll Brothers being the builder of choice. Thank you for your time. The next set of speakers are Larry Schmidt, Pamela Cook, and Susan Theas Titus. Larry Schmidt, are you here? No. Larry Schmidt. Okay. Pamela Cook, are you here?

[cough] [clears throat] Chair, commissioners, good evening. My name is Pamela Cook. I live at 15659 North Aspen Drive. If you look at the map, you can see my driveway is directly across from the southern entrance the proposed development. I'm here to request that Toll Brothers conduct a traffic impact analysis for this development. Section 2307 of the zoning ordinance requires this analysis for reszoning application of this magnitude. This requirement exists for a reason.

Aspen drive already presents real measurable hazards. There are blind curves and steep grades. Sight distance is limited in multiple locations. Toll Brothers proposes to add more than 60 additional daily vehicle trips. This represents a meaningful increase in collision and pedestrian risks and emergency response delays. I am particularly concerned about the southern entrance to the proposed development. This spot comes up quickly.

It's deceptive for drivers coming down a hill from Golden Eagle Boulevard at a legal 35 miles an hour or faster who hit a blind corner just before this entrance. I've learned to check my rearview mirror before the blind corner to make sure there is no one coming down the hill too closely behind me. Someone who might rear end me as I slow down and make the 90°ree right turn into my driveway. Backing out of my driveway is a high-speed event.

Many travelers driving both Many drivers traveling both ways into the corner are going too fast and are blindly carried into the middle of the road. Downhill northbound drivers coming to the blind corner are often forced into the oncoming traffic lane by my neighbors landscaper's truck. As they come around the corner, besides making pedestrians leap into my yard on a regular basis, they often encounter my landscaper's truck and trailer or delivery van stopped in front of the house.

It's easy to envision the perfect storm with 60 additional car trips being made of one vehicle parked in front of my house, another vehicle or vehicles at a full stop waiting turn left into the southern entrance as a car coming down the hill at 35 miles around the corner arrives on the scene with nowhere to go like the pedestrians when I come down around the corner. We are also concerned about the impact on first responders.

Narrow travel lanes and roadside parking already limit the maneuverability. With the 25 new homes and limited on-site parking, overflow parking onto Aspen Drive. It's not speculative. It is inevitable. We've all seen people don't use their garages. Constricted access for fire and medical responders is a public safety issue, not a neighborhood preference.

The overflow parking on Aspen is also an issue as there is heavy pedestrian usage, including many young children on bikes who do not know the rules of the road and watching them go up around the blind corner gives me a heart attack. I do appreciate that Toll Brothers has offered to put in a sidewalk.

Without the required sidewalk, without required study, there is no real objective basis for the commission to conclude that this project will maintain acceptable levels of service, preserve emergency access, or protect the public safety. Reszoning without the mandated traffic study would mean approving density first and evaluating the consequences later. That's backwards. I sincerely request that Toll Brothers comply with section 2307 and provide the traffic impacts the law requires. Thank you.

[applause] Were you Pam Cook? Susan Titus. Okay. person is going to be good evening Susan Titus 15633 North Eagles Nest Drive. I'm representing myself and my husband. We own the property. We bought the property in 2001. So, and when we bought the property um on the corner of Eagles Nest and Aspen, we knew that the school owned the property or deeded the property. So, there's been no secrets about that. The zoning had been in place for quite some time as far as the number of lots.

I have called three mayors in the in the years that we have owned the property to ask for traffic counts on Aspen. Aspen is a real issue as far as safety. We are right on the corner of that uh area. We are right by a blind curve and we take our lives in our hands every time we drive in that area. Um the improvement cannot be done by grading or doing um sidewalks or anything else. It's the traffic count that counts. I have also called mayors, the past mayors here about having speed bumps.

They tell us you cannot have a speed bump in our area on Aspen and all that because it's just too dangerous. We could not get to the culdeacs and the people that need the help if they have to do travel uh down Aspen with a speed bump. So, we have had no issues um as far as talking to mayors and having any help at all in a traffic issue.

That's not even counting the intersection of Aspen and Golden um Eagle because uh Anyway, it it's just amazing how that you have not really requested speed uh counts and car counts. I it's just it's so wrong that somebody stands there at 10 in the morning and thinks it's it's a working neighborhood. We bought it as a working neighborhood and it is still that it is a community, a small community of working and very giving people. Thank you. Chair, we have 24 seconds left.

Do we have any more speaker cards? We do. Do you want to continue? One more. By the time they get up here, it'll be Katherine. It looks like Capoto. I can't read this. Good evening. My name is Katherine Caposi. I live at 15329 East Walnut Lane, Fountain Hills. I'm an Arizona native and resident of Fountain Hills for 10 years. Um, my prop and so maybe I can't do it in 8 seconds. I want to talk about the wildlife. Currently, there's no uh proper assessments that's been done.

In addition, there are lots of coyotes, havalas, uh, which would be a big issue. Um, in addition, my daughters ride their bikes all the time, so they make no mistake about the issues with the traffic. Um, it is incredibly risky. I am very concerned about the numbers of houses that would go up. So, I really ask that you consider that. Also, um, there are federally endangered species that also need to be in check and looked at in terms of the wash and the impact there. So, that's all I'll say.

Thank you. Okay, this will close the public hearing and um commissioners, any further comments? I think uh Ashley, could you address anything related to the wildlife hazards? I was I was just curious, did you check like the IPAC database and to see if there's any threat and endangered species in the area through the chair? Thank you for that question. So, we did do an initial impact environmental assessment um with our due diligence. That's very typical um to do.

Um we are preserving 11 acres of open space for wildlife. So um we do hear those concerns and we'd be hardressed not to acknowledge those but there's 11 acres of open space available that is direct result of wildlife considerations as well. Any uh protected uh habitat or anything through the chair? I do not believe we found any protected habitat actually. Um I think you presented earlier to us and the audience the public a traffic study that traffic study was done by a traffic engineer or Okay.

So th this study uh I think there's a footnote on the bottom uh average rates were calculated by dividing total uh trips generated using regression equation by the number of dwelling units. So, um I'm assuming that's a scientific study through the chair. Correct. So, Civ commissioned this study. I just extrapolated the um the the chart for you so you could could read it, but a traffic engineer went ahead and did these counts for us.

They're the notations on the side in the blue are are my map with the reduction in density. Um but the slide before this is all generated by Civ Don Cardier. She is one of the most wellrespected traffic engineers in the state. Oh, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Proctor, am I on? There I am. Uh, thank you, Commissioner Corgan. You stole one of my questions, but I do have a second. Counselor, thank you for your presentation. Um, one of the u uh uh comments was made uh about the NPOA.

Um, are there any legal issues between toll and NPOA and the development of a new HOA through the chair? U thank you for bringing that up. And I have a slide here. I'm not sure it will let me get to it. Let me see. Um, we are not subject to the NPOA. I appreciate that question. And I've got a excerpt of our um, amendment to the declaration from the 1970s. Again, um, there is a mapping error on the NPOA's website.

we have provided this document to the NPOA that we are not part of the NPOA and did they respond? We've had some back and forth correspondence um with the NPOA. Um we believe that we are not part of the NOA. We've had the title and we've had title attorney review that. That is not my wheelhouse. I stick with colors on maps. Um but we've provided them all the documentation um that they've requested and had a couple back and forths with them. We haven't heard anything back from them. Thank you.

and through the chair. I'm happy to provide additional points as you see fit or or answer questions. I've got some rebuttal slides as well. Yeah. Does it make sense to um to have an amendment to the traffic study done to see to propose mitigation of the blind curves that feed your development? Uh chair, thank you for that question. So, we are not required to do a traffic study. And I bring this to your attention. They say requirements for PAD.

We've heard reference for we were required to do a traffic study. Required to do a traffic study. Um that is when you were seeking these type of documents for what's called a plan area development. Um that is create your own zoning district for lack of a better description. This site was always envisioned to be a school site when it was platted. I've showed the traffic volumes. It's for additional consideration of much larger traffic volumes when this site was designed.

Um that said, we are happy to continue to work with the town on additional mitigation measures and we have proposed one striping um proposal for lack of a better description. We're happy to continue to work with the town. Um, to that effect, if you don't mind, chair, I've actually drafted a stipulation that would require us to keep working with public works on striping and signage along the front edge of Aspen Drive, extending east of Golden Eagle.

We do feel that sidewalk extension is going to get pedestrians off that blind curve, so to speak. So, we feel like that's a step in the right direction, and we're happy to keep working with public works on that. And I'm happy to pass around a stipulation for this commission's consideration that would require us to keep working with public works. But I I we're we've heard over and over again tonight about the unsafe conditions um regarding the blind curves.

um how I and you've been so receptive and I appreciate that to to the neighborhood's concerns, but I haven't heard that one addressed and that just seems like it's not a difficult fix. Chair, thank you very much for that feedback. We agree and we've proposed a sign striping plan to the town. That has not been received. We've studied the geometry of that. the geometry fits the town's um requirements for the the road. It's the town's road. We are happy to work with additional striping.

We're happy to work with additional signage of that. We're happy to address ongoing existing concerns. Um again, I've got a stipulation that we will continue to work with public works. We've already put forth one proposal. We are extending a sidewalk. So, we're definitely doing um what we can working with those existing conditions. And again, I'm happy to address this. This road was designed for much bigger volumes for a school site. Um, it's in the general plan designated as school site.

It is in the the plat as a school site. The town has designed this road to accommodate a school site. We're at much lower volumes than that. And we're happy to continue working on any sighting or striping that the town will allow us to do, but at the end of the day, it's their road. Yeah. And I understand. So, John, um, and I think John just exited.

John, um, how do we get how do we get public works to acknowledge this is a problem that the neighbors feel this is a problem that we need to address. Uh, chair, commissioners, I was just uh, pondering how to respond to that potential question. I'm not sure I've gotten quite there yet, but um uh the little bit of discussion I have had with the engineering staff, they they are aware of it.

The proposal that was put in for uh the striping uh was not one that they were willing to uh move forward with as far as I understand at this point. Uh but uh I'm sure they'll be willing to to work with the the applicant as we go through the the planning processes uh to see what solutions can uh uh work at this particular location.

A stipulation, excuse [clears throat] me, a stipulation on the uh the zoning that they uh proceed with that prior to getting to town council, I think is a viable uh solution. And by the time we get to town council, uh, hopefully we can have those alternatives ready for the the council to consider. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, just a just a quick question. That uh blind curve existed well before um Toll Brothers came along. It's always been a problem.

Uh my question is will the development the proposed development by toll uh exacerbate that curve? make it worse through the chair. Thank you for that question. No, we've studied the geometry. We do not believe that that ex condition is exasperated. We are working with existing conditions. I put the volumes up here again. Again, this street has been designed, has been planned as a future school site to accommodate a lot bigger volumes. We are going to have minimal impact to this curve.

We understand, we appreciate the community's concern. We are offering a stipulation to continue to work with public works on that. But to your point um commissioner, this is an existing geometry we're working within as well and this is a much less intense than any use than any other um site plants. Thank you. So I I have one more question. So what's what stipulations are on the table including the public works stipulation? Um thank you chair.

So we are prepared to make sure we get this resolved right. That's the end of the day. We want to get this resolved. So, um, we have a stipulation prepared that we shall work with public works on striping and signage along the frontage of Aspen Drive extending east towards Golden Eagle. So, from our frontage out to the main road. And then I also have another stipulation here regarding that sidewalk extension that we had shown.

And I'm happy to distribute copies to your commission um through Miss Woodward if appropriate. of two stipulations to require that sidewalk extension and to continue working with public works on signing and striping for the um the remaining piece of that road. And we have we have three other stipulations um 25 lots in accordance with the site plan, single story and um the set aside of the non-developable area. Correct. Chair. So that's five stipulations. I'm sorry. Yeah.

I'm sorry, the public portion of the hearing is closed. Um, so there are five stipulations that Director Wesley chair, I would suggest that the one with regarding public works be stated a little bit more broadly than uh just signage and striping. There may be other solutions uh that that might be envisioned besides those two. And I would also uh I'm not sure exactly of the wording. I haven't read what Ashley has, but that uh resolutions be prepared to present to the town council.

So for whatever reason we don't feel like we get there by the date of the hearing, then that hearing would need to be continued at that point. We do have solutions. I I still I I want to get this I want to get the stipulations right. So maybe we should see the stipulation you prepared. Do you have a copy for all the uh all the commissioners? And uh chair, we're happy to revise that to traffic mitigation to incorporate a broader swoop. Um as as Mr.

Wesley said I can hand while she's handing out Commissioner Spardless of what happens with this um regardless of what happens with this the area needs to the traffic needs to be addressed. Uh there's there's uh council members, there's the mayor, people are here I I think that that public works needs to address this because it is obviously a problem. There's got to be a solution to it.

Um this is increasing traffic by such a small amount, but if there's a problem, it should be addressed and and Toll Brothers is willing to work on whatever they can, but I think it is a it's a it's a town issue that you have every right to ask about this. It's it's an aside to this project, frankly. But it is a it is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed. So I'd encourage you to if you can't get click if you can't get action from public works then go to a different level.

Maybe you can get someone's ear to address your problem. Anybody else? Okay, I'm then we're ready for a motion. Um I again there are uh five stipulations um in addition to the uh R1-10A. Um and I would like to make sure traffic mitigation is added to the public works stipulation. So, it's the public works department on striping, signage, and traffic mitigation along the frontage of Aspen Drive extending east to Golden Eagle Boulevard. And do we do we need to go over the five stipulations again?

Um, chair, I think, uh, to be clear, we should. Um just to um I mean we have it uh written down. Um if I could try a review um one is a note shall be included on the final plat limiting homes to one story. Um second a note shall be included on the final plat that would establish a non-developable area uh for the area defined by the regulatory flood plan and erosion setback limits. and the u two stipulations that Toll has given us uh for striping.

Toll Brothers shall work with public works department on striping andor signage and traffic mitigation along the frontage of Aspen Drive extending east to Golden Eagle Boulevard. And secondly, Toll Brothers shall work with the public works department regarding extending their required sidewalk along the frontage of Aspen Drive east approximately 136 ft on the town owned property. Um I'm missing any any other 25 lots. 20 25 lots. Yes. So those be 29. It' be 29. Correct. 25 lots.

So th those are the five stipulations. Okay. Well, uh, chair, if you Well, I'll make a motion. I'll try to get through this. Um, I move that uh the commission approve the reszone of approximately 20 acres located approximately 600 ft south of the southeast corner of Golden Eagle Boulevard and Nyak Drive from R1 135 to R110A to allow development of 25 single family residential lots subject to the conditions I previously said. Can I get away with that? Does that work for you, Paula?

Yes, that's fine. Okay. I do have a question though. Is the traffic mitigation part of this added to the five? Yes. Yes, it's part of the stipulations of the stipulation on striping signage and traffic mitigation along the frontage. I'm looking for a second. I'll second a motion. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Oh, do you want Okay. I thank you, chair.

Um I I guess there was someone that mentioned that we had already made up our mind that these recommendations were that did not come from this body. That comes from staff. I'm not throwing them under the bus. I'm just telling you that we are a commission that is works with uh planning department and them providing us opportunities that people bring forward to them and we make decisions based on uh facts that are provided to us and that's that's where that's where it came from.

So there was no conclusions before they were made. Obviously we we've had a lot of material to read that's that's provided some great great information for us as well to review. We also don't make decisions based on price. If Toll Brothers wanted to come in here and build condos for $350,000 on on uh our 110, we would probably would address it the same way. You wouldn't be happy about that.

My experience is brand new neighborhoods that are contingent or adjacent to existing neighborhoods tend to help prices go up because they can't build for what your home is worth. It's going to be higher in price. uh the traffic again the traffic counts they'll be they'll be addressed. Um but I mainly wanted to I just wanted to say that these conclusions that we draw are made from information that's provided to us testimony that's given from you the applicant. It's not predetermined.

So I this is great having having all the the information all the input but I think we've uh we've we've made a We're making a decision based on everything that I've just said. So, I I I think that's worth it. Thank you. Commissioner Slober, did you have something to say? Roll call vote, please. Okay. Roll call vote. Commissioner Proctor, I. Commissioner Seam, I. Commissioner Slashberg, I. Commissioner Corrian, I. Commissioner McDermott, I. Chair Kova Seavoc. I 6. Okay.

Um, [clears throat] moving on to regular agenda. You want to take a break? Okay, John, we're going to take take five. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. Item C, public hearing with consideration and possible action relating to ordinance 26-02 amending zoning ordinance chapter 27 downtown overlay section 27.02A related to permitted density for residential development. Chair, thank you very much. That's probably half the report right there in that title.

So, just very quickly, because we've talked about this before, you've already had a a long evening, but as we have developed the uh new downtown overlay ordinance a few months ago, taking that through town council as they were considering the actual reasonzoning, they uh a question came up about the allowed density in the overlay. Uh currently set at 35 units per acre. Uh so, this was on your January 12th uh meeting as a public hearing.

There's some discussion uh that night about some other related concerns uh with the downtown and how it's designed and working as well as uh the density question itself and it was continued uh to tonight's meeting for further review and discussion. Since then uh I've had discussions with the chair and member of the plateau board and committee and got some of their uh input on what's possible and not possible in this area.

And basically uh the any redevelopment of the parking lots is uh virtually impossible. It's jointly owned by all the owners and the decision-m required to do anything differently in those parking areas. Again, we make that uh again virtually impossible uh to uh make any changes there. And we do need to move forward uh with making a recommendation with regard to the density. You've had the the public hearing started back at your January meeting. You've got 90 days to move forward.

Um that will be prior to your next meeting. So uh there are constraints. There were some concerns about how much density could actually happen. How much residential could really happen? Maybe that will overpower the the commercial uses that we desire to see. But again, the avenue district itself will not allow does not allow any residential on the ground floor. It'll always have to remain non-residential uses in that area.

In the business district, you can have ground floor uh residential only through approval of a special use permit. So again, the commission, the council have control over how much of that area would ever become a residential on a ground floor. So we have the ability there to maintain the commercial and other non-residential uses that are desired in the district. And the innovation district on the north end doesn't have any residential by right.

It's all through special use permit and has no uh of the minimum densities that we're trying to get in the rest of the area. It's a maximum height of 40 feet. So again, you're not going to get tall buildings with lots of residential. Again, the common open space uh areas provide the parking won't be developed. So we looked at this last time as we're trying to come to the numbers.

If we use uh Verie River and Avenue of the Fountains as a center point and drawing circle uh for the typical kind of walk area, the kind of that downtown uh mixed juice area we're we're trying to create. uh studies say we should have someplace between 12 to 15,000 per square mile. Again, that's a lot much larger area. So, we bring that down to this area. We're looking at at some place between 750 900 dwelling units within uh this area. There's currently about 350.

So, adding 4 to 500 more dwelling units overall throughout this area. The main uh discussion point here has been with regard to the overlay with the plateau 8 uh which are these four blocks uh centered on Verie River and Park View. Each of these blocks is right around 11 acres in size. A lot of it is taken up in the parking. There are uh about 21 acres of platted lots within here. Of that about half are still vacant at 11.5 acres of vacant land that can be built upon.

So the densities if we'd like to see someplace around 300 dwelling units within plate 208 over time. So looking at the options here at 15 units per acre if all of the buildable area were built with residential at 15 units per acre. You can get close to that. Uh but when you look at just the number of vacant lots you're at 88 units just filling in the vacant lots.

So going up from there with 25 and 35 and 45 units per acre, just giving you kind of that range to look at for discussion purposes from the last meeting, um you can see what what the totals might be. So at 45 uh units per acre and all the vacant lots being built on with residential at that density, we're still a little bit below what we'd kind of like to see uh in the area. It's uh most of the developed lots uh are not likely to redevelop. Some will.

have seen that already with coming back Belvadier across the street and I'll mention that again here in a minute developed building came back and added uh commercial or added residential and another one further down on the avenue. So it will happen it has happened but we won't see all of the existing lots redevelop with residential and not all vacant lots will develop with residential.

We've been talking to uh some owners of some lots that are looking at development that do not include residential but a couple other we've been talking to recently are looking at that combination. So again, we'll see a mix continue to see a mix of uses throughout the area.

One of the points that was made at the last meeting is when you look at a typical uh multif family development, uh you'll see the density is also spread over the parking and the open space and so forth goes and makes up that total development. Here we've been focusing on just the buildable lots themselves at the densities.

When we translate that into an entire block that includes then all the all the common parking which would be more typical how we would calculate density that 15 units per acre becomes 6.7 units per acre and 25 becomes 10.6 and the and the 35 becomes 15 and the 45 becomes 20.9. So comparatively that's still uh even at the 45 that is less than what the R4 and the R5 densities allow. would done in a more typical development fashion.

Again, some examples across the street here on Avenue of the Fountains. You recently looked at and approved the uh bonding project. Six units on 12,000 square feet, so 21 units per acre. Prior to that, you had looked at but didn't proceed on to council. A similar plan, but had was double that to 12 units, so 43 units per acre. Belvadier suites across the street, 38 units. uh small project down the street next to Sopras has four units on the 2500 square feet. So 69 units per acre.

The development agreement for Parkplace is at 45 units per acre. So with that uh looking at what the needs are for the downtown area, how it translates into the gross density across a full block.

staff believes that the 35 units per acre that has previously been approved is a good density for the downtown as that by right when you start putting hurdles you got to come through get the special use permit you create challenges to the market and keeping it moving forward and so we want to try to encourage these things to happen so we're we're recommending keeping the 35 but amending the language to set a maximum overall of a block at 15 units per breaker just on the outside chance that somehow Now, somebody does acquire all the lots, and acquires all the parking area, we're not going to get something more than what uh we really bargain for, intended for the area.

Do have uh John Kovas uh John Kak from your name from the Plateau 28 board here this evening. I'll be able to talk and answer questions you may have about P208 and how they've looked at this and their comments. Any questions for me at this time? Um I do I have a question. What's the basis for the uh 35 unit uh recommendation as opposed to 45 or chairs?

Uh looking at these numbers, I can see where you came before with the 45 and and staff uh would not oppose that, but knowing that the council sent it here with the idea it was going to be reduced. Um didn't know that I wanted to propose it going up, but certainly if the commission as you study that and believe that's what should happen, we'll be gladly take that back to the council.

Um, John, you say it's virtually impossible to get all of the owners or the what what's the percentage again for approving a change or modification to the parking? 2/3 66%. 2/3. I believe that's correct. Yeah. John can answer as a member of the board. He can answer that better. Good. Yeah. Yeah. So, the minimum would be 66%. But for some kind of major change like that, um I would anticipate it probably might even be including everyone.

Um and there's over 100 owners and 130 something different, um you know, lots in that. So, there's really um very very unlikely chance that that could ever happen with all what determines whether you need 2/3 or 100%. Uh I'm not sure. That would be pro that would be a question for the attorney for the um for the tract, but the minimum would be 2/3 um as far as I know. Have you ever seen what could be done with those parking lots?

I mean, has there been any kind of a presentation made to the board about what could be done with those parking lots to enhance them and still not impact um or or decrease the number of parking stalls? Uh I mean, right now we are working on trying to do covered parking. Um it's in the beginning stages of that. Um besides that, we haven't um pursued any any other What do you mean covered parking? Mean like a ramp or what?

No, we're Well, no, we're um we're working on getting covered parking in the the middle sections of the blocks. Okay. Um just a proposal right now. So there's never been a redevelopment idea put in front of the board on No, no, no. There's just there's too many owners and you're restricted to where your to where your current lot lines are and that's and that's it. And every every owner has a has a share of the of the parking, you know, a one 132nd or whatever um whatever the total number is.

Okay. Thanks. Question. You would um Sorry, follow-up question. Um and I'm not trying to be koi or evasive or anything like that. You said I think there's Did you say there's 137 owners? I think there's a 100 owners, but I think there's 130 something parcels. Okay. And again, I'm not trying to be difficult. How do you get consensus from all of that that group? I mean, do you get a lot of the stuff?

I mean, a lot of the stuff the board just handles, but to do any kind of major major change like that or redevelopment, that would that would require um you know um you know a huge a huge vote. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Thank you. Yeah, John. Um, is the restriction on first floor in the on the AB still not formalized or approved yet as far as restricting the use?

Uh, chair, commissioner, yes, the ordinance has been approved and is is there ready to be applied, but the actual reasonzoning of the property to apply it has been put on hold pending the outcome of of this process here to possibly adjust the density allowance. So, a vacant service, it was a service uh company is gone, right? As of right now, the the property owner could lease it to whoever they want it. Correct.

But when this goes into effect, it'll have to be an entity that pays sales tax basically, right? Active retail, commercial, entertainment type activity. Yes. And that's, you know, that's that was a change from what we decided as a body and the council decided that not even an SUP was a possibility. Correct. Correct. Right. Um I continue to have a problem with that. Significant problem.

Um property owners um are will experience a devaluation of their property if their their space on first becomes vacant and they can't lease it because nobody can afford to put a restaurant in it. Um, and I think that I think that SUP I'm maybe somebody way in the back can hear me say I hope that comes back uh to reverse it. Um, and it doesn't nor it doesn't just treat the property owner poorly, but it also the lender has a collateral issue because the property is not going to be worth as much.

um if it's vacant and they are restricted to what type of of tenant they can put in there. So, I really hope this comes back to us or comes back to the council and has there's some more discussion about the downside of doing that. It's all great if uh you know you could fill it all with restaurants and drinking establishments and sales tax paying entities, but the likelihood of that for many reasons is unlikely. So, um I I think there needs to be some more discussion.

I hope there will be at some point in time before this is all finalized. And frankly, I'm going to vote against this uh whatever density we come up with because just kind of out of protest. I I don't I don't believe we should be proceeding with this until there is some some change or some more discussion about that uh major problem. I probably am talking off I shouldn't be. It's not on the agenda. Is that why? Okay, that's my point. Anybody else?

Um, and I I do want to piggyback I I just want to piggyback onto that in that um I've said all along there should be a market study for the downtown area. Um that I don't know that there's enough business to support a downtown area of strictly retail and uh restaurant entertainment.

And there there should be I I recommended that to begin with and and I do believe there should be uh some sort of market study that tells us how much of the spa how much space should be ded can be dedicated and can reasonably be expected to be successful um in those businesses. But that having been said, if council wants a density, we'll give them a density. Um, so that's the the question on the table, gentlemen. Oh, do we have speaker cards on this, Paulo? We do, chair.

We have two speaker cards. The first speaker is Crystal Kavanaaugh, and the second speaker will be Larry Meyers. Hello, Crystal Kavanagh, Fountain Hills resident. In the staff report, it said retail follows rooftops as well. It's also said population and population density is needed to attract business. The staff report indicated bringing 300 more apartments to the downtown Plat 208 area alone, and that would be in addition to whatever ends up being built at the Park Place corner.

Downtown apartments could easily attract part-time residents, which isn't great for our sales tax. And how are we so sure that one major developer wouldn't buy them up in a block? Your approval of that density would exclude any possibility of the unique type of entertainment and restaurant districts such as Oldtown Gilbert or Cave Creek have both of which are marketed as destinations that are actually fun. There is so much traffic on Shea that we are currently widening the roads.

Eventually, 316 more apartments will sit in the Target lot. How many more apartments do we need to support business? And I'm fully aware of the retail component that's required downtown on the first floors, but Fountain Hill shops do not stay open late and don't bring in the type of sales tax as does entertainment and restaurant bars. And with the residential up above, this limits the types of business you attract on the first floor.

Changing the remainder of Plat 208 to bring more apartments doesn't fit the vision of many who choose to live in Fountain Hills. Like I said at the council, rooftop restaurants and bars and scenic Fountain Hills should be a goal, a district, unique western themes like Buffalo Bills and Xolo or Cave Creek, for example. A nice steakhouse with craft cocktails downtown would be popular if done right. I mean, we have a dark sky discovery center coming bringing visitors.

Seek out businesses that complement that with telescopes on rooftops or alien entre and cocktails. Be creative. Make Fountain Hills a destination stop. We can't just keep doing it peace meal. But that can't happen if you allow this open land to become all apartments. We are already surrounded by apartments in the downtown area. Are they supporting the existing businesses? When I'm outspending money in Fountain Hills, which I am frequently, I primarily meet homeowners for the most part.

So, I'm not buying that this type of growth is helping. Limited smaller apartment builds like the one approved next to Zabt Thai are generally not a problem. But enough is enough. Stop changing the makeup of Fountain Hills with all these apartments. Think outside the box and become a destination location that actually does bring vibrancy and sales tax. Thanks. Larry Myers, resident, 44 years chair, commissioners.

Uh, I second what Crystal said because essentially the downtown is the last spot in Fountain Hills to actually accomplish something and to reszone it so that we can have a bunch of apartments or apartments. We'll take away the last spot. We struggle with we struggle because we've reszoned ourselves out of any chance for a corporate headquarters. We can reszone ourselves out of any chance for any type of fun zone. My my term the fun zone.

You can't stick apartments over top of anything that's fun because it makes noise and the people that live up there would have a complaint. I would if I if I did and I wanted to go to bed at nine o'clock. So this business where we take a bunch of apartments but we allow something on the first floor and then I'm with I'm with commissioner. I don't know that you could tell a land owner what the heck they can do with their land in terms of what kind of tenant they can put in there.

What you can do is allow the zoning so that it encourages the type of activity that Crystal Kavanaaugh spoke about and then actually have a staff and a commission and a council that supports that vision and not only supports the vision but goes out and does something about it. Because if you don't have a goal and actually work towards it as a unit, a cohesive unit where everybody has the same vision, you will never get there.

Which is why Plateau 208 remains what it is because there's never been that and there isn't that now. And just a mere discussion of having a density like that and thinking, "Oh, we'll get some apartments." Sorry, Mr. Gerszac. Uh, apartments are not going to solve any any of the things that this town longs for, especially sales tax revenue. Those people aren't here all year long. I'm here all year long. I know who lives in those apartments.

I don't care whether they're 92% filled because they're only 92% filled 40% of the year. So I say zone the the density isn't the issue tonight. It's get a vision and Peter Gray said it. We keep dipping our toe but we never really accomplish anything because we don't have a cohesive vision. So, I would encourage everybody, keep the density low, figure it out. Don't try and tell land owners what they can and can't do with their with their downstairs. It won't work. Thank you.

Any more public speakers? No, chair. That was it. Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Um, any comments? So, so what would the density be then if if if it what is it written as right now? If if it if the motion is to change it to 35 or 45, what is it today, Chair, Commissioner McDerm, today it's 35 units per Today is 35. Yes. Okay.

The town council based on some comments made at the public hearing uh requested that it be reconsidered by the PNZ commission to potentially lower it down to something less maybe around 15. Okay. Okay. But but um but the one thing that when we say 35, it's 35 for the buildable lot, which when you factor in all of the parking if you were right to maximize if you were to have 30, say it was 35 and you did that around the block, it winds up being 15, right? When you include the common area. Yep.

Okay. New guy question. Sorry. Anybody else? Thank you, chair. I raised it before I think maybe back in January, but this idea about using a winner or a leader or a successful town as a model is, I think, a pretty good idea. If somebody is doing something in Cave Creek that is bringing revenue, sales tax into town, maybe we ought to study that community. If it's Gilbert, if it's, you know, wherever.

Um, and I don't know if that that is to be born by planning and zoning or economic development or the council, but I think it would be good a good idea, as Crystal Kavanagh said, as Larry Meyer said, to have a vision, to have a goal. And maybe it isn't based on, you know, apartments. Maybe it's based on another factor that might bring revenue. That's our goal downtown. That's my thought on it. So, Oh, thanks.

So, as as I've been contemplating um my opinion and my philosophy, I've been talking with nonprofit um development opportunities either through ASU or or ULI. ULI reminded me that there was back in 2010 of a community Myers, you were probably on the involved in all of this. It came up with 10 recommendations from the Fountain Hills a tap not not the tap house, but the tap and and it's I don't know where it's lost somewhere.

Um, this is probably one of probably maybe there's several of these that have gone over gone on over the years, but I I I think there there needs to be some um some design work and and collaborative effort with the people living here, live downtown, don't live downtown, to have some input and be dedicated to look into this carefully and and if it if it is something that's of interest to the town, then to be involved in making that it gets done because a lot of these things do collect dust.

Let's face it, market studies, I think it's important, but I've seen plenty of those over the years kind of sit on the shelf and really don't get executed. That's the important part. We lose we lose that execution. So, um, whatever happens with this density issue, fine. But I think there's a um I am still going to try to um reach out and find an outlet of some interest of of those that might help with some design capabilities that um for the town to consider.

And if there's not support for it, there won't be support. Um I wouldn't give it I wouldn't give up on Plateau 208. I just wouldn't give up on it. I mean, that's such a vital part of the the community in downtown. There's got to be something that at some point in time that will click with at least twothirds of the owners. Maybe not, but I I think it's important enough to continue to look into again whether this density issue goes through tonight.

If it's that important, maybe ought to try to vote on it, I guess. Well, I think that's [clears throat] our mission tonight, is it not? I mean it's strictly to consider the density to send back to council. Correct. Yes, chair. That's the the direction that council has asked for your input on. Yeah. So, we're we're not reconsidering the overlay, reconsidering any of the language. We're strictly considering density. Correct.

And staff's recommendation is 35 units an acre for the um for the the lots and but in a Yeah. 15 units an acre for an entire block. Correct. Okay. So, commissioners, uh, anybody want to make a motion, make a recommendation? Anybody any debate on what the number should be chair? Are you looking at my direction for uh [laughter] some Yeah, I I I will make a motion. Before I make a motion, I I share u uh Phil's and concerns and uh uh the speakers.

What what's frustrating to me is there's there's so much potential, but we don't have a road map on how to get there. Now, I'll fall back on on, you know, a pet thing that I'd love, but you know, performing arts center. We need something like Miss Kavanagh said, we have the discovery center that's going to bring all kinds of people in school groups. We need another hook to bring people in.

Once you have those hooks, you're going to have uh requirements for housing and then we can approach it that way, but we need another hook like the Discovery Center, performing arts center may be one. um a a STEM research uh educational center uh that goes alongside of the uh discovery center uh where we have nothing but STEM education could be another hook where we bring people in. Um but just nibbling around the edges like I feel like we're doing tonight is is kind of frustrating.

Uh but with that said, um I'll move that uh we recommend adoption of ordinance 2602. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Any further discussion? Paula, can we have a roll call? Commissioner Proctor, yes. Commissioner Sum, no. Commissioner Schllosberg, no. Commissioner Coran, permission to explain my vote. Chair, go ahead. First of all, I don't think uh basing our our downtown development on the number of lots per square footage per capita use of apartments.

I don't think that's the way to judge it. Um, and I think we ought to reconsider this. I'm not going to say table a motion because it's too late for that. We have a we have a a a motion. We have a second. And um I'm I'm just forced to say no. I'm just going to vote no. Commissioner McDermott. No. Didn't you make a recommendation for approval for the second? Yeah. So, I have to go to the second, right? Right. Well, you can still vote no. Yeah, vote no. Okay.

Because the second or the second just Sure. Um, Chair Kovac I Okay, we have two two four. Okay. Thank you. [clears throat] Director, if it's okay with you, I'd like to continue the u the remaining item on the agenda. Um so we can move to call to the public. Okay. Do we have any speaker cards for call to the public? No, chair. Commission discussion direction to the director. Anybody have anything for John?

Hey John, we touched on this back in the I don't want to talk about signage ever again, but I kind of have to in this particular situation, but we talked about signage and enforcement of the signage and I actually made the comment, you know, we were talking about how many one and a half staff people there are to enforce it and I said, "Well, I beg to differ because I don't think it's being enforced." really I know it's not being enforced and I'm speaking from my my office building which is kind of maybe an outlier but we have signage which I know has not been approved through the town that's up on the building causing my building to look like I mean honestly looks like the ghetto and I've got some pictures that I can show you.

So, I'm just asking personally if we can get one of the code enforcement guys to slip by and say either take it down or get it permitted. That's uh that's my request. Thanks. Anything else for John? Okay. Future agenda items. So, uh, from the staff side, we'll have the discussion of the mural ordinance, uh, at your next meeting. Anticipating also that we would have a text amendment dealing with community residences on your next agenda. You aware of any others? Okay.

Yes, we have an SUP also that would expect to be on your next agenda. So, do have have another busy meeting for you next month, it looks like. I'll take a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I 6