No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019.1001.TCRM.Packete, 'f � - NOTICE OF MEETING — REGULAR MEETING fo11-N�,OO FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL Mayor Ginny Dickey Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone Councilmember Mike Scharnow Councilmember Dennis Brown Councilmember David Spelich Councilmember Alan Magazine Councilmember Art Tolis TIME: 5:30 P.M. — REGULAR MEETING WHEN: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2019 WHERE: FOUNTAIN HILLS COMMUNITY CENTER (NOTE CHANGE IN LOCATION) 13001 N. LA MONTANA, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town's various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Town Council are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived. REQUEST TO COMMENT The public is welcome to participate in Council meetings. TO SPEAK TO AN AGENDA ITEM, please complete a Request to Comment card, located in the back of the Council Chambers, and hand it to the Town Clerk prior to discussion of that item, if possible. Include the agenda item on which you wish to comment. Speakers will be allowed up to three contiguous minutes to address the Council. Verbal comments should be directed through the Presiding Officer and not to individual Councilmembers. TO COMMENT ON AN AGENDA ITEM IN WRITING ONLY, please complete a Request to Comment card, indicating it is a written comment, and check the box on whether you are FOR or AGAINST an agenda item, and hand it to the Town Clerk prior to discussion, if possible. Town Council Regular Meeting of October 1, 2019 2 of 3 NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Town Council, and to the general public, that at this meeting, the Town Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the Town's attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3). CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Mayor Ginny Dickey 2. INVOCATION/MOMENT OF SILENCE - Pastor Jeff Teeples, Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church 3. ROLL CALL — Mayor Dickey 4. REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND TOWN MANAGER A. PROCLAMATION - October 6 through 12, 2019, as Fire Prevention Week 5. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS A. PRESENTATIONS by Arizona State Legislators of District 23 6. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual councilmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda. 7. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be enacted by one motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. CONSIDERATION OF approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 17, 2019; and the Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019. Town Council Regular Meeting of October 1, 2019 3 of 3 8. REGULAR AGENDA A. Daybreak Development: Public Hearing CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-39, a proposed Minor Amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 to change the land use designation on approximately 23 acres of land located on the east side of Palisades Boulevard north of Shea Boulevard from Lodging to Mulit-Family/Medium. If adopted, the amendment will allow for multi -residential development. (Case # GPA2019 - 01) iii. CONSIDERATION OF Ordinance 19-03, a proposed amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Map. If adopted, the amendment would rezone approximately 59.79 acres at 10825 N Palisades, from the "L-3 P.U.D." and "OSR" zoning districts to the "Daybreak PAD" zoning district. If approved, the rezoning will allow the construction of an apartment complex with up to 400 dwelling units. (Case #Z2018-10) iv. CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-52 approving a Development Agreement associated with the Daybreak P.A.D. rezoning located at the northeast corner of Palisades and Shea Boulevards. 9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/DIRECTION to the TOWN MANAGER Items) listed below are related only to the propriety of (i) placing such item(s) on a future agenda for action, or (ii) directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Council. 10. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed by the Town Council with the Town Clerk. Dated this day of 2019. Elizabeth A. Burke, MMC, Town Clerk The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call480-816-5199 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's Office. ITEM 4. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT VSH � N Meeting Date: 10/01/2019 Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Reports Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Angela Padgett -Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council Staff Contact Information: Angela Padgett -Espiritu, Executive Assistant to Manager, Mayor/Council REPORTS (Agenda Language): PROCLAMATION - October 6 through 12, 2019, as Fire Prevention Week Staff Summary (Background) Mayor Dickey will be proclaiming October 6 through 12, 2019, as Fire Prevention Week. Proclamation Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Town Manager Grady E. Miller 09/25/2019 07:53 AM Form Started By: Angela Padgett -Espiritu Started On: 09/19/2019 02:46 PM Final Approval Date: 09/25/2019 Proclamation FIRE PREVENTION WEEK WHEREAS, the town of Fountain Hills, AZ is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting Fountain Hills; and WHEREAS, fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and homes are the locations where people are at greatest risk from fire; and WHEREAS, home fires killed 2,630 people in the United States In 2017, according to the National Fire Protection Association' (NFPA•), and fire departments In the United States responded to 357,000 home fires; and WHEREAS, the majority of US fire deaths (4 out of 5) occur at home each year; and WHEREAS, the fire death rate per 1000 home fires reported to US fire departments was 4 percent higher in 2017 than in 1980; and WHEREAS, when the smoke alarm sounds Fountain Hills' residents may have less than two minutes to escape to safety; and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents who have planned and practiced a home fire escape plan are more prepared and will therefore be more likely to survive a fire; and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents should make a home escape plan, drawing a map of each level of the home, showing all doors and windows; and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents should practice the home fire escape plan with everyone in the household, including visitors, and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents should practice the home fire escape drill at least twice a year, during the day and at night, and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents should teach children to escape on their own in case adults can't help them; and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents should make sure everyone in the home knows how to call 9-1-1 or the local emergency number from a cell phone or a neighbor's phone; and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents should practice using different ways out, and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents in a real emergency should get low and go under the smoke to get out quickly; and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents should get out and stay out, never going back inside the home for people, pets, or things; and WHEREAS, Fountain Hills' residents are responsive to public education measures and are able to take action to increase their safety from fire, especially in their homes; and WHEREAS, the 2019 Fire Prevention WeekTm theme, "Not Every Hero Wears a Cape. Plan and Practice Your Escape"" effectively serves to remind us that we need to take personal steps to increase our safety from fire. THEREFORE, I Ginny Dickey, Mayor of Town of Fountain Hills, do hereby proclaim October 6.12, 2019, as FIRE PREVENTION WEEK throughout this town, and I urge all the people of Fountain Hills to be aware of their surroundings, look for available ways out in the event of a fire or other emergency, respond when the smoke alarm sounds by exiting the building immediately, and to support the many public safety activities and efforts of Fountain Hills' fire and emergency services during Fire Prevention Week 2019. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, this 1st day of October 2019 1 Ginny Dickey, Mayor Attest: Beth Auhe. Town Clerk rm- 1` Meeting Date: 10/01/2019 ITEM 7. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Agenda Type: Consent Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk Staff Contact Information: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 17, 2019; and the Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019. Staff Summary (Background) The intent of approving previous meeting minutes is to ensure an accurate account of the discussion and action that took place at the meeting for archival purposes. Approved minutes are placed on the Town's website and maintained as permanent records in compliance with state law. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis N/A Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) Staff recommends approving the minutes of the September 17, 2019, Special Meeting and the September 17, 2019, Regular Meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to approve the minutes of the September 17, 2019, Special Meeting and the September 17, 2019, Regular Meeting. Attachments P413W$061VA W MS0 2019.0917.TCRM . Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Town Manager Grady E. Miller 09/25/2019 07:56 AM Form Started By: Elizabeth A. Burke Started On: 09/19/2019 08:16 AM Final Approval Date: 09/25/2019 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Ginny Dickey Mayor Dickey called the Special Meeting of September 17, 2019, to order at 4:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL — Mayor Dickey Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone; Councilmember Mike Scharnow; Councilmember Art Tolis; Councilmember Dennis Brown; Councilmember Alan Magazine Absent: Councilmember David Spelich Staff Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; Town Clerk Elizabeth Present: A. Burke 3. RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown, SECONDED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to recess into Executive Session. Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Town Council recessed into Executive Session at 4:30 p.m. A. Discussion or consultation for legal advice with the attorney or attorneys of the public body, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3). i. Daybreak Development Agreement ii. Public Safety Fee / Environmental Fee 5. ADJOURNMENT The Town Council reconvened into Open Session at 5:06 p.m. at which time the Special Meeting of September 17, 2019, adjourned. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Ginny Dickey, Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Mayor Ginny Dickey Mayor Dickey called the meeting of September 17, 2019, to order at 5:30 p.m. and led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. INVOCATION OR MOMENT OF SILENCE - Deacon Phil LoCascio, FHIA Ascension Catholic Deacon LoCascio gave the invocation. 3. ROLL CALL — Mayor Dickey Present: Mayor Ginny Dickey; Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone; Councilmember Mike Scharnow; Councilmember Art Tolis; Councilmember Dennis Brown; Councilmember Alan Magazine Absent: Councilmember David Spelich Staff Town Manager Grady E. Miller; Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson; Town Present: Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke 4. REPORTS BY MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND TOWN MANAGER Vice Mayor Leckrone reported that she attended the Ballet Under the Stars last week. Councilmember Magazine reported that he and the Economic Development Director attended the Science and Technology Roundtable hosted by the Mayor of Scottsdale. He was sitting in for Mayor Dickey who had another commitment. He said that they discussed how to position themselves with improved roads and technology. He said that Fountain Hills does not have the assets that a lot of them have, and it occurred to him that they do not know what they want to be. He did not think that the Draft 2020 Plan helps them make that determination. In his mind, they do not have a strategy. Mayor Dickey reported that the Greater Phoenix Fest will be held on October 4 and James (Smith) will be attending. The Greater Phoenix Economic Council will be doing a big editorial, with a P20 focus, showing that they are starting to recognize education as an economic driver and she believed that Fountain Hills was aligned with that. She said that Councilmember Magazine is the Town's representative on that board. She reported that she attended the East Valley Mayors' Lunch where they focused on Census, Prop 400, renewal of the transportation tax and economic development along the 202. Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 2 of 14 She also reported that the ribbon cuttings are beginning to pick up again. A. PROCLAMATION - September 17 through 23, 2019, as Constitution Week Mayor Dickey read the proclamation and presented it to representatives of the Daughters of the American Revolution. 5. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES/PRESENTATIONS A. PRESENTATION - Update on Census 2020 Communications and Marketing Coordinator Grace Rodman-Guetter gave an update on Census 2020. She said that April 1, 2020, is Census Day, and the entire region is working together on spreading the word. She said that increased census numbers help create jobs, prepare for emergencies, provide guidance in building of schools and roads. She said that she is the Chairman of the Census Count Committee for the Town and is the liaison between the Town and Regional Census Group. She reported that as of April 1, 2020, individuals should go to the website and complete the questionnaire. After that they will begin canvassing neighborhoods, but they are hoping for a 70% success rate of online completion. She explained that they will be asking people to answer based on where they are on April 1, 2020, to make sure they are not double -counted. Mr. Miller said that this is all a regional effort; the Town is participating with MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments). Fountain Hills has a modest amount of money ($5,000) to use in marketing. They are also part of a regional effort that has $2 million available for advertising, radio ads, etc. 6. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Council, and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Council will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during Call to the Public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual councilmembers may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda. The following individuals addressed the Council: Timothy Lynch, Fountain Hills resident, regarding homelessness and the need for accommodating the homeless in Fountain Hills. Karl Buschman, Fountain Hills resident, regarding speeding on Palisades near Sunflower and the need to address the issue. Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 3 of 14 7. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine, noncontroversial matters and will be enacted by one motion of the Council. All motions and subsequent approvals of consent items will include all recommended staff stipulations unless otherwise stated. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember or member of the public so requests. If a councilmember or member of the public wishes to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, he/she may request so prior to the motion to accept the Consent Agenda or with notification to the Town Manager or Mayor prior to the date of the meeting for which the item was scheduled. The items will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. MOVED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone to approve Consent Agenda Items 7-A through 7-D. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously A. CONSIDERATION OF approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 18, 2019; and the Regular Meeting of September 3, 2019. B. CONSIDERATION OF approving two Special Event Liquor Licenses submitted by Saundra McGee, representing the Fountain Hills Theater located at 11445 N. Saguaro Boulevard, Fountain Hills, AZ to be held on November 7 and November 17, 2019 from 3:00 pm-12:00 am. C. CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License Application for the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 7507 Foundation (Ronald Smith) to be held in conjunction with the Fountain Hills Fair, being held on the Avenue of the Fountains, from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM, November 8 — 10, 2019. D. CONSIDERATION OF approving a Special Event Liquor License Application for the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 7507 Foundation (Steven Gonnella) to be held in conjunction with the Fountain Hills Fair, being held on the Avenue of the Fountains, from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM, November 8 —10, 2019. wel :7eTO 4 ► I D7e1 A. CONSIDERATION OF adopting Resolution 2019-47 approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation relating to Proposition 202 funding. Mr. Miller said that this was a routine item. Back in 2002 there was a Gaming Compact that identified up to 12% of Indian gaming revenues to be available to adjacent communities and nonprofits. This year Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation was awarding $77,500 in funds, which included $10,000 coming to the Town. The Town serves as the pass -through for the money going to the other entities. Mayor Dickey expressed her appreciation for the Tribe remembering the Town and other nonprofits. Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 4of14 MOVED BY Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone, SECONDED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to adopt Resolution 2019-47. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously CONSIDERATION OF approving the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement 2020-003 with Climatec, LLC for Fire Safety Inspections, Monitoring and Security Cameras in an amount not to exceed $100,000. Mr. Miller said that in the past the Town had separate contracts for fire safety inspections and camera installations, so this year they have merged those into one master contract. Discussion was held on the costs associated with the different aspects of the contract. Mr. Weldy said that $50,000 of this contract is set aside to install cameras. He said that they will continue to add more cameras as funds are available. He said that the expensive part is the appliances, wiring and storage and they do not have connectability to some of their parks. Councilmember Brown asked if this was the only company they have talked to. Mr. Weldy said that every couple of years they review existing contracts and speak to them individually; Climatec is the best. Councilmembers commented on how nice the lit stop signs were. Vice Mayor Leckrone asked if they evaluated the cost of maintenance versus getting new cameras in some areas. Mr. Weldy said that they currently have some cameras in the community center and the maintenance and technology no longer exists for them. Maintenance is too expensive. Some of the hardware is not available and some are not capable of achieving the end goal. He said that this process is more cost effective. MOVED BY Vice Mayor Sherry Leckrone, SECONDED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown to approve Cooperative Purchasing Agreement 2020-003 with Climatec, LLC for Fire Safety Inspections, Monitoring and Security Cameras in an amount not to exceed $100,000. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously C. CONSIDERATION OF the Sculpture titled, "Fountain of Light" for display on the western end of the Avenue of the Fountains in front of Town Hall. Mr. Miller said that this project came before Council over a year ago and at that time the Council liked the project, but asked that they come back with a different location. Community Services Director Rachael Goodwin then gave a brief PowerPoint presentation which addressed: FOUNTAIN OF LIGHT DIMENSIONS PROPOSED LOCATION Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 5of14 She said that they were proposing to locate the sculpture at the west end of the Avenue of the Fountains because there is existing power and an existing breaker that they can use with the pieces of the Avenue that can be timed, as well as minimal pathway disturbance. She said that there had been previous discussion of locating it in the middle of the proposed roundabout scheduled for the intersection of La Montana and Avenue of the Fountains, but that would make it difficult for pedestrians to interact with the piece and could distract drivers and timing of when they would like the sculpture completed does not coincide with completion of the roundabout. She said that the Public Art Committee would like to start fundraising for the piece, but wanted to wait until they had confirmed a location. Councilmember Magazine complimented the Public Art Committee and the artist, but said that he had serious difficulty with the proposed location. He is on the Board of the group trying to build the Dark Sky center and this seems incongruent with what they are trying to achieve. They are 1 of 20 communities in the world designated as a Dark Sky City and he thinks this flies in the face of all of the effort put into that project. Ms. Goodwin asked the artist if dark skies had been a consideration. The artist, Brian Schader, said that it would not be an issue adhering to any of the ordinances. He said that the sculpture would be lit from the bottom and become dimmer as it got higher. He then showed a rendering of this piece compared to the Frank Lloyd Wright Spire. Councilmember Brown said that he likes the project, but does not like it downtown. He would like to see it at the busiest intersection in town, at the corner of Shea and Palisades. Mr. Schader said that he would like to do a large one out at that location. Carol Carroll, Co -Chairman of the Public Art Committee, said that they have been working on this piece for a couple of years, making sure they would be ready. With all of the plans coming in for downtown, they thought this would be a great location. The artist did work with the dark sky people to make sure that it would comply. Joe Bill, representing the Dark Sky community, said that he had just learned of this proposal a few hours ago when a -mails started flying. He said that when the Council originally approved the project, but not the location, that was before they were designated as a dark sky community. They are looking to have the annual Dark Sky Conference in Fountain Hills, and they are working with ASU regarding the observatory. He is not sure that the engineering has been done to ensure this would not impact that project. A written statement in opposition of the location was submitted by Nancy Bill. Councilmember Tolis said that he was on the Council when this was first approved. He liked the design and tying it into the downtown area, but he also respects the concerns with the observatory. He said that the dark sky community and the Public Art Committee may be butting heads in raising funds for their respective projects. He said that they have traffic counts on Shea and he would like to see this placed on Shea Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 6 of 14 at an area to be seen by the most, either at Palisades, or Shea and the Beeline Highway. Councilmember Scharnow said that he has mixed emotions. He understood the argument for placing it on Shea, but it seemed like the parties involved wanted to concentrate on the downtown area, and there they would be able to accommodate the parking. He said that if this could be approved with the stipulation that it meet the dark sky ordinance, he asked what other objections there could be. Mayor Dickey said that there seems to be some confusion with how the sculpture works with the (dark sky) ordinance. She asked the artist if it was possible to make the sculpture smaller as there is a lot of balance needed, and she said that she also liked the idea of a monument sculpture (on Shea). She said that the Public Art Program requires access to a piece and the ability to see the plaque and who donated the piece. Such a landmark monument at the entrance may not work with that aspect. She said that there seems to be more conversation needing to happen overall. Discussion was held on possibly postponing the item and ask the artist to get with an engineer to see what they can do to integrate the lighting system. Ms. Carroll said that she believed that the Public Art Committee would consider a smaller version, and the artist agreed as well. MOVED BY Councilmember Art Tolis, SECONDED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown to postpone any action to allow the artist, Dark Skies and the Public Art Committee to work together and come to consensus on their proposal that would then be brought back to the Council. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously D. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF draft changes to Land Use Analysis and Infrastructure Implementation Plan. Mr. Miller said that the Town has had development fees for many years, with the understanding that growth pays for growth. He then introduced Ben Griffin with Tischler Bise, the firm considered the preeminent development impact fees company in the country. Mayor Dickey opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Griffin then reviewed the PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof) which addressed: THREE INTEGRATED PRODUCTS Land Use Assumptions Infrastructure Improvement Plan Development Fee Reports LEVEL OF SERVICE Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 7of14 Mr. Griffin noted that the Town cannot pay for a higher level of service with impact fees. ROUND ONE ROUND TWO WHY DEVELOPMENT FEES? ELIGIBLE COSTS CONCEPTUAL IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS FEE METHODOLOGIES Buy -In Approach Incremental Expansion Approach Plan -Based Approach FEE METHODOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS EVALUATE NEED FOR CREDITS Site Specific Debt Services Dedicated Revenues Mayor Dickey noted that when they have more people living in Town, there is a cost and this is to help offset those costs. Councilmember Brown said that several years ago their development fee was $6,700 for single-family and $1,601 for commercial. He asked what has changed to require another review. Mr. Miller explained that the Town is required, by law, to do periodic review of their impact fees. Mr. Griffin added that the 2014 fee study was the first study under the new Act and there were a lot of limitations with it. They could not include general government, which is why there was a big decrease. He said that the purpose of this study is to determine what can be done within the law. Mr. Miller said that there are going to be a few things proposed that they currently do not have, such as streets. Councilmember Brown said that he was the one that made the motion to increase the fee to $6,700, but the Town has changed dramatically. Every new development --Eagle's Nest, Firerock, Adero Canyon, etc. has private streets and he struggles with charging for those fees for roads when those residents already pay for them. Councilmember Brown questioned what SF/Student Station was on the chart. Mr. Griffin noted that they do not have those available in Arizona; it was an error to include on the presentation. Councilmember Brown asked what the different was between current levels of service and existing levels of service. Mr. Griffin said that he believed it should say "current" versus "planned." Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 8of14 Vice Mayor Leckrone said that based on the assumption of the ten-year growth, it sounds like they did not do the previous report. She asked Mr. Griffin if the predictions from 2014 were accurate. Mr. Griffin said that he was not sure if they used MAG's old projections from 2010 instead of 2015; the 2015 were much more accurate because of the slowdown in 2008. Mayor Dickey noted that the last time they were getting audited they had looked at the State trust land as a possibility, but they were not penalized for not fulfilling that prediction. Councilmember Scharnow asked if the methodology was from MAG or outside sources. Mr. Griffin said that it is a combination of everything. They did look at the Annual Housing Report for the last few years to make sure that their base year assumptions were correct. For housing, population, and nonresidential development, they used MAG to project that moving forward. Mayor Dickey reminded everyone that this update is something mandated by the State of Arizona because cities were determining on their own what would happen in the future. They felt that some cities were abusing those numbers or not figuring it correctly. Mr. Miller said that all the cities/towns are required to go through modeling and they all use these outside firms. Tishler Bise has a model that has never been defeated successfully. He said that he feels very comfortable with what has been presented. Mayor Dickey noted that the studies mandated by the state does have to be paid for with the development fees. She asked if the urban trails were counted in the proposal. Mr. Griffin said that they have trails in there twice, once in the Park and one within the street right-of-way. Mr. Griffin said that the land use assumptions, if based on the growth rates, would show about 2,200 people over the next ten years with 1,100 housing units. Breaking it down further, there would be 670 single-family units and 385 multi -family units, averaging 67 single-family and 39 multi -family units per year. Councilmember Magazine asked how that compared. Mr. Griffin said that it is very similar to the Town's recent growth. He said that they will see a lot of incremental projections because if they do not grow as quickly, they do not build as much. Councilmember Magazine said that he thought it was a good methodology because they are going to have a recession. Councilmember Magazine asked if they had factored in that 50% of their businesses are in -home businesses. Mr. Griffin said that they are looking at existing floor area. Anyone in a home business would not be counted. He said that at the next Public Hearing the Council will be adopting the Land Use Assumptions, so if anyone does not agree with any of it, they should bring it up. PARKS AND RECREATION PROPOSED PARKS AND RECREATION FEES Mr. Griffin said they have weighted it so that nonresidential is paying a very small share. 93% of demand for parks comes from residential with the remaining 7% from Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 9 of 14 nonresidential, which has been well -received throughout the Valley and the home builders. FIRE Mr. Miller said that the big question mark is the State Trust Land. The previous plan had identified a third station on trust land. He would rather be more conservative. They do not anticipate having more than the two stations, unless the State Trust Land was developed. He asked if any of those funds collected could be used to offset the shortage of revenues with completion of Fire Station 2. Mr. Griffin said that it is possible that those funds could be used to offset some of those expenses. PROPOSED FEES POLICE Mr. Griffin said that the suggested 464 square feet needed for Police is on the low end and if they collect the money it has to be spent. If this fee was adopted the Town should have some sort of a plan for using those revenues. Councilmember Scharnow asked what would happen if they do not spend it. Mr. Miller said that previous legal counsel had said that it could be transferred to another impact fee fund, but he was not sure if that will still a possibility. Mr. Griffin said that he would look into that option further. Mr. Pock said that there are currently two funds with balances at the end of FY19, but the audit is not complete so they are subject to change. The Fire Fund is about $274,000 and Parks is just under $717,000. It was noted that staff was not sure when they started. He said that all the funds are in the investment pool so they do make interest. Vice Mayor Leckrone said that if they were collecting for Police and they did not have a plan, that would give them ten years to create a plan. Councilmember Tolis asked if sidewalks could be included under the streets impact fees. Mr. Griffin said that to include something within streets, it would have to be located within the street right-of-way. He said that a lot of councils specify sidewalk requirements when development happens. He suggested that they talk with the attorney. He said that he would leave it out unless it was part of a larger improvement, then they could leave it in. Id11:11154161► 1 3all1.9101 Further discussion was held on what fees should and should not be included. Councilmember Brown referred to the costs for assisted living rooms and hotel rooms. He said that some of those calculations do not make sense. He felt that this issue should have been on an agenda by itself. There is not enough time to absorb everything being presented. Mr. Miller noted that back in August they talked about the need to schedule special sessions, but it was the direction of Council to include the items within regular meetings, which is what they ultimately approved. Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 10 of 14 Consensus of Council was to eliminate the Police fee and change the assisted living and hotel rooms fees to be consistent with other commercial fees. Mayor Dickey closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Miller noted that the proposed fees are not just from the consultant. The consultant has met with staff and they gave input to the consultant on the types of fees that should be considered and reviewed the capital project plans. A break was held from 8:00 p.m. to 8:08 p.m. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION AND PROVIDE COMMENTS on the first portion of the draft Fountain Hills General Plan 2020. Development Services Director John Wesley reviewed the PowerPoint Presentation, Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof, which addressed: PLANNING PROCESS MILESTONES Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Mr. Wesley said that they are currently in Step 3. He said that the state statutes mandate certain sections to be covered. A lot of times those have been looked at each in isolation. Instead of looking at land use, they are approaching it from what the character of the town is in various locations and categories and how they maintain that character or establish a character that is not there. Councilmember Scharnow said that he liked the character -area approach. Brief discussion was held on the tag line, "your future is waiting." Mr. Wesley said that they have been playing with the tag line and there will be continued modifications to the plan overall. Councilmember Magazine said that he is no expert, but he was a senior consultant with real estate, and asked what they mean to achieve and what their overall objective is. Mr. Wesley said that a General Plan is to help guide the Council to make decisions regarding land use and developments based on the desires of the community, since it is voted on by the community. Councilmember Magazine said that some of his concern is that the vision is descriptive, not prescriptive. He asked what the citizens are going to respond to. Mr. Wesley said that the vision statement is the foundational piece. When they get into the goals and policies, they get more prescriptive. Councilmember Magazine said that the things listed are not vision to him. Mr. Miller said that what he is mentioning is valid; it fits more with the strategic plan. A vision is fluffier. Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 11 of 14 Mayor Dickey said that the General Plan is a document that they use as a guide. It is a long-term planning document that grounds them and has value. An example is if they want a walkable downtown, they will include that and then specific goals and objectives will be included. She said that the voters approve the Plan and then it is referenced by Council when specific applications come forward. Councilmember Tolis said that this is nothing compared to what the public participation meetings represented. He said that he wished they had a video of those meetings. There was a lot of passion with visioning. He said that this does not represent an ounce of what they went through. He said that he was disappointed at this point. It is a lot of money that does not impress him. Councilmember Magazine said that they should take a look at some of the other studies that the firm has done. It reads like boilerplate where they plugged in other things specific to Fountain Hills. Mr. Miller said that what they are seeing in the PowerPoint and preliminary report is a summary. If they took the time to look at the report they will see there is a lot more of the flavor of those meetings. He said that they were not happy with the consultant in the beginning, but they put them through the paces and he is feeling good about the report to date. He said that what he has heard is valuable and they will take that back to the consultant to share. Mayor Dickey asked if there was something he could direct staff to that they felt was missing. Councilmember Scharnow noted that this is one -fifth or two -fifths of the entire document. There is ample opportunity in the future to incorporate more. He said that the vision statement is a little too fluffy for his liking, and maybe a little editing could be done there. He read from the plan, "preserving native desert vegetation topography and also promoting a variety of options for housing" which may be in conflict in the future. He said that he did not know how they balance those when creating a vision. Councilmember Tolis said that it needs to be more precise. What he heard in those meetings is they wanted a vibrant downtown, commerce, to do all they can to increase tourism, with exceptional parks and tied in with Fort McDowell. He does not see that. He said that if they are going to have a vision, a plan, they need to be more specific and need to have buy in from the community. Vice Mayor Leckrone said that what is quoted in the PowerPoint came directly from the report. Mr. Miller said that the report is 47 pages long. One of the elements is economic development, and the things mentioned by Councilmember Tolis regarding economic development is a very important element that will be addressed. He said that they are presenting excerpts of the plan so that the Council is not overwhelmed with the entire document at one time. He said that there will still be more public participation. Mr. Wesley said that they will get the documents posted on the website and they have 100 community organizations which they are notifying about the plan, and how to access it. He said that he has offered to go to any of their meetings and he is working with the Chamber and other organizations, including the schools. There is an open house scheduled for Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 12 of 14 November 20. Councilmember Magazine said that he hoped that when it is said and done there is an executive summary that is readable and understandable, otherwise people are not going to read it. He asked if the consultants saw the results of the Vision Fountain Hills. Mr. Miller said that they received the current General Plan, the Vision Report, the Strategic Plan. Mayor Dickey said that tonight was the introduction on how to use it, the existing development and establishment of character areas. She said that all the other areas will be brought forward in the coming months. She said that there are a lot included further on in the report that addresses some of the concerns mentioned, and she asked that they all be sure to read through the entire report. Councilmember Tolis asked if the consultant evaluated the plan from 2010 and provided a progress report on the goals/objectives of that report. Mr. Miller said that he believed that the Council could get through Items F and G quickly, but he was removing Item 8-H from the agenda and will bring it back when there is more time. CONSIDERATION OF Adopting Resolution 2019-51 approving a minor reorganization involving the transfer of the Tourism function to Economic Development and Volunteer Program function to the Community Services Department. Mr. Miller said that for some time has had a desire to move Tourism from Parks and Recreation to Economic Development. With the new Economic Development Director it made a lot of sense to do that. This item is a minor reorganization transferring the Communications/Marketing Coordinator from Community Services to Economic Development. Additionally, with the retirement of Heather Ware as the Volunteer Coordinator, he is recommending that the position move from Town Manager to Community Services. He said that there is no change in salary or the job description, other than the supervisors changing. MOVED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine, SECONDED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown to adopt Resolution 2019-51. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 13 of 14 G. CONSIDERATION OF adopting Resolution 2019-44 authorizing data sharing, collaboration and exploration of East Valley regional solutions to homelessness. Mr. Miller said that homelessness has become an issue and the city/town managers in the east valley have been meeting for a few years to come up with best practices for a regional solution. He said that there is no commitment of resources other than directing the Town Manager to continue being engaged. Ms. Burke noted that there was one written comment card submitted in support of the resolution. MOVED BY Councilmember Dennis Brown, SECONDED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow to adopt Resolution 2019-44. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously H. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION to staff regarding the requirements for providing hillside protection easements, the abandonment of existing easements, and the fee for easement abandonments. None - Removed from agenda by Town Manager. 9. COUNCIL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM TOWN MANAGER The Council may (1) request the Town Manager to follow-up on matters presented at that meeting, and/or (2) a consensus of the Council may request the Town Manager to research a matter and report back to the Council. None ii���_U�L�1�1:�►WI�I►i11 MOVED BY Councilmember Mike Scharnow, SECONDED BY Councilmember Alan Magazine to adjourn the Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019. Vote: 6 - 0 - Unanimously The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Town Council held September 17, 2019, adjourned at 8:45 p.m. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Ginny Dickey, Mayor Town Council Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 14 of 14 ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk 144.411aW-AIIIQLII I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 17th day of September, 2019. 1 further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 1st day of October, 2019. Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk Meeting Date: 10/01/2019 Agenda Type: Regular Agenda ITEM 8. A. ii. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-39, a proposed Minor Amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 to change the land use designation on approximately 23 acres of land located on the east side of Palisades Boulevard north of Shea Boulevard from Lodging to Mulit-Family/Medium. If adopted, the amendment will allow for multi -residential development. (Case # GPA2019 - 01) Staff Summary (Background) General Plans, when they are adopted, include provisions for making amendments to address changes that may occur over the life of the Plan. As outlined in the General Plan 2010, any change in land use on parcels of 40 acres or less shall require the Minor Amendment process. The General Plan currently designates this property as "Lodging." This land use category is for: Lodging category includes areas where tourist -oriented lower density hotels or motels (which can also include resort uses) together with supportive retail and restaurant uses, should be developed. Higher density and multi -story hotels, motels and resorts should be located only in areas designated for Lodging, Mixed Use or General Commercial/Retail." The request is to change the land use designation on this 23.04 acre area to Multi-Family/Medium (MF/M). This designation allows multi -residential development between 4 and 10 dwelling units per acre. This land use category is for: Multi-Family/Medium Density Residential will be particularly encouraged as transitional projects between existing developed residential and commercial areas. Projects proposed for these transitional zones should be developed with exceptional design, enhanced site amenities, extensive landscaped setbacks from collector roadway corridors and controlled access to the arterial roadway corridor. As stated on page 105 of the Plan, "Amendments to the General Plan 2010 should occur only after careful review of the requests, and of findings of fact in support of the revision at public hearing(s) before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council." This property has been designated as Lodging in the General Plan since the early 1990s. In 1999 the zoning on the property was changed from R1-43 to P.U.D to allow the development of a resort hotel. While amendments to the plan of development have occurred, the lodging use has remained essentially the same. Some versions of the lodging proposal have included components of multi -residence zoning and housing. The most recent plan of development of a resort on this property was approved in 2011. The General Plan designates three other properties for Lodging. These include two resorts —The Inn at Eagle Mountain and CopperWynd Resort — and the potential for a future lodging use on the State Trust Land. The General Plan for the Town is developed with extensive public involvement and with the input and direction of professional planners. The Plan is reviewed carefully by staff and Council before approval and is then ratified by the voters in a general election. The Plan includes visions, goals, and objectives that the Council and citizens believe are best for the future of the Town. These decisions are made in absence of the development pressures of a particular parcel of land. Changing land use designations is allowed and appropriate, but should be considered thoroughly and a change made only when the proposal is in harmony with the Plan and will provide an equal or better development pattern for the Town. There are many goals and objectives in the Plan. It possible to find something to support almost any position on a given topic. With regards to this request to make this change from Lodging to Multi-Family/Medium, staff finds these following statements as the most relevant and pertinent statements for consideration of an amendment: Chapter 3 of the General Plan provides the Land Use Element of the Plan. The Vision contained in this Chapter states: Vision: A Town that seeks to preserve its character and beauty using land use principles that allow development in a cohesive and beneficial manner to protect neighborhoods and support business development. Goal 5 of the Land Use Element states: Goal Five: Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses. Under Goal 5 there are seven objectives, number six states: Objective 5.6 The Town should support proposed lodging sites planned with expansive open -space buffers from adjacent residential uses. Sites should have direct or proximate access to arterial roadway corridors and should be located on land presently zoned within a lodging, or residential zoning district. These sites are to be developed in a highly sensitive manner relative to existing land forms, wash areas, vegetation and other environmental constraints. As stated above, this property has had the Lodging land use designation for many years and has approved zoning with a site plan for development consistent with the General Plan. That development has not occurred. This could suggest that this location is not desirable for this use and it is time for the Town to consider an alternate land use designation. The applicant is proposing the designation should be changed to MF/M — Multi-Family/Medium. The intention of the applicant is to develop an apartment community that consists of two areas, one for general apartments and one that is age restricted. In total, the proposal is for up to 400 units. Given the project size of 59.79 acres, this is an average density of 6.7 dwelling units per acre. See the staff report for the rezoning for more detail on this specific proposed development. The questions become: • Is a change from the Lodging designation appropriate and beneficial to the Town at this time; and, if so, • Does a change to a multi -residence land use category provide an equal or better land use pattern for the Town; and • Is the proposed development the best use for the property and meet the objectives of the Town? Is the Lod ig_ng designation still appropriate and beneficial? Information from the Arizona Office of Tourism shows that tourism is an important part of Arizona's economic engine bringing over 43 million people to the State in 2017 who collectively spent over $22 billion and supported over 187,000 jobs. Sedona and Phoenix are in the top ten tourist destinations in the United States according to a ranking by Trip Advisor. With our close proximity to Phoenix and the surrounding communities and National Forest areas, Fountain Hills does benefit from this industry and can do so to a greater degree. While it is true that the property has been designated for this use for many years and has approved plans for a resort hotel and conference center that have not developed, we have been through a significant recession which put a damper on this industry. The expansion of CopperWynd is evidence of the growth potential in this industry in Fountain Hills. With the great visibility of this site, the great views from the property, and it close proximity to Shea Boulevard for convenient access, it could be considered a prime location to take advantage of that growth. Study of the resort market, however, shows that it is not expanding and that some valley resorts are looking to repurpose some of their property. This site has been marketed for resort uses for many years and no one has shown any significant interest or been able to put a deal together. Challenges to using this location for include the lack of onsite amenities such as a golf course, lack of nearby shopping, too close to major streets, i.e. not secluded enough. The General Plan specifically states the need to provide for this use and the types of locations which are appropriate for lodging uses. This site meets those criteria and there are few if any other sites in the Town for this type of use. Does a Multi -Residential land use designation provide an equal or better land use pattern for the Town? Generally speaking, a community benefits from having a wide range of residential options available to its citizens. The greatest concentration of density should be in key locations where shopping, services, employment, entertainment, and transportation options are available. Other, more moderate densities should be spread through the community to give residents in all areas options to meet their needs as they change. The existing General Plan land use designations currently show a variety of residential options available in the southwest portion of the Town; all five residential land use categories are already represented in this area. However, those areas which have the multi -residence land use designation are built with attached single residence and condominium projects rather than a true multi -resident apartment complex, although these could become condominiums if desired. If the land use designation were to be changed on this property, a multi -family designation is an appropriate alternative. Is the proposed development the best use for the property and does it meet the objectives of the Town? The proposed zoning with the associated site plan is reviewed and discussed fully in the rezoning staff report. From the General Plan perspective, there is a need in the community to provide for a wider range of demographics, particularly for families and young professionals. In the General Plan, the requested land use designation states: "Projects proposed for these transitional zones should be developed with exceptional design, enhanced site amenities, extensive landscaped setbacks from collector roadway corridors" (emphasis added). The proposed multi -family development includes typical walk-up apartments and an area designated for seniors. The amenities shown in the unrestricted area do not provide for families (i.e. no tot lots or playgrounds) and are not exceptional. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle 2010 General Plan Chapter 3 — Land Use Map — (Figure 11) 2010 General Plan Chapter 10 — General Plan Amendment Criteria Risk Analysis Development of another resort hotel complex will bring in visitors to shop at local restaurants and stores, lodging tax dollars, and opportunities for employment. Impacts on Town services beyond streets will be minimal. Development of an apartment complex will bring residents who can regularly shop at local stores and restaurants and transaction privilege tax dollars. This type of use does not provide many jobs and impacts on Town services are generally higher than a Lodging use. Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) At their regular meeting on September 12, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial of the requested Minor General Plan Amendment. Staff Recommendation(s) The appropriateness of whether or not to change the General Plan Land Use designation on this property at this time from Lodging to Multi-Family/Medium is largely tied to the proposed zoning and development plan for the property. If, in review of that request the Council finds it is a good use of the property and meets the goals and objective of the Town and should be approved, then the General Plan change is warranted. If the rezoning and development plan fail to meet the needs of the Town, the General Plan change should not be approved. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to ADOPT/DENY Resolution 2019-39. Attachments Vicinity Map Application Land Use Plan Map PowerPoint Res 2019-39 Draft P&Z Minutes Inbox Development Services Director (Originator) Town Attorney Town Manager Form Started By: John Wesley Final Approval Date: 09/24/2019 Form Review Reviewed By John Wesley Aaron D.Arnson Grady E. Miller Date 09/18/2019 12:27 PM 09/23/2019 08:27 AM 09/24/2019 10:14 AM Started On: 09/05/2019 11:03 AM OOo00W apo 000000n 000 15(NiiA CASE: 4 G PA2019-01 SITE / ADDRESS: 10825 N. Palisades Blvd APN #176-14-560 Dr ��Str�dge �r REQUEST: Minor General Plan Amendment. This request will allow for the development of a multi -resident community with a density I between 4 and 10 dwelling units per acre. �F CS, 1� Minor General Plan Amendment �4 Boundary M C90 WE LL MOUNTAIN REGIONAL PARK Shea Blvd w !y�� �1•� '' ���� o Blvd 4���SeLxyrl<N ��i p jkl$ 'YF DO Not write in this space --official use :r Filing Date Ib IA 1 Accepted By li1 oP Fee Accepted lyµlo Millar .4w Case Manager :I S The Town of Fountain Hills PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT - APPLICATIC Abandonment (Plat or Condominium) Appeal of Administrator's Interpretab Area Specific Plan & Amendments Concept Plan Condominium Plat Cut/Fill Waiver Development Agreement HPE Change or Abandonment ,I General Plan Amendment (MINOR) Ordinance (Text Amendment) Planned Unit Development Preliminary / Final Plat Replat (Lot joins, lot splits, lot line adjustments) Rezoning (Map) Special Use Permit & Amendments Site Plan Review (vehicles sales) Temporary Use Permit (Median Fee if d Variance # Other PRO] ECT NAME / NATURE OF PRO.IECT: DAYBREAK— P.A.D. rezone of Fountain Hills Resort property LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Plat Name Fountain Hix Resort Final Plat Btpck Lot_ PROPERTY ADDRESS: vt-wll PARCEL SIZE (Acres) 4002=3 . , _ ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 176-14-50 NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED 270Mcu s 13y L`IrR TRACTS 270 MZlJ & 13a'VlM EXISTING ZONING L-3 o.U.D. PROPOSED ZONING P.A.D. A licant Mrs. Hilltop Vi= PropgKwo LLC (Jeremy Hal) ?j'7 7G7� Day Phone 6M421 Mr. Ms. Address. 4515 E. Pam Verde DMM City; PhoWix State: A2 Zip: Owner Mrs. Mr. Ms. Email: JGHQPhKk tereats.com Pacific FH ReSort LLC Day Phone W2248 Address: 1701 E. Highland. Suite 310 City: Phoer+ix Slate: AZ Zip: _ Ifapplicabon is being submitted by someone Misr be evnrpktea SIGNATURE OF OWNER than the owner of 6-- pmperty under was ideraciom tl DATE (VID-10 I HEREBY AUTHORIZE TO FILE THIS A �,�;��� PreOre Prnf Sub=ibed wA sworn before me this 19 day of k,� _ 20�_ My Commission Expires Notary public MUNIS 4=11eEWLY TEATUM APPLICATION s Notary Public - Arizona M-6101 Maricopa Co. I #553400 Expires 09/3012022 H1LLTC P VISTA June 19, 2019 Mr. John Wesley Development Services Direvtor Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains Fotuttain Hills, AZ 85258 l Iillitif) Vista Pr(Trrtlrs, l Jrrt nsv I -Lill & Neil GInAi Sianarrrs 14550 N. Frank Llovij Wi Suite 100 Scottsdale, AI 85260 602.421.3848 602.E-69A `1 n9 Re: Application for a Minor Ceneral Plan Amendment for the Fountain Hill% Resort property at the nord E. Shea Blvd. and Palisades Blvd. Dear Mr. Wesley: 1 am transmitting here.vith an application fora minor general plan amendment tnr the above -referenced prope to the submittal requirements, please see our responses below: CirculatiorL Plan Please refer to Exhibit 4 "Site Plan" on page 5 and the Traffic Analysis performed by CivTech in Addendum 1 c P.A.D. application dated May 15, 2019. Drainage Plan Please refer to the Master Drainage Plan performed by Land Developntent'ream in Addendum E of the revise application dated May t 5, 2019. Infrastructure Impact Picase refer to the Master Water Plan (Addendum F), Master Sewrr Plan (Addendum G) and Utility Compan- (Addendum H) of the revised P,A.D, application dated May 15, 2019. Iand Use Plan NaLrrative The property is presently designated "Lodging" (L) in the Fountain Hills General flan intended for a conferen, and we are seeking to change this to Multi Fanvily/Medium (MFIM). Per the General Plot Ammendment Crites and 106 of the 2010 Fountain Hills General flan, "Any change in land use an parcels of 40 acres or less shall rec Amendment Process." See General Plan map tin the following page depicting the surrounding properties. John Wesley June 19, 2019 rage 2 of 4 Land Use Plan sf �-�Smptc Famtlrnrory lace '� � ��ramiyRow © SFIM - Rng* FArlai OW,,I,w MFad - ANAy-FarraFJalNtNwm m cuk• I�IFh1- nFFarndrR4Ah _ ran . Gn -al Cr MrNaMnt-A P-Party _ L-Wdgo-g rs © Mu . saxad um G.GaMMMW 77 u war s-sups, P-Pep @ © os-ow space — GC-GdrGwrse � l, rowlain Hill, Dawwary rT Jun0dw-TA Ba"xia, ^ �J ROW The proposed plan is exclusively residential, which is compatible with uses in all four directions from the Purl amendment will help Fountain Hills achieve its General Plan goals West- Summit at CresiVie.w, a Mufti-Family/Medium (MF/M) designated property for 68 condos immediately across Palisades from the Property. North - Westridge Village, a Single Family/Medium (SF/M) designated property for 69 residences to the Property. The proposed improvements will have 400 feet or open space between the Pr buildings and the closest home in Westridge Village. East- Palatial Estates, a Single Family/Medium (MF/M) proper[} for 17 residences- The p improvements will have 1,800 feet (1 /.3 mile) of ripen space between the Property's buildings and th, home in Palatial Estates. South- Firelkock Country Club, a Single Family/Low (.SF/L.) property for planned residential can for 379 single-family residences, 229 multifamily condominiums and a golf course. Firellock is acr Boulevard, a 300-foot wide thoroughfare, and partially hidden from view due to the roiling topography will also be 550 Feet of open space between the Property's buildings and the Shea Boulevard right of This proposed amendment to the General Plan will help Fountain Hills achieve its General Plan Goals and 01 as follows: Genaral Plan Reference General Plan Goal (Objective) Minor General Plan Amendment Compe Chapter 3 Preserve existing neighborhoods from The Property is surrounded by residential uses or Canal 5 incompatible adjacent land uses. The proposed uses improve the compatibility by i the property from a commercial use ro a resident. the design and scale arbuildings more in keeping residential character of the neighborhood. Chapter 3 Preserve open space The proposed development shall have approxima Goal 6 the land area as open spare. John Wesley June 19, 2019 Page. 3 of 4 Chapter 4 Encourage the development ofa The Property has challenging hillside topograp. Goal 3 variety of housing types including proposed development will deploy creative plan: creative solutions for topographically of clustering density, sensitive building siting a challenging sites (3.1 }. to use disturbed areas of ciently while preserver and appealing to a diverse resident base. Chapter 4 Promote developments that will The proposed development includes a landscape Goal 5 continue to provide small town Palisades frontage landscaping that complies w; character and quality of life including Cade for partially -abutting areas planted with all new housing provide streetside material. landscaping complimentary to the native desert vegetation (5.8). Chapter 4 Encourage developments that preserve The proposed development shall have over 35 a, Goal 6 and protect natural resources undisturbed native habitat, far more than requi including setting asside dedicated Town Code, placed within a perpetual Hillside preservation areas (6.1). Easement. Chapter 6 Provide and maintain an open space The Property is flanked by two major washes — Goal 1 network throughout the community northeast property line and one along the south including protecting natural washes The proposed development will not disturb those within platted portions of the place both within a perpetual Hillside Preservat community as permanent natural A drainage plan will include stormwater runoff desert open spaces (1.1). not to exceed historic flows within these washes. Chapter 7 Create safe and efficient patterns of The proposed development ,vill have two points Goal 1 circulation including secondary access located in the safest areas at existing median bn points to all new development areas Palisades Blvd. On -site circulation has been de: (1.8), accommodate fire and emergency vehicles. Chapter 7 Provide for and encourage the use of The proposed development will contribute an $- Goal 3 non -vehicular modes of circulation along the Palisades Blvd. frontage. including provisions in developments for pedestrian paths where appropriate (3.1). Chapter 8 Reduce water usage The proposed development will utilize loo, water Goal 1 landscaping and low flow plumbingf xtures. Chapter 9 Promote the continued vigilance and The proposed development shall preserve over 4( Goal 1 guardianship of the natural desert Property within a Hillside Protection Easement, including requiring Hillside Protection Easements on all newly platted properties that are determined to be hillside (1,1). Chapter 9 Identify and preserve cultural and The Applicant engaged PaleolFw to peOm a 4 Goal 2 archaeological resources. resources investigation on the Property, and no c sites were discovered. Please also refer to the Landscape Plans on pages 38 through 40 and the Slope Analysis on page 11 of the i application dated May 15, 2019, for further information. John Wesley June 19, 2019 Page 4 of 4 PArks, Reemaltion and QFen Space Please refer to the Open Space discussion on Page 31 of the revised P.A.D. application dated May 15, 2019, 1 information. The Property is surrounded by open spate, which is hart of the P.A.D. and will not he subject t use, and is therefore not part of the Property for the General Plan Amendment. Sincerely, Jeremy Hall Enclosure: Application for Minor Gencrai Plan Anirndtnent aenard Han,9 Land um NOR Map (OFAMRS-an A Cam 15(NiiA CASE: G PA2019-01 SITE / ADDRESS: 10825 N. Palisades Blvd APN #176-14-560 and #176-14-561 REQUEST: Amendment to Zoning Map. This request would rezone approximately 59.79 acres at 10825 N Palisades, from the "L-3 PUY and "OSR" zoning districts to the "Daybreak PAD" zoning district. 0 Single Family/Very Low 0 Single Family/Low 0 Single Family/Medium 0 Multi-Family/Medium ® General Commercial/Retail 0 Lodging 0 Utility 0 Open Space ® Golf Course 0 ROW • Daybreak AIN_ c z Or In O � i : I th8i 15 ltit��' Town of Fountain Hills Staff Presentation GPA2019-01 & Z2018-10 Minor General Plan Amendment 100 Daybreak PAD 10825 N Palisades Boulevard www.fh.az.gov or Q Requests th8i 15 ltitll' • Minor General Plan Amendment on 23 acres: Lodging to Multi-Family/Medium • Rezone ^'60 acres from L-3 PUD and OSR to Daybreak PAD www.fh.az.gov AIN th8i 15 ltit��' Location Minor General Plan (M.G.P.A.) Amendment Boundary Planned Area Development (P.A.D.) Boundary www.fh.az.gov �`17 Ail / \" q th8i 15 ltit��' 1 n General Plan Amendment n a Ct �,"e"�y Vista 8r } E 5hea'Blvd .v f w,�srrddge O, E 5hea Blvd REQUEST: Minor General Plan Amendment. This request will change the designation from Lodging to Multi- Family/Medium to allow for the development of a multi - resident community with a density between 4 and 10 dwelling units per acre Minor General Plan Amendment Boundary www.fh.az.gov or Q� Criteria o r Review th8i 15Jilll • "Amendments to the General Plan 2010 should occur only after careful review of the requests, and of findings of fact in support of the revision at public hearing(s) before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council:' www.fh.az.gov or °� Background n • Designated for Lodging since 1990's • Rezoned from R1-43 to Lodging in 1999; latest amendment in 2011 • No development has occurred www.fh.az.gov or n r I Language Ge e a Pl n a In `oo`� th8i 15Jilll • Lodging: Lodging category includes areas where tourist -oriented lower density hotels or motels (which can also include resort uses) together with supportive retail and restaurant uses, should be developed. Higher density and multi -story hotels, motels and resorts should be located only in areas designated for Lodging, Mixed Use or General Commercial/Retail www.fh.az.gov or General Plan Language 9jlthatis �llloo • Multi-Family/Medium (4-10du/ac): • With Council approval can be over 10 du/ac in concentrated areas to direct development away from environmentally sensitive areas. • Particularly encouraged as transitional between existing developed residential and commercial areas. • Should be developed with exceptional design, enhanced site amenities, extensive landscaped setbacks from collector roadway corridors and controlled access to the arterial roadway corridor. www.fh.az.gov or General Plan Language WWI' 9jlthat��oo Chapter3: Land Use Element • Vision: A Town that seeks to preserve its character and beauty using land use principles that allow development in a cohesive and beneficial manner to protect neighborhoods and support business development. www.fh.az.gov !mil General Plan Language • Goal 5 of the Land Use Element states: • Goal Five: Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses. • Objective 5.6 The Town should support proposed lodging sites planned with expansive open -space buffers from adjacent residential uses. www.fh.az.gov or Review Questions � � z n `oo`� th8i 15Jilll • Is a change from the Lodging designation appropriate and beneficial to the Town at this time? • Does a change to amulti-residence land use category provide a better land use pattern for the Town? • Is the proposed development the best use for the property and meet the objectives of the Town? www.fh.az.gov or Review Questions � � z n `oo`� th8i 15Jilll • Is a change from Lodging appropriate? • Tourism is a big industry in Arizona • CopperWynd is expanding • No other good lodging sites • Hasn't been developed • Local amenities not available • Site not ideal • Industry undergoing changes www.fh.az.gov Review Questions • Does a change to multi -residence designation provide a better land use pattern? • Wide range of housing options needed I NATURAL OPEN SPACE 8 �Singlo, FamllylVary Low SFrL - SiWa FemllylLow ns puns i 0 S FIM - Sing Ia Faivil lyJMadlurn i>+,s niun�•i MF)M - Multi-FemilylMadlum _ MF��Mulii-FamilyAiigh _ OR - General Gornmarojil Re{all 6-gow L - Lodging MU - Mlxr�d iJse I - Ineu%tft G- Government -,x lJ - lllilily r� © S -Schools 0 P - Pwk 0 OS - Open Spfw:e } y _ GC - Golf Course www.fh.az.gov Review Questions • Does a change to multi -residence designation provide a hatter lanrl i ica pattern? Increased density to support commercial • Density needs to be in appropriate locations NATURAL OPEN SPACE 8 �Singlo, FamllylVory Low SFrL - SiWa FemllylLow ns puns i 0 S FIM - Sing Ia Faivil lyJMadlurn i>+,s niun�•i MF)M - Multi-FemilylMadlum iA-i"pW.4i _ MF��Mulii-FamilyAiigh _ OR - General Gornmarojil Re{all 6-gow L - Lodging MU - Mlxr�d iJse I - Ineu%tft G- Government -,x lJ - lllilily r� © S -Schools 0 P - Pwk 0 OS - Open Spfw:e } y _ GC - Golf Course www.fh.az.gov AIN that 15 ltitxd' Review Questions • Does a change to multi -residence designation provide a better land use pattern? • Close proximity to arterial network • Not between residential and commercial f I NATURAL OPEN SPACE 8 �Singlo, FamllylVory Low SFrL - SiWa FemllylLow ns puns i Sing Ia Faivil lyJMadlum 0 i>+,s niun�•i MF)M - Multi-FemilylMadlum iM1:ipW.4i _ MF4Mulii-FamilyAiigh -- _ OR - General GommarojillRejall 6-4tlIGe L -Lodging MU - Mlxfld iJse I - Ineurrtft G- Government �- � lJ - lllilily 0 P-Pwk 0 OS • apon Spfw:e _ GC - Golf Course www.fh.az.gov Review Questions • Does a change to multi -residence designation provide a better land use pattern? • Other choices such as lower density residential and office equally valid N NATURAL OPEN SPACE 8 �Singlo, FamllylVary Low SFrL - SiWa FemllylLow ns puns i 0 S FIM - Sing Ia Faivil lyJMadlurn i>+,s niun�•i MF)M - Multi-FemilylMadlum _ MF��Mulii-FamilyAiigh _ OR - General Gornmarojil Re{all 6-gow L - Lodging MU - Mlxr�d iJse I - Ineu%tft G- Government -,x lJ - lllilily r� © S -Schools 0 P - Pwk 0 OS - Open Spfw:e } y _ GC - Golf Course www.fh.az.gov or Review Questions � � z n `oo`� th8i 15Jilll • Is the proposed development appropriate and meet objectives of the Town? • Don't want to change land use if not ready to rezone • More fully discussed in the rezoning case • General Plan Concerns with • Amount of cut/fill — modification of natural terrain • Target demographics • Exceptional design, enhanced site amenities www.fh.az.gov or ° Summary n 9jlthatis �llloo • Lodging may no longer be the appropriate designation • Multi-Family/Medium is one of several options that could work but may not be the best option • There are concerns with the current proposal, a change in the Plan should not be approved without a development plan that will be approved. www.fh.az.gov AIN_ c z Or In O � w : l th8i 15 ltit��' Questions www.fh.az.gov AIN th8i 15 ltit��' Rezoning ' F� �MusFan9 4f sq. [71 fti wpa[ridge o� rn�611 C} I Urfa# fr;. S� Y L 2 4 w4an�Y via of Shea Blvd Shea 81�d � N FRp Pi Falisa . 4d, Planned .A.D.) Area Development P.A.D. B o u n d a r www.fh.az.gov AIN �! ° Rezoning In `oo`� that15Jilll • Current Zoning is L-3 P.U.D. (Lodging with a Planned Unit Development Overlay) • Approved for development of a resort hotel with conference facilities. • Request: rezone to Daybreak Planned Area Development • Will allow multi -family development of up to 400 units; 6.7 units/acre • MFU, MFR, and OSR areas www.fh.az.gov AIN �! °� Review and Submission n -�� requirements o� th8i 15 ltitl�' • Request for PAD requires approval of a Development Plan which shall consist of: • The town -approved version of the Site Plan submitted according to Subsection 23.07(6); • The master water, sewer, and drainage plans and the traffic analysis as required by Subsection 23.07(C); • The project narrative provided according to Subsection 2.04(C); and, • The phasing plan submitted according to Subsection 2.04(C) www.fh.az.gov or Overview � � z n `oo`� th8i 15Jilll • Lot 1A— Multi -Family Unrestricted (MFU) • 270 units • 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units • Amenity area • Garages with apartments above • Lot 1B —Multi-Family Restricted (MFR) • 130 units • Restricted to those 55+ • "Townhome" and apartment buildings • Amenity area • TractA — Open Space Recreation www.fh.az.gov AIN : �Iw Site Plan k? It 0,64 j ProdmLnory L.Irldr,rmpn Plan WIM241 JR. m m www.fh.az.gov .rAnralft w4drAeolFordriol MWVW` In 11 L! kLL I ILI ;,kg WL la.zjIli AIN : I th8i 15 ltit��' Elevations JLUI%"�M m B E• Lr - - i'-"L- i.az.gov or Site Plan Concerns n `oo`� th8i 15Jilll • Creating a more pedestrian oriented environment consistent with the requirements of Sec. 19.03 B. • Leveling large areas, not using natural contours as required by Sec. 19.03 D. • Concealing of utility equip as required by Sec. 19.04 F. • Encouraging pedestrian use as described in Sec. 19.05 B. • Provide information on walls, signage and lighting as required by Sections 19.05 E, G, & H. • Provide the detail on colors and materials to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 19.06. www.fh.az.gov or TrafficAnalysis n 9jlthatis �llloo • Proposed driveways align with existing median breaks • Town Engineer supports these locations • Palisades designed for this level of traffic • Applicant has recently stated their intention to modify their design to include a traffic circle at Palisades and Valley Vista Drive to address resident concerns www.fh.az.gov AIN : I th8i 15 ltit��' Roundabout • Preliminary design • Town Engineer sees no significant issues • Appears to result in some additional fill on the east side of Palisades Kai I www.fh.az.gov AIN_ th8i 15 ltit��' Development Standards Parking - M F U Dwelling Type Fountain Hills Request for MFU Studio 1.50 1.30 1 Bedroom 1.50 1.50 2 Bedroom 2.00 1.70 3 Bedroom 2.00 2.00 Guest 0.25 0.10 82 under Town code for Unrestricted www.fh.az.gov AIN_`� th8i 15 ltit��' Development Standards Parking - M F R Dwelling Type Fountain Hills Request for MFR Studio (specialized care) 1.50 0.70 1 Bedroom 1.50 1.0 2 Bedroom 2.00 1.0 • 130 units; 130 spaces • Concern for number and location of spaces available for the 55+apartment building www.fh.az.gov I DeveloDment Standards Cut and Fill • Code maximum —10' • Requesting 30' max. cut; 57' max. fill • Allows for site access, on -site accessibility, lowers buildings • Been approved other developments • Significant change to existing topography, not desired by General Plan or Zoning Ordinance Design Guidelines www.fh.az.gov AIN th8i 15 ltit��' Development Standards Cut and fill DY�RF-_Ak- M_COMM- F,, lj : j L %I'l :,., 111 :5 {-U V V ".1 HrAl MIV LEGEND F3LL 50.00 FILL 28.0q 11.00 CUT 29 00 CUT 98 00 www.fh.az.gov 00 AID 9j�thar�A �aJ Previous Cut and Fill t C:3iU:UIC LECCN[ t � �+41 PIYIiP - f l srr r :p4 www.fh.az.gov AIN th8i 15 ltit��' Development Standards Cut and fill SITE SECTION Ws KUTM " (ELS71 www.fh.az.gov I DeveloDment Standards T Slopes • Requested minor adjustments to maximum slopes • Town Engineer no concerns Landscape • Modifications from subdivision requirements —more lush landscape along Palisades and amenity area www.fh.az.gov or Applicant Modifications As a result of continuance and discussions with neighbors, the applicant has proposed the following modifications to the application: • Address traffic concerns through installation of a roundabout • Eliminate all reference to assisted living • Agreed to staff stipulations for approval www.fh.az.gov or AIN �! Q Staff Analvsis • General Plan • Many statements that support and oppose • Key items from staff perspective: • Mission Statement; Land Use Objective 5.2, Goal 6, & Objective 6.1; Growth Areas Objective 3.1 speak to maintaining natural terrain and working with topography • Land Use Objective 5.6 — retain areas designated for Lodging • Guidelines for Multi -Family - developed with exceptional design, enhanced site amenities • Mission Statement and Growth Areas Goal 3 — variety of housing www.fh.az.gov or AIN �! ff An Iy i s low Q Sta a s th8i 15 ltit��' • Rezoning • Generally support the PAD standards • Concern with parking for 55+ apartment • Concern with designating area for 55+ • Concern with the degree of cut and fill • Site Plan does not provide details required by code — will need follow up approval • Concern with minimal amenity area(s) • Concern with location of amenity area • Concern with level of design • Concern with not following topography, random nature of the buildings www.fh.az.gov or AIN �! Q Staff Analvsis _1MqOFW__ • Rezoning • If approved, need stips for follow-up site plan review by staff to include: • Building meeting setbacks • Better integration of the trail around the development • Better pedestrian connectivity within the development • Better connectivity to the amenity area • Upgraded design and amenities • Extensive landscaping on Palisades • Update the PAD document to remove references to assisted living and provide for the roundabout www.fh.az.gov or ° Summary n 9jlthatis �llloo • In order to approve, Commission will need to find: • Proposal, on balance, is consistent with goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan; staff has some concerns • Requested PAD standards are appropriate; staff has concerns with the 55+ designation, level of parking; amount of cut and fill • Site Plan is appropriate for the area and meets Plan and Ordinance requirements; staff has outlined minimum modifications needed www.fh.az.gov AIN_ c z Or In O � w : l th8i 15 ltit��' Questions www.fh.az.gov RESOLUTION 2019-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS GENERAL PLAN 2010 LAND USE PLAN MAP FROM LODGING TO MULTI-FAMILY/MEDIUM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH PALISADES BOULEVARD, NORTH OF SHEA BOULEVARD, AS SHOWN IN CASE NO. GPA2019-01 RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Town of Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 (the "General Plan") was adopted by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills (the "Town Council") on January 7, 2010, and ratified by the qualified electors of the Town of Fountain Hills (the "Town") on May 18, 2010; and WHEREAS, Figure 11 in Chapter 3 of the General Plan (the "Land Use Plan") sets forth the land -use designations for all real property within the corporate limits of the Town; and WHEREAS, the General Plan establishes the authority and procedures for amendments to the General Plan land -use designations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9-461.06 and the General Plan, the Town has consulted with, advised and provided the opportunity for public comment on the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9-461.06 and the General Plan, the Town Planning and Zoning Commission (i) held a public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment on September 12, 2019, and (ii) provided notice of such hearing by publication in the Fountain Hills Times on July 10, 2019, and July 17, 2019; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9-461.09 and the General Plan, the Town Council (i) held a public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendment on October 1, 2019 and (ii) provided notice of such hearing by publication in the Fountain Hills Times on July 10, 2019, and July 17, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that (i) proper notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment has been given in a manner required by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9- 461.09 and (ii) each of the required publications have been made. ENACTMENTS: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: RESOLUTION 2019-39 PAGE 2 SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The General Plan 2010 Land Use Plan Map is hereby amended to change the land use designation for approximately 23 acres on certain property located on the east side of Palisades Boulevard, north of Shea Boulevard, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference from Lodging to Multi- Family/Medium. SECTION 3. If any provision of this Resolution is for any reason held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, such provision or portion hereof shall be deemed separate, distinct and independent of all other provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. SECTION 4. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, this 1st day of October, 2019. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS: ATTESTED TO: Ginny Dickey, Mayor REVIEWED BY: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney RESOLUTION 2019-39 PAGE 3 n• . OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL PLAN MAP ' _ t AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS GENERAL PLAN 2010 LAND USE PLAN TIP F I L LOT 1 ,-L;t TRACT A 5 . A VII) TRACT 8 11/ CASE: GPA2019-01 ACREAGE: 23 REQUEST; MMOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, LODGING TO V ULTI-FAMI LYMEDI U M ORDINANCE: RESOLUTION M9L39 DRAFT TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 12, 2019 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chairman Susan Dempster Chairman Dempster called the meeting of September 12, 2019, to order at 600 p.m. 1. MOMENT OF SILENCE —Chairman Susan Dempster 2. ROLL CALL — Chairman Susan Dempster COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Susan Dempster, Vice Chairman Erik Hansen; Commissioners Mathew Boik, Clayton Corey, Peter Gray, Christopher Jones and Scott Schlossberg. STAFF PRESENT: Development Services Director John Wesley and Executive Assistant Paula Woodward. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. Pursuant to ARS. 38-431.01(H), public comment is permitted (not required) on matters NOT listed on the agenda. Any such comment (i) must be within the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Commission and (ii) is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Planning and Zoning Commission will not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to the Public" unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action. At the conclusion of the Call to the Public, individual commissioners may (i) respond to criticism, (ii) ask staff to review a matter, or (iii) ask that the matter be placed on a future Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. 4. CONSIDERATION of approving minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes dated July 25, 2019. Commissioner Gray MOVED to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission dated July 25, 2019; Commissioner Boik SECONDED: passed unanimously. S. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on RESOLUTION 2019-39, a proposed Minor Amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 to change the land use designation on approximately 23 acres of land located on the east side of Palisades Boulevard north of Shea Boulevard from Lodging to Multi-Family/Medium. If adopted, the amendment will allow for multi -residential development. (Case #GPA2019 - 01) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 2 7. PUBLIC HEARING to receive comments on ORDINANCE 19-03, a proposed amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Map. If adopted, the amendment would rezone approximately 59.79 acres at 0825 N Palisades, from the "L-3 P.U.D" and "OSR" zoning districts to the "Daybreak PAD" zoning district. If approved, the rezoning will allow the construction of an apartment complex with up to 400 dwelling units. (Case #Z2018-10) Chairman Dempster opened the public hearing for item #5 and #7. John Wesley, Development Services Director, explained that the public hearing was originally schedule on the July 25, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. At that time, the applicant asked for a continuance in order to have time to meet with the community regarding the project. The Commission granted the continuance to the September 12, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Mr. Wesley reviewed the application through a PowerPoint Presentation. The applicant has two requests: one for a minor general plan amendment on the 23 acres and to rezone the sixty acres from L-3 Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Open Space Ratio (OSR) to Daybreak Planned Area Development (PAD). The first request would change the designation from a lodging to multi -family /medium to allow for the development of a multi -resident community with a density between four and ten dwellings per acre. Mr. Wesley referenced the General Plan 2010 "Amendments to the General Plan 2010 should occur only after careful review of the requests and of findings of fact in support of the revision at public hearing(s) before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council." The property is currently designated as Lodging since the early 1900's. In 1999, the property changed from R1-43 to PUD to allow the resort hotel development. That development did not occur. This could be an indication that this location is not desirable for this use and it is time to consider an alternate land use designation. The applicant is asking the designation change to Mulit/Family/Medium. The application is to develop an apartment community. The proposal is for 400 units for general and age restricted apartments. The project is 59.79 acres with an average density of 6.7 dwellings per acre. Mr. Wesley explained the pros and cons of changing the land use designation by referencing the General Plan 2010. In conclusion Mr. Wesley said in order to recommend approval of the land use change, the commission must find that the plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. In response to the commissions questions, Mr. Wesley said, the largest of the buildings proposed is a 600 feet in length, 30 feet tall with a roof top garden. The proposed resort building was 1400 feet in length. The assisted living portion has been removed but the 55+ remains. The parking ratio will remain the same but implementation is a problem. There are a couple of ways to look at the density. There is the straightforward ordinance way, as written in the report. There are 60 acres of a PAD, the request is 400 units. This results in a density of 6.7 units per acre. In response to Commissioner Gray, Mr. Wesley replied that the density of the project is acceptable. This is more of a design challenge and designing it right so it fits the site and neighborhood. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 3 Commissioner Jones asked how was the height calculated and the garage parking spaces allocated. Mr. Wesley replied the height was calculated on the proposed grade. Commissioner Schlossberg asked about the incomplete submittal, which lacked complete site plans and elevation. Mr. Wesley confirmed that they were not as complete like the Keystone submittal. He said there were some agreements made that the missing items are not needed immediately. The ordinance is very specific that the details are required and will be submitted but what we have right now is sufficient for staff. When this comes back for review and approval, the staff report suggests future review is on the staff level. That does not have to be the case. The commission can make a stipulation make it part of the public approval. In response to Commissioner Boik, Mr. Wesley said there have been some discussions that blasting may take place given the known soils and rock. A geotechnical report would be required as part of the building permit process. Mr. Wesley stated the proposed changes are tied to the land if this application is approved. A public zoning process would be necessary to revert to previous zoning unless a stipulation is part of the Development Agreement. Paul Gilbert, representing the Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC, said they were going to ask for a continuance but are officially withdrawing the request. There has been a lot of criticism about the developers such as they are outlanders; they are not from Fountain Hills. Mr. Hall one of the developers is here to address the commission. Jeremy Hall told the Commission when he was with MCO Properties, the original master developer of Fountain Hills, and during his involvement in the growth of the community, he contributed the following to the community: served on the Fountain Hills Community Foundation for seven years and personally donated personal time and money to Fountain Hills charities, chaired the FHCF charity golf outing at FireRock four years in a row, served on the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce board of directors for nine years, spearheaded the downtown vision plan and brought renowned Frank Lloyd Wright disciple, Vernon Swaback, to participate, drafted the Fountain Park vision plan, personally worked on building trails in the McDowell Mountains with the McDowell Mountain Preservation Commission and the Sonoran Conservancy, sponsored two annual scholarships for Fountain Hills high school students to attend universities, supported every school and municipal bond issue, donated the building for the Fountain Hills Community Theatre, developed the Eagles Nest public trailhead, worked with Mayor Linda M Kavanagh to bring the Adero Canyon public trailhead to fruition and was invited to cut the ribbon with Mayor Kavanaugh at the grand opening, served on two prominent HOA boards (FireRock and Eagles Nest) and ran their respective design review committees, sponsored countless community events for civic festivals, business showcases and fund raisers in Fountain Hills for decades. He said he can confidently say that no other single individual in town that has contributed more to the community than PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 4 him over the past two decades. His business partner, Neil Ginsberg, developed and operated Copperwynd, so he too has strong ties to the community. He has extensive experience with resorts and multi -family projects. Over the past two months, Mr. Hall has met with Westridge Village and Crestview neighbors, as well as reaching out to the community through social media and in person. He referenced the agenda packet containing letters of support & opposition. Most of the opposition came very early in the process before the third revision. 19 of the 25 letters received recently have been in support of the project. In the packet are letters endorsing the project from three former mayors, Chamber of Commerce, three Fountain Hills real estate companies, Sunridge Canyon owner and Copperwynd resort owner. Mr. Gilbert gave a PowerPoint presentation starting with the Daybreak Development Plan. There are two neighborhoods. Neighborhood I is 270 garden apartments and Neighborhood II is 130 units that are age restricted. The assisted living element has been removed. The total amount is 400 units that equals 6.7 units per acre with 77% of open space. There isn't any other similar property in Fountain Hills with this degree of open space and this amount of low density. Mr. Gilbert displayed renderings showing the architectural features and the entire project including open space. He said the applicant is in agreement with Mr. Wesley's request to "beef up" the amenities. One of the stipulations is to work with Mr. Wesley regarding the design. Mr. Gilbert pointed out provisions in the general plan (GP 2010) that support the Daybreak project. He referenced the GP 2010 " strive for diversity in neighborhoods and the natural environment is preserved and protected and where diverse housing is supplied in beautiful developments. "Daybreak provides significant open space with enhanced architecture with appropriate height and less massing. Daybreak is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood because the large buffer around its boarders allow for a transition from less dense to more dense residential. Daybreak meets the goal of the GP 2010, Chapter 4, Goal 3, "Encourage the development of a variety of housing types." Mr. Gilbert quoted from the staff report stating, "If the land use designation were to be changed on this property, a multi -family designation is an appropriate alternative." This indicates that staff is in agreement with multi -family units for this property. The sewer and drainage plans have been submitted and reviewed by The Town Engineer. The traffic report has been reviewed and approved by the Town. The Town Engineer agrees the location of driveways on the property are the safest and best for placement. Referencing the staff report regarding the proposed use, Mr. Gilbert said, "The proposed development includes a fairly significant open space buffer around the borders as does the contiguous development to the north. These large buffers allow for the transition in use from less dense to more dense residential uses." Eighty percent of the site remains open space. Mr. Gilbert showed a side -by -side comparison of the proposed Daybreak (3 stories) against the once proposed conference hotel (5 stories). The hotels longest continuous building measured 1400 feet while Daybreak is 600 feet. The total number of hotel parking stalls were 668. Daybreak's total number of parking stalls are 602. Maximum building height over finished grade (40 feet), maximum hillside cut (30 feet) and OSR area (37 acres) are the same for Daybreak and the hotel. Daybreak is an improvement over the hotel to the neighbors because it's a smaller overall building mass, smaller building footprints, better architecture, lower overall building height, more space between structures, blends well with the desert environment, greater preservation, no noise and disruption from hotel events. Mr. Gilbert shared Daybreak's economic affect over a ten PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 5 year period; $19.6 million in local employment income, $42.7 million in resident consumer spending, $2.2 million in local sales tax revenue and $1.7 million in local rental tax revenue. Mr. Gilbert said that traffic (safety) was the number one concern among neighbors near the Daybreak property. The traffic impact analysis showed that Daybreak would provide only 200 more cars a day than the resort hotel would produce. The length of the site visibility triangles at the driveways meet the Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO) guidelines and was approved by the Town Engineer. Adding dedicated left and right turn lanes on Palisades Blvd. Traffic signals were not warranted but because of the neighbor's concerns a traffic signal or roundabout was offered. The Daybreak cut and fill is consistent with similar developments such as Adero Canyon, Firerock and Eagle Ridge. Daybreak is asking for the same 30' that the previously proposed hotel was granted. The Town Engineer has reviewed and accepted the fills. Daybreak is only disturbing 26 acres and is allowed up to 40.5 acres of disturbance. Mr. Gilbert said that "lodging" has been planned since the early 1990's. There has been no offer for a hotel in seven years since the current user has owned the property. The current owner had to foreclose against the property. Clearly, they have tried to get a hotel to no success. A letter was provided from Greg Vogel, CEO Land advisors stating, "There is zero a feasibility for a resort style project at this site." Mr. Gilbert quoted out of a letter submitted aby William Hinz, Copperwynd Resort who wrote, "The development costs and the overall ahotel metrics do not make it viable for resort use without access to a golf course, retail, etc." aMr. Gilbert said that the applicant agrees with the staff stipulations listed in the staff report. aHe pointed out two in particular, "Upgrade the design and amenities to meet the general plan requirement for exceptional design and enhanced amenities." and "Provide extensive landscaping along Palisades Blvd. that exceeds the minimum requirements set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance." In conclusion, this property is not right and will not become right in the future to be developed under the present general plan designation for a resort hotel. As indicated in the staff report, if a resort hotel is not going to be built on this property multi -family is a viable and acceptable alternative. Commissioner Jones asked about the details of the cut/fill comparison to the original PAD. Mr. Gilbert said the presentation mentioned that the Town Engineer approved the fill. Commissioner Corey asked, what would the upgrade to the design and amenities look like. Mr. Gilbert replied that he could not read Mr. Wesley's mind but based on conversations, he thinks Mr. Wesley would like to see more break up in the massing, color diversity and more diversity in elevations and projections. CALL TO PUBLIC Comment cards in favor of the Daybreak project were received from Amy Arnold, Andi Bell and Neil Ginsberg. Comment cards in opposition to the Daybreak project were received from Anna Agboola, Dan Ahern, Robert Allen, Barbara Altergott, Janice Amramen, Michael PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 6 Anselmo, Gary Barrios, Robert Baskind, Yayoi Baskind, Pam Baskind, James Baskind, Linda Bauerle, Jeremy Bell, Kimberly Bell, Roger Bendet, Judy Bendet, Linda Bennehoff, Dan Berg, Gerald Berna, Karin Bishop, Terri Blatchford, Sandford Borken, Faye Borken, Rene Bouchette, Greg Brandenburg, Addie Brandenburg, Irvin Brock, Ruth Brock, John Brockelman, Jean Brockelman, Rick Brown, Cindy Brown, Dolores Buchanan, Dominick Bueti, Robert Cagaet, Richard Carney, Bruce Cash, Nancy Chapman -Ogden, James Chase, Denise Clark, Michael Clark, Cathi Clausen, Lucinda Cords, Fred Cornell, Sheila Corzine, Reggie Court, Beth Court, Mary Courtney, Terry Cox, John Coyle, Danny Craig, Laura Crane, Alan Crane, Maylou Crane, Yossi Czopp, Mary Dahl, Leo Damkroger, Mary Day, Dave Debucia, Deborah DeRose, Kathleen Dietz, Linda Donzelli, Peter Donzelli, Elaine Dowling, Dorothy Dudgeon, Arnold Dulak, Kelley Duley, Joanne Dunlcavy, James Erickson, Joann Etzler, Bill Fawver, Alice Fawver, John Fears, Marcia Fears, Burt Fischer, Cathay Fischer, Shirley Fischer, James E Frank, Patricia A Frank, Lola Fraser, Bill Fraser, Judy Frenzen, Steve Friel, Linda Frisk, Michael Garten, Kathy Geiger, Dan Geiger, Joe Geraardt, Robert Gianguzzi, C. Kenneth Gibbs Jr., Linda Goddard-Volny, Candace Goodwin, James Green, Mark Greenbaum, Maggie Guiragossia, Brenda Haeberer, Tom Haeberer, Elizabeth Hahn, Heidi Hake, Arnold Hampel, S. Hawksson, Greg Hermie, Marian Hermie, Marybeth Hess, William Hindman, Judy Hines, Richard Hippner, Judith Hippner, Jill Hollister, Ken Hughes, Jean Hughes, Norman Hurley, Joesph Huske, Sherry Irwin, Don Irwin, Maggie Iverson, Dennis Iverson, Bob Jacobious, Esther Jacobious, Karen Janota, Bob Juckniess, Mary Jo Juckniess, Robin Jurgens, Raffi Kramian, Betty Kaszycki, Mickey Keilman, Martha Keilman, Ed Kelso, Karen Kern, Karen Klaassen, Lynda Klensko, Nancy Labate, Joe Labate, Anne Larkin, Vincent Larkin, Jonas Levine, Jane Levine, Arlene Lila, Donna Lyons, Carol Malinski, Joe Marino, Betty Marino, Larry Mattingly, Cindy Mattun, Nora McClelland, Mike McClelland, J. McGonigle, John, Meredith, Holly Messel, Maryanna Milton, Morton Mitchell, Barbara Moore, Larry Morris, Roberta Morrone, Angie Neeb, Kelly O'brien, Beth O'Mea, Tim O'Rourke, Bill Pape, Gail Pape, Phil Parrish, Mike Parrish, Barb Pearlsen, Peter Pennell, A. L. Petersen, Marisa Phillippi, Nancy Plencner, Beth Pojman, Jan Post, Connie Purinton, Lynda Ranshe, Bruce Rava, Kelly Ray, Richard Rench, Patricia Reyes, Leslie Ridenour, Richard Ridenour, Shelly Richardson, Kenneth Rock, Anita Rock, Lucy Roth, Teresa Russo Cox, Sagrenti, Phil, Cathy Sandow, Jim Sandow, Gregory Schoen, Susan Schoen, Nancy Scimone, Stephen Scimone, Doris Scmeling, Renee Seidler, Lesbeth Sestina, Tammy Sherrill, Rick Sherrill, Marie Shutts, Nancy Sibert, Eden Silver, Karen Simons, James Skirington, Marilyn Spherico, Tracey Springstead, Craig Spungen, Chuck Stevens, Lloyd Tarr, Joey Thorley, Sandy Tucker Guiney, Lorraine Vlachos, Peter Volny, David Vuksanovic, Melissa Vuksanovic, Pat Wainwright, Candice Wallace, Peter Wilk, Linda Wilk, David Williams, Nanette Wright, Cynthia Zagurski, Wayne Zielinski, Dawn Zielinski, Mikey Zike, G. Zingsheim, Gary Zuanetti, and Karen Zubert. The following individuals addressed the commission. Robert Courtney, Fountain Hills resident, President of the Westridge Village Home Owners Association, addressed the commission stating that Westridge Village consists PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 7 of 87 single-family residences on 35 acres in contrast to the proposed 400 units on 23 acres. This is a great illustration of the fact of regardless of how they want to call this; all of it is being compressed into one area. Mr. Courtney asked the commission not to approve the two items regarding the Daybreak project. Westridge Village is not opposed to development of this site as demonstrated by meeting with the developer of the last project (the resort) which resulted is Westridge Village's support. The resort had 268 rooms as opposed to 400 full time families proposed to live in the neighborhood. He asked that the land use not be approved unless it is known exactly what is going to exist on the property. The PAD is incomplete. It was stated tonight all the different things missing and need to be resolved. Those matters should be put into an amended application and come back to the commission, similar to what Keystone did. There are issues regarding traffic, the soil, the geotechnical report. There may be issues with blasting. The incompleteness of this application should give pause to look at this and not be under any pressure to make a decision. Mr. Courtney asked the Commissioners not to approve either of the two proposals tonight and suggested the commission request the applicant to go back to the drawing board. Robert Hahn, Fountain Hills resident, expressed concerns regarding the traffic issues on Palisades. Mr. Hahn referenced a handout showing the proposed exits and entrances of the resort project and that of the Daybreak project. Daybreak recently added a roundabout that the Town engineer said would be similar to the one located near Costco in Scottsdale. The Daybreak proposed an exit/entrance 600 feet from Shea Blvd. The resorts was located 2000 feet from Shea. There are reasons that this is located within 600 feet of Shea Blvd. One is that more units can be crammed into the space. The other is they can dump the fill from the site (into the OSR land) so they do not have to haul it away thus saving money. The roundabout proposal is not a good fit for this location. Roundabouts work well for the most part when the conditions are single lane, in flat low traffic areas where slowing to 20 mph or stopping is no big deal. The proposed roundabout will be two lanes in a hilly, curvy, fast area with high traffic located 200 yards off Shea Blvd. Mr. Hahn asked the commission to vote no to changes to the general plan, vote no to changes to the zoning and no to the Daybreak project. Emily Hemphil, land use lawyer, stated she is not representing a client or being paid by anyone to be here tonight. She said she is here tonight because Fountain Hills is an outstanding community and this PAD is a serious detriment to the community and a violation of the Fountain Hills General Plan. The proposed general plan amendment if approved would anticipate no more than 230 units, 23 acres, 10 units per acre. Yet this project is proposing almost double that (400 units) on the exact same 23 acres that the general plan allows 230 units. To achieve this 75% density bonus the developer is asking to zone not just 37 acres but 60 acres multi -family and 37 of those acres on the general plan are designated as open space. They are essentially transferring 170 units of density from property that under the general plan has a zero density because they are designated as open space. Following the general plan, the maximum allowable density for the entire 60 acres should be 233 units and remaining zero for the open space area. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 8 They are relying on the general plans concept of clustering units. Clustering units is intended to encourage the increase in open space, not intended to be used as a tool to increase the density beyond what the general plan states. By staying with a minor amendment on the 23 acres so that they could get this project done the easiest way possible. They did not try to do an amendment on the full 60 acres because that would require a major amendment. They are leaving 37 acres in open space yet taking the170 units from the 37 acres and moving it on to the 23 acres creating the densest property in Fountain Hills. This use of the clustering technique under the general plan requires that there be extraordinary dedications and enhanced site amenities. Instead, this project is offering unremarkable amenities and in return leveling the hillside. The mass grading, needed for this project, will come with tremendous environmental affects: noise and vibration from the blasting and trucks, and massive disturbance of land that has not been disturbed before. My point is this project is too dense, bad planning, not in keeping with the general plan and it should be denied. Michael Webb, a Fountain Hills resident, and vice president of finance and accounting at a major Scottsdale resort. Mr. Webb said he was there to talk about the financial aspect of the change in the amendment. He referenced Fannie -May and a 2018 multi -family economics research report that listed 14,500 units in progress for development of multi- family units. With Park Place, Ridge View Apartments, Keystone, and 70 plus additional rental homes indicates there is no need for additional multi -family homes in Fountain Hills. The application is proposing 270 rental units at $1750.00 a month, which would generate tax revenues (1.9%) of $90,700 a year if 100% occupied AND 130 restricted living units at $5,000 a month for an annual total of $124,800 if 100% occupied or a little over $98,000 a year at 80% occupied. Alternatively if the property maintained the current zoning with a 250 room boutique/conference hotel with a daily rate of $137.00 at 70% occupancy that would generate tax revenues (6.9% tax rate) of $600,000 a year for the town. In addition, it would create jobs and a hotel of this size would employee approximately 350 employees. According to a 2018 Scottsdale tourism study showed transaction lodging tax revenue collections have increased at an annually compound growth rate of 7.4 % as compared to the 2.5% in the multi -family sector. What the developers deliver to Fountain Hills is the desecration of the natural environment representing the western gateway of Fountain Hills and return minimal revenue for this right. Barbara Goldstein, a Fountain Hills resident, said she is speaking in opposition to the Daybreak project. She is concerned about the traffic safety and the density of the 400 units. One of her biggest concerns is lack of adequate parking. The Fountain Hills ordinance requires 563 parking spaces for the unrestricted apartments but the project only shows 481 parking spaces. The developers plan is short by 82 spaces and is asking for a 15% reduction waiver. The senior living apartments are allocated 130 parking spaces, 50 are in two car garages leaving 76 parking spaces. Assuming seniors will not drive, there still will be a parking need for caregivers, delivers and visitors. Daybreak is looking to provide less than half the parking than what is required by the zoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 9 ordinance. There is no off property parking available. If this was a hotel, there would be off site parking and shuttles would be available. Tourist would shop local. The Economic Development Director got it right when he said, "There is a reason this parcel is zoned for a hotel not for multi -family. " Please vote no on zoning. Anne Traynor, a Fountain Hills resident, said she speaks for the audience and hundreds of concerned Fountain Hills residents. Collectively we agree that it is imperative to make an effort to safeguard and preserve the beautiful entry to the Town. These characteristics, unlike the bustle of Scottsdale are the reasons people live here. This area is in danger of irresponsible development and destruction of natural terrain, wildlife pathways and total disregard of the Fountain Hills vision detailed in the general plan. Daybreak contravenes the general plan. Ms. Traynor said she does not oppose development but believes development should be in harmony with the general plan. Georgeanna Zoros, a Fountain Hills resident, told the commission she is not opposed to development but is opposed to the Daybreak project. She said in the General Plan, Chapter 3, Land Use Element, Goal 5, states protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses. A 400 unit multiple family rental complex is not compatible to surrounding areas of low density single family homes. Also, in the General Plan, Objective 6.1., the town should continue to preserve steeply sloping hillside areas and tracks of contiguous open space. The developer has proposed to remove 30 feet of the hill by possible blasting in order to accommodate height restrictions. How does such a drastic alteration of this hill comply with that goal? Also contained within the plan is the following, undeveloped Wash areas contribute to the quality of life for residents by providing significant open space, assisting with natural groundwater discharge and do support wildlife." Does this parcel not have two natural wash areas that could be altered or even destroyed? Multi -family complexes are encouraged to be located close to the town center where commerical businesses exist to serve the rental community. This is not the situation at Shea Blvd. and Palisades Blvd. The fact that ten variances would be required for the project is telling that this is the wrong development for this location. Ms. Zoros concluded with a quote from one of the planning department documents, the general plan of the town is developed with extensive public involvement and with input and direction from professional planners. The plans reviewed by staff and the council before approval and ratified by the voters in a general election. Changing land use designation is allowed and appropriate, but should be considered thoroughly and a change made only when the proposal is in harmony with the Plan and will provide an equal or better development pattern for the Town. This parcel is a prominent gateway to the town and it requires an exceptional development proposal. Daybreak would not be the one. At this time the zoning on the parcel should not be changed. The General Plan will be updated in 2020 which will allow all concerned to access all the development that occurred in the last 10 years and then to decide on any changes to be made for the future. Steve Messel — PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 10 PLACE HOLDER FOR CALL TO PUBLIC NAME AND TEXT Denise Ricketts - Chairman Dempster called for a short recess from 8:23 p.m. — 8: 30 p.m. Call to Public resumed. Dori Whittrig, Fountain Hills resident, said she owns a real estate business in town and is President of the I Love Fountain Hills organization, Founder of the Leadership Academy and co-chair for Vision Fountain Hills. Vision Fountain Hills surveyed 2000 of local residents and one of the key items from the survey was that this community needs younger people. This type of housing helps to bring people to the community that could not afford to purchase a home in Fountain Hills. In August, the average home sale price in Fountain Hills was $489,000. The average list price was $836,000. Those are daunting for young people. Today there are 183 homes on the market in Fountain Hills from $170,000 to god knows what. I have been part of the community since 1985 and seen a number of emotional zoning cases. I encourage you to consider this project. Fountain Hills needs this kind of housing and this developer seems to want to work with the Town. Cassie Hansen, Fountain Hills resident, said while serving as the first town clerk and as a town councilmember, I recorded, participated and survived many controversial agenda items that have faced the community since incorporation. Many of which pertain to zoning and development. Sunridge Canyon, Target, Fourpeaks Vista, Firerock and Eagles Nest are just a few that were targeted as detriments' to the community necessitating larger meeting venues resulting in late night adjournments, referendums, and even litigation. Emotionally charged issues challenges staff, appointed and elected officials as well the applicant stirring the decision making process. All involved are placed in the position of balancing public opinion and emotion with the facts of the case, rule of and in compliance with ordinance and law, and benefit to the community. Hindsight is 20/20 and looking back at the controversial issues of the past that came to fruition; they did not destroy the community rather contributed to the quality, diversity and opportunities in the community. Daybreak is the latest controversial emotional issue to come before the town. This project is fueled by surrounding residents who want this sight to remain vacant using worse case scenarios. I believe this project provides a unique housing opportunity not available in Fountain Hills. Daybreak is an opportunity for enjoying quality of life living without the challenges of ownership. Please deliberate and decide based on facts not emotion. Daybreak is an opportunity to embrace not miss. Vice Chairman Hansen asked who makes the definition of exceptional design and when the decision will be made. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 11 Mr. Wesley said that it would come back to him and staff for review. Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 9, would be used as the guide. If something were questionable, the higher end requirement would be used to ensure the best result. In response to Commissioner Jones, Mr. Wesley confirmed that if the General Plan changes tonight or at Council, but the zoning does not change, the existing zoning would be in effect. Commissioner Gary asked if the Town's Economic Development Director had an opinion on this location. Mr. Wesley said there have been discussions with Mr. Smith. The feeling there was there is still some hope for lodging or opportunities for education or medical related for this location. There was not a whole lot of enthusiasm for multi -family. Mr. Gilbert said he honestly believes he addressed the majority of the comments heard this evening. A comment was made that this is high density and the use of all 60 acres is not allowed. Mr. Wesley clarified that's what a PAD allows. It allows the use of the whole area and allows clustering. Using the whole 60 acres results in low density. The details that are not complete are not significant. We agreed to work with Mr. Wesley to tweak the details, design, amenities and some other things. That is not a reason to turn this applicant down. Traffic has been a major topic. A traffic light is not needed. The report provided confirms this and the town engineer and our engineer agree. In order to alieve concerns of the neighbor a traffic light has been offered. The "scalping" of the hill is done to benefit the neighborhood by allowing the structures to sit lower. The 57 feet of fill is only in one place and is necessary to promote safety at the entrance. The structures are 400 feet from the closest residence. This piece of property does not have the same locational criteria as the Copperwynd. Mr. Gilbert ended by saying that staff has said If a resort hotel is not going to go there, a multi -family is an acceptable alternative and this multifamily will not have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood. For these reason we present a case that is worthy of your approval. Commissioner Jones asked what are the services provided exclusively to the age restricted area. Mr. Ginsberg said that the independent living will offer two meals per day, transportation, entertainment and all the amenities in the amenity court; bocce, pickle ball, pool, Jacuzzi, fitness center, and spa/beauty salon. Mr. Wesley said what he heard explained was independent living. Assisted living is needing another persons help with daily tasks such as dressing, bathing, and taking medications. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 12 In response to Commissioner Jones, Mr. Ginsberg replied that in general, the residents living there are seventy-five to eighty years old. It is a "want" driven not necessarily a family with children. In past projects, there has been a temporary allowance for a 55 and under to live there. The allowance is usually for one a month. There are a bank of elevators and there is an interior climate control. Mr. Hall said that there are two distinct community's. One is garden apartments of 270 units, externally loaded with open stairways. The senior living is a separate entrance, separate building. It is internally loaded with climate control and elevators. There is a common shared space that contains a lounge, library, recreation center and dining. Commissioner Gray asked, why weren't the stipulations resolved and presented this evening and do you see a way to get the parking ratio to improve. Mr. Wesley said that in terms of the level of design received most of the items were fairly minor design issues that can be worked out. The ultimate design would have to look very similar to what you see this evening. It could not drastically change. As far as parking the only concern is the 55 plus, some building may need to move in order to make that work. In response to Commissioner Jones, Mr. Wesley replied that assisted Living is called out in a specific category in the zoning ordinance. Chairman Dempster said she had major concerns regarding the parking. Is it possible to separate an overview regarding the total parking spaces for each category. Mr. Hall said there is 130 parking spaces for the senior living. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual's parking standards for senior living is .5 spaces per unit. Reason being very few of these residents have cars. Part of what is paid for at a senior living facility is transportation. The national standard .5 per unit. Fountain Hills does not have a code for this parking. Phoenix is atone space per unit. Daybreak is twice what the national standard requires. In response to Chairman Dempster and Commissioner Jones, Mr. Hall explained that the traffic study considers the current traffic on Palisades. The decision to locate the entrances came from a pre application meeting held with myself, Bob Rodgers, Randy Harrel, the fire marshal and town manager. These are the safest locations based on a full access median break left -in and left -out. These locations comply with the ASHTO guidelines. The plan is to construct dedicated right and left turn lane. This will get the traffic out of the main lanes. The civil engineer and traffic engineer considered all locations along Palisades. Chairman Dempster asked what considerations were taken regarding land distrubtance. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 13 Mr. Hall said the ordinances allows 40 acres of disturbance of this site. The project disturbs far less than that. The goal was not exceed what was approved by the resort. The goal was to match it or improve in every aspect. Daybreak has the same OSR space as the resort proposal. In response to Commissioner Jones question, Mr. Hall said that there is a financial incentive to disturb less land than more land. It can get very expensive. It becomes a trade off. The more land set a side in the natural state, the more disturbance occurs on what is left to cluster the density. It was more important to leave the open space. Mr. Gilbert said this project has established with multi -family is a real improvement over the resort hotel. It is very likely that would never come to fruition. There is a compelling need for multi- family. The plan is designed to reduce the scarring than what would have been done under the hotel. Neil Ginsberg, with my backround in developing apartments and senior living felt the area was too big for senior living and apartments. Chairman Dempster closed the public hearing. 6. CONSIDERATION of RESOLUTION 2019-39, a proposed Minor Amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 to change the land use designation on approximately 23 acres of land located on the east side of Palisades Boulevard north of Shea Boulevard from Lodging to Multi-Family/Medium. If adopted, the amendment will allow for multi - residential development. (Case # GPA2019 - 01) Commissioner Jones made a MOTION to forward a recommendation to the town council to approve RESOLUTION 2019-39, a proposed Minor Amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 to change the land use designation on approximately 23 acres of land located on the east side of Palisades Boulevard north of Shea Boulevard from Lodging to Multi-Family/Medium. (Case # GPA2019 - 01)The motion failed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 14 In response to Commissioner Gray, Mr. Wesley stated that The general plan will be on the ballot in November 2020. The general plan is currently under review and consideration of revisions. The minor amendment would expire depending on what happens with the general plan. Commissioner Jones made a MOTION to forward a recommendation to the town council to DENY RESOLUTION 2019-39, a proposed Minor Amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 to change the land use designation on approximately 23 acres of land located on the east side of Palisades Boulevard north of Shea Boulevard from Lodging to Multi-Family/Medium (Case # GPA2019 - 01); Commissioner Boik SECONDED: passed 6/1. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Boik Aye Commissioner Corey Aye Commissioner Gray Aye Commissioner Jones Nay Commissioner Schlossberg Aye Vice -Chairman Hansen Aye Chairman Dempster Aye 8. CONSIDERATION of ORDINANCE 19-03, a proposed amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Map. If adopted, the amendment would rezone approximately 59.79 acres at 10825 N Palisades, from the "L-3 P.U.D" and "OSR" zoning districts to the "Daybreak PAD" zoning district. If approved, the rezoning will allow the construction of an apartment complex with up to 400 dwelling units. (Case #Z2018-10) Commissioner Gray made a MOTION to forward a recommendation to the town council to DENY ORDINANCE 19-03, a proposed amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Map. If adopted, the amendment would rezone approximately 59.79 acres at 10825 N Palisades, from the "L-3 P.U.D" and "OSR" zoning districts to the "Daybreak PAD" zoning district. If approved, the rezoning will allow the construction of an apartment complex with up to 400 dwelling units. (Case #Z2018-10); Chairman Hansen SECONDED: passed 7/0. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Boik Aye Commissioner Corey Aye Commissioner Gray Aye Commissioner Jones Aye Commissioner Schlossberg Aye PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 15 Vice -Chairman Hansen Aye Chairman Dempster Aye 9. COMMISSION DISCUSSION/ REQUESTS FOR RESEARCH to staff. Chairman Dempster requested that the Economic Development Director, James Smith, attend the October 1, 2019, Town Council meeting. 10. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS form Development Services Director. None. 11. REPORT from Development Services Director. Mr. Wesley said that the commissioners should plan to attend the meeting on September 26, 2019. 12. ADJOURNMENT. The Regular Meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held September 12, 2019, adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. Town of Fountain Hills Susan Dempster, Chairman ATTEST AND PREPARED BY: Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Session held by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Fountain Hills in the Fountain Hills Community Center on the 121h day of September 2019. 1 further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 25t" day of September 2019. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2019 PAGE 16 Paula Woodward, Executive Assistant rm- 1` Meeting Date: 10/01/2019 Agenda Type: Regular Agenda ITEM 8. A. iii. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF Ordinance 19-03, a proposed amendment to the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Map. If adopted, the amendment would rezone approximately 59.79 acres at 10825 N Palisades, from the "L-3 P.U.D." and "OSR" zoning districts to the "Daybreak PAD" zoning district. If approved, the rezoning will allow the construction of an apartment complex with up to 400 dwelling units. (Case #Z2018-10) Staff Summary (background) Applicant: Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC 14550 N. Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard, Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 602-421-5848 Owner: Pacific FH Resort, LLC 1701 E. Highland, Suite 130 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602-248-8181 Property Location: 10825 N. Palisades Boulevard (APN's #176-14-560 and #176-14-561) The request is to rezone the property from L-3 P.U.D. and OSR to Daybreak P.A.D. to allow development of an apartment complex. The current General Plan designation is for Lodging land uses. The proposed rezoning and associated development is not consistent with the current General Plan land use designation. As such, the request cannot be approved. The applicant has, however, filed an associated Minor General Plan Amendment requesting the property be designated Multi-Family/Medium. If that General Plan amendment is approved, the requested rezoning can be considered. This report is written based on an appropriate General Plan designation for the property. Section 23.06 of the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance (FHZO) establishes the requirements and standards for a P.A.D. application. Part of the approval of the P.A.D. zoning designation is approval of a Development Plan for the property. Section 23.06 C lists the following requirements for a Development Plan: • The town -approved version of the Site Plan submitted according to Subsection 23.07(B); • The master water, sewer, and drainage plans and the traffic analysis as required by Subsection 23.07(C); • The project narrative provided according to Subsection 2.04(C); and, • The phasing plan submitted according to Subsection 2.04(C) above. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Rezoning Request The essence of the request is to change the zoning from the existing zoning allowing for the development of a hotel and conference center (L-3 P.U.D.) to one that will allow the development of an apartment complex (Daybreak P.A.D). The proposed development will consist of three parts or parcels: • Lot 1A: Designated MFU — Multifamily Unrestricted. This area will have up to 270 garden -apartments with a mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units, without age restrictions. • Lot 113: Designated MFR — Multifamily Restricted. The area will have up to 130 units for residents aged 55 and older in studio, 1-, and 2-bedroom units. The units will be split between one large building and five smaller buildings with townhome-like units. Living assistance is allowed. • Tract A: Designated OSR — Open Space Recreation. This approximately 36 acre area covers essentially the same area currently zoned OSR and provides protection from future development of the steeply sloped areas remaining on the property. It will include the main entry drive and a walking trail around the MFU portion of the property. The proposed development includes up to 400 dwelling units on this 59.79-acre parcel for an overall density of 6.7 units per acre. This development density is consistent with the requested General Plan designation of MF/M. Site Plan Section 23.07 C of the FHZO states: The P.A.D. zoning district may only be developed in accordance with an approved Site Plan prepared and approved according to Section 2.04 of this Zoning Ordinance. Full site plan approval is required prior to the review and issuance of a building permit for any part of the site development. The applicant can choose to either submit a fully developed site plan for review and approval through the public hearing process or submit a conceptual plan to explain the intent of the proposed development and then file for formal site plan approval at a later date. In this case, the applicant has filed a fairly detailed, although not totally complete site plan. Therefore, if the request is approved, there will be a need to follow up with a final site plan for staff approval prior to the approval of construction plans. The site plan shows two access points into the property from Palisades Boulevard, each designed to align with existing openings in the median. The southern driveway will be the primary entry point into the property and the only access (except for an emergency access point) into the MFR area. The central portion of the site along Palisades is designated for the restricted multi -residence use. This portion of the site is for residents 55 years old or older and shows five, one-story buildings (P, Q, R, T, & U) and one three-story apartment building (0). The center portion of Building O is only two -stories and includes a rooftop deck to break up the massing of the building. There is an amenity area between buildings R and T that contains a pool and other outdoor activities. The unrestricted multi -residence area wraps around the restricted area. This area includes 11 two- and three-story apartment buildings and a clubhouse amenity area. Also included in this area are four garages with apartments above. A walking trail has been provided around the outside of the development. Site plan review and approval also includes review of the elevations and building materials for each building. The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the main senior apartment building and the typical standard apartment building. Ultimately, we will need full elevations of all building types and a complete description of the proposed materials. When a final site plan is submitted, it will be reviewed against Chapter 19 of the FHZO. Some current areas of concern that will need to be addressed in a final site plan include: • Creating a more pedestrian oriented environment consistent with the requirements of Sec. 19.03 B. • Leveling large areas, not using natural contours as required by Sec. 19.03 D. • Concealing of utility equip as required by Sec. 19.04 F. • Encouraging pedestrian use as described in Sec. 19.05 B. • Provide information on walls, signage and lighting as required by Sections 19.05 E, G, & H. • Provide the detail on colors and materials to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 19.06. Master Water. Sewer. and Drainage Plans The master water, sewer and drainage plans have been submitted and reviewed by the Town Engineer. Details no these plans will continue to be addressed through the platting and construction document phases of development. Traffic Analysis A traffic analysis was performed by CivTech. This analysis determined the development could generate approximately 2,500 vehicle trips per day. It found that the proposed driveway locations should function well and that they did not warrant the installation of any traffic signals. The report supports the design as shown on the site plan. Project Narrative The Project Narrative provides a complete overview of the proposed development. In particular, Section III of the Narrative establishes the specific uses allowed in each of the three areas as well as the development standards to be applied to Daybreak P.A.D. It is also specified that all requirements of the Fountain Hill Zoning Ordinance will apply except as amended in this section of the P.A.D. Project Narrative. Code Modifications Requested Parking: The applicant is requesting deviations to the Town's required parking provisions as illustrated in this table: Dwelling Type Fountain Hills Request for MFU 1.30 1.50 1.70 _ 2.00 _ 0.10 Studio 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.25 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Guest By the FHZO, 563 parking spaces are required for the unrestricted apartments and 481 are provided. The requested parking ratio is more than what would be required in either Phoenix or Scottsdale, but less than what would be required in Mesa. With 270 apartment units, there should be sufficient parking for tenants, but they may have a challenge providing guest parking. Given the isolated nature of this property, if there is an issue with insufficient parking, it is unlikely surrounding properties will be affected. Fountain Hills does not have a specific parking standard for senior housing. It is generally agreed that senior housing does not need as much parking as other housing types. The applicant is proposing one space per 1 and 2 bedroom units and 0.70 per studio unit. The studio unit parking standard is for "specialty care" uses on the site. At this time, the applicant is not providing this type of use. The preliminary site plan is for 130 units and 130 parking spaces are provided. Fifty of the spaces are in 2-car garages for the "townhome" portion of the site leaving 76 parking spaces for the 105 units in the apartment building. Staff has some concern for this distribution of parking spaces and believes there should be more parking available for the apartment building. As active 55+ year olds, many of these individuals will likely still drive. Further, there will need to be spaces for guests and any staff working in the MFR portion of the property. There should be at least 105 parking spaces available for the apartment building. Cut and Fill: The site plan and development proposal are based on a significant modification to the current topography on the site. Exhibit 8 — Proposed Development Cut & Fills, page 13 of the Project Narrative, show areas with 30' cuts and areas with as much as 57' of fill. Town codes limit the amount of cut and fill to a maximum of 10' unless a waiver is approved by the Town Council. On page 12 of the Project Narrative the applicant lists the reasons for the requested deviation. Those are: • Provide safe access. The slope and curve on Palisades make access to this property challenging. The proposed driveway locations line up with existing median openings to allow for full turning movements and are in locations that meet sight distance requirements for turning movements. The applicant believes these are the safest locations on the property for the driveways and the Town Engineer agrees they are good places for the driveways. These locations, however, also require significant fill, up to 57' to provide for driveways that avoid steep grades. The previously approved resort hotel included driveway locations closer to the middle of the site where there would not be the need for significant cut and fill. There were, however, challenges with those previously approved locations — the southern drive would require a signalized intersection and the northern one would be right in and out only. • Efficient development of buildings. The flattening of the hilltop will make it easier to build buildings in that location. The change in grade also facilitates construction of buildings into the side of the resulting slope such that some of the buildings are two-story from the uphill side and three-story from the downhill side. • Compliance with ADA. The MFR area at the top of the property will be restricted to residents who are 55+ years of age. The flattened hilltop will make it easier to comply with ADA access requirements. Another benefit of the significant cut to the property is to maintain views for residents to the west. Rather than having the new buildings up on the top of the existing hill and further intrude into the views, by cutting the hill top 30', a 40' tall building will minimally impact the views. The cut and fill slope opinion report contained as Addendum D to the Project Narrative was performed by Copper State Engineering. Their report relies heavily on work done by Western Technologies in 1999 and 2005. The testing done by Western Technologies was just to a depth of 10'. The current applicant is planning to cut the top of the hill by 30'. The types of soils that will be encountered are unknown, but will likely be rock. The developer will be required to provide a detailed soils report as part of the building permit process. Slopes: Section 6.03 of the Subdivision Regulations establish the maximum un-retained cut and fill slopes at 3' of horizontal run for each 1' of vertical climb (3:1). The applicant is asking for a waiver to allow cut slopes to be 1.5:1 and fill slopes at 2:1. The areas where these will occur is limited. The Town Engineer has communicated his acceptance of these deviations. Landscaping: The applicant is asking for a waiver from the landscape requirements of Chapter 6 of the Subdivision regulations to allow for some areas with accent natural turf areas Palisades and the amenity areas. Phasing The Phasing Plan is contained in Section VI of the Project Narrative. The first phase of development will be the MFU portion of the property. Phase 2 will be the senior living portion of the property with work on that phase to begin approximately one year after the initial construction begins. STAFF ANALYSIS General Plan If the request for the Minor General Plan amendment is approved, the request for a P.A.D. for a multi -residence development under 10 units per acre would be consistent with the Land Use designation for the property. There is more to conformance with the General Plan than just the Land Use Plan Map. On pages 19 and 20 of the Project Narrative the applicant provides a review of the project compared to the General Plan Goals and Objectives. In staff's review of the proposal against the General Plan, we noted the following key points: • Page 1, Mission Statement. The mission statement includes phrases such as "...community where the conservation and preservation of the natural heritage and visual beauty of the surrounding desert are maintained" and "...where the natural environment is preserved and protected, and where diverse housing is supplied in beautiful developments." The proposed development does add to the diversity of the housing options in the Town, but staff has concerns about the impact of the proposal due to the degree of proposed cut and fill. • Page 34, Land Use Goal 5: Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods form incompatible adjacent land uses. There are two specific objectives under this goal that relate to this request. • Page 34, Objective 5.2: The Town should continue to preserve open space and natural washes as buffers between and within zoning districts • Page 34, Objective 5.6: The Town should support proposed lodging sites planned with expansive open -space buffers from adjacent residential uses. Sites should have direct access or proximate access to arterial roadway corridors and should be located on land presently zoned within a lodging, or residential district. These sites are to be developed in a highly sensitive manner relative to existing land forms, wash areas, vegetation and other environmental constraints. The proposed development includes a fairly significant open space buffer around the borders as does the contiguous development to the north. These large buffers allow for the transition in use from less dense to more dense residential uses. As a general statement, the proposed use is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood residential neighborhood. However, this site is currently designated for Lodging both through the current General Plan designation and the existing zoning. The approved site plan for the site also preserves the washes and uses them as a buffer to the adjacent residential development. If this site is lost as a location for a lodging use, there are few other sites in the Town that could take its place. • Page 35, Goal 6: Continue to preserve open space and maintain strict guidelines for the conservation of natural resources. One objective under this goal also relates to this request. • Page 35, Objective 6.1: The Town should continue to preserve steeply sloping hillsides, wash areas and tracts of contiguous open space. The applicant points out they are maintaining approximately 80% of the site as open space. On page 10 of the Project Narrative the applicant points out they are allowed a disturbance area of up to 40.5 acres but are disturbing only 26 acres. Of that 26 acres that will be disturbed, nearly % will remain as open space. While this sounds good and is a step in the right direction, it misses the portions of the General Plan Goal and Objective to preserve the existing topographical features. The applicant has pointed to other examples, primarily Firerock Parcel B where extensive modifications were made to the existing topography to allow for development. While there have been situations where this has occurred, they should not overrule the goals and objectives established in the Plan unless necessary. • Page 40, Land Use Guidelines, Multi-Family/Medium Density: Multi-Family/Medium Density Residential will be particularly encouraged as transitional projects between existing developed residential and commercial areas. Projects proposed for these transitional zones should be developed with exceptional design, enhanced site amenities, extensive landscaped setbacks from collector roadway corridors and controlled access to the arterial roadway corridor. This property is not located between existing residential and commercial development. The property to the west across Palisades has the Multi-Family/Medium land use designation and it is between existing residential and commercial development. While the design of the project is attractive, staff would not characterize it as exceptional or that the site amenities are enhanced. Landscaping in the setbacks should exceed the minimum landscaping required by the Subdivision Ordinance. However a waiver from meeting the minimum requirements is being requested. • Page 47, Growth Areas Goal 3: Encourage the development of a variety of housing types. One objective under this goal also relates to this request. • Page 47, Objective 3.1: The Town should encourage creative solutions for topographically challenging sites. The applicant states they have addressed this goal and associated objective by providing multi -resident housing and doing so in a creative way on this challenging site. They have thoughtfully placed the structures on the preliminary site plan to provide views to the surrounding hills. They also believe their degree of leveling the site has allowed for better views by the property owners to the west and will reduce the use of retaining walls on the property. Despite these efforts, staff believes there are other creative solutions that could be employed on the site that would maintain more of the natural topography. Staff analysis is that the proposal is consistent with some aspects of the General Plan, but fails to address all of them. Of particular importance are the impacts on the natural terrain and the loss of a location for a lodging use. Once changes of this magnitude are made, they cannot be restored. Rezoning The rezoning request has met the technical requirements of the FHZO for consideration. Staff is supportive of most of the requested P.A.D. standards, but has concerns with the parking for the senior living portion of the property; more spaces should be made available for the residents of the apartment building. The site plan submitted with the application is preliminary. A final site plan will need to be submitted for review and approval by the Development Services Director prior to obtaining a building permit. Items that will need to be addressed in the final site plan include: • All buildings must be set back at least 25' from the property line or the height of the building, whichever is greater. Buildings A and B do not meet this requirement. • Provide greater connectivity from the trail around the MFU area into apartment area. • Provide a pedestrian connection from Building Q to the amenity area. • Improved pedestrian connectivity from the northern apartment buildings (A, B, C, D, E, & G) to the amenity area. • Upgrade the design and amenities to meet the General Plan requirement for exceptional design and enhanced amenities. • Provide extensive landscaping in the setback along Palisades that exceeds the minimum requirements. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle 2010 General Plan Chapter 3 — Land Use Map — (Figure 11) Zoning Ordinance Section 2.01 —Amendments or Zone Changes Zoning Ordinance Chapter 19 — Architectural Review Guidelines Zoning Ordinance Chapter 23 — Planned Area Development (PAD) District Subdivision Ordinance Article 5 — Grading Standards Subdivision Ordinance Article 6 — Landscaping Standards Risk Analysis Approval of the Daybreak P.A.D. (ORD 19-03) will rezone the 59.79 acre property from the current L-3 P.U.D and OSR zoning district designations and allow development in accordance with the adopted Daybreak P.A.D. Development Plan. Approval of this rezoning is, however, contingent upon approval of the Minor General Plan Amendment. If the Minor General Plan Amendment is denied, the Daybreak PAD must also be denied. Should the Council determine the requested Minor General Plan amendment is supportable, but is not satisfied that the proposed rezoning is appropriate for the property, the Council could continue the case to allow the applicant to consider modifications. Approval of the P.A.D. zoning will include approval of the preliminary site plan for the property. A final site plan would have to be submitted for approval by the Development Services Director prior to approval of a building permit. Recommendations) by Board(s) or Commission(s) At there regular meeting on September 12, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of this rezoning request. Staff Recommendations) This request cannot be considered for approval without approval of the Minor General Plan Amendment. Should the Council approve the Minor General Plan amendment and find that the proposed rezoning and associated development plan are conforming to the General Plan and the standards of the Zoning Ordinance then approval of the attached Ordinance number 19-03 with its associated stipulations can be considered for approval. Note the stipulations include further staff review and acceptance of a revised site plan that will address concerns raised in the report. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to ADOPT/DENY Ordinance 19-03 OR MOVE to ADOPT Ordinance 19-03 with modifications. Attachments Vicinity Map Application General Plan 2010 Existing Zoning Project Narrative Citizen Comments Ord 19-03 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Burke Development Services Director (Originator) Elizabeth A. Burke Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson Town Manager Grady E. Miller Form Started By: John Wesley Final Approval Date: 09/24/2019 Date 09/22/2019 01:45 PM 09/23/2019 07:17 AM 09/23/2019 08:29 AM 09/24/2019 10:14 AM Started On: 09/17/2019 11:28 AM WoWW W MOP-0 YMSO-n0 Dr n W64INdge Dr 41 �r +rr C F19 C J U OF 00, lr Shea Swd i5i Pals Fife C4. CeOQ 15(EiiA CASE: Z2018-10 SITE / ADDRESS: 10825 N. Palisades Blvd APN #176-14-560 and #176-14-561 REQUEST: Minor General Plan Amendment. This request will allow for the development of a multi -resident community with a density between 4 and 10 dwelling units per acre. .� (lannej Area Development P.A.D. Boundary DO Not write in this mace —official use a Filing Date Accepted By K likpew Fee Accepted Case Manager The Town of Fountain Hills PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT - APPLICATIGP Abandonment (Plat or Condominium) Appeal of Administrator's Interpretatio Area Specific Plan & Amendments Concept Plan Condominium Plat Cut/Fill Waiver Development Agreement HPE Change or Abandonment General Plan Amendment Ordinance (Text Amendment) Planned Unit Development Preliminary / Final Plat Replat (Lot joins, lot splits, lot line adjustments) Rezoning (Map) Special Use Permit & Amendments Site Plan Review (vehicles sales) Temporary Use Permit (Median Fee, if ap Variance k Other DAYBREAK - P.A.O. rezone of Fountaist Hills Resort LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Plat Name Fountain Hills Resort Final Plat Block Lot Lo' PROPERTY ADDRESS: Vacant Land PARCEL SIZE [Acres] 23.04 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 176-14-560 NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED 2�70 MFU. 132 MFR TRACTS EXISTING ZONING L-3 P.U.D. PROPOSED ZONING P.A.D. Applicant Mrs. Hilltop Vista Properties LLC (Jeremy Hall) Day phone 602A-21 .5 Mr. Ms, Address, 4515 E. Palo Verde Drive City. Phoenix State; AZ Zip: 8S Email: JGH07khxinterests.com Owner Mrs. Pacific FH Resort LLC Day Phone 502.248.b Mr. Ms. Address: 1701 E. Highland, Suite 310 City. Phoenix State: AZ Zip: 8° IfaAa cation is being wbm1iffied b ffm the ow►i w of Me property under ciansidlermUbq, dye be completed. SIGNATURE OF OWNER by Hilltop Vista Properties LLC Attorney-ln-Fact DATE 12/27/18 I HEREBY AUTHORIZE Hillto Vista Properties LLC {Jeremy Hall, manager) TO FILE THIS AP Please PrinI Su ribed a d sworn ]before n--t�.is day of My Commission Expires�— Notary Public PAULA L WOODWARD ` rPW*-8W01, t=W Case Fil Numl Application - Revised 1a2W7 l' MAIRC4r�r����� Page 2 at 6 'F' gym Aid 18, 2022 D aenard Han,9 Land um NOR Map (OFAMRS-an A Cam 15(NiiA CASE: G PA2019-01 SITE / ADDRESS: 10825 N. Palisades Blvd APN #176-14-560 and #176-14-561 REQUEST: Amendment to Zoning Map. This request would rezone approximately 59.79 acres at 10825 N Palisades, from the "L-3 PUY and "OSR" zoning districts to the "Daybreak PAD" zoning district. 0 Single Family/Very Low 0 Single Family/Low 0 Single Family/Medium 0 Multi-Family/Medium ® General Commercial/Retail 0 Lodging 0 Utility 0 Open Space ® Golf Course 0 ROW • Daybreak a0a0p Mmuhs Map 0000 6 -00 Dam 15(NiiA CASE: Z2018-10 SITE / ADDRESS: 10825 N. Palisades Blvd APN #176-14-560 and #176-14-561 REQUEST: Amendment to Zoning Map. This request would rezone approximately 59.79 acres at 10825 N Palisades, from the "L-3 PUY and "OSR" zoning districts to the "Daybreak PAD" zoning district. P.A.D. Application Revised & Resubmitted: May 15, 2019 DATE RECEIVED Dept. Init. Not Notes App- Building P&7_ F'tg — Sewer Flood Fire Fountain Hills, Arizona Z2018-10 M#9396 DAYBREAK PAD 10825 N Palisades Blvd 3rd Submittal 05/15/2019 Table of Contents I. Introduction..................................................... A. The Property ........................................ B. The Owner ........................................... C. The Applicant ...................................... D. The Managers ...................................... E. The Development Team ....................... I Page ................................................................ 3 .............................................................. 3 ................................................................... 6 ................................................................... 6 ................................................................... 6 ................................................................... 7 II. Project Narrative................................................................. A. Land Use................................................................. B. Parking Waiver ....................................................... C. Signage Waiver ....................................................... D. Reduced Disturbance .............................................. E. Cut & Fill Waiver ..................................................... F. Ingress & Egress Approval ....................................... III, Development Standards ............................................. ................................................. 8 ................................................. 8 ................................................. 9 ...............................................10 ...............................................10 ...............................................12 ...............................................14 .........................................15 IV. Site Development Concept Objectives....................................................................................19 A. Conformance with General Plan & P.A.D. Standards..................................................19 B. Architectural Concepts (Perspective Renderings, Elevations & Sections) ....................22 C. Orderly Transition Concepts......................................................................................31 i. Open Space................................................................................................... 31 ii. Disruption to Neighbors................................................................................31 iii. Land Use Compatibility..................................................................................35 D. Design Philosophy & Environmental Quality..............................................................35 E. Landscape Plan..........................................................................................................37 V. Community Facilities Impact..................................................................................................41 A. Traffic........................................................................................................................41 B. Public Services...........................................................................................................42 C. Environment & Sustainability.....................................................................................43 D. Commerce.................................................................................................................43 VI. Phasing Plan ................................................ VII. Addendum........................................................................ A. Plat B. Circulation Plan C. Master Grading Plan D. Copper State Engineering Cut & Fill Slope Opinion E. Master Drainage Plan F. Master Water Plan G. Master Sewer Plan H. Utility Company Letters I. Traffic Analysis J. Power of Attorney ........................................... 44 ............................................. 46 DAYBREAK— Planned Area Development K. Title Report Exhibits 2 1. Proximity Map..........................................................................................................................3 2. Assessor's Map...................................................................................................... 4 3. Aerial View...............................................................................................................................4 4. Site Plan...................................................................................................................................5 5. Zoning Classifications Before & After ........................................................................................8 6. Slope Analysis................................................................................................................ 11 7. Existing Unretained Slopes in Excess of 3:1.............................................................................12 S. Proposed Development Cuts & Fills .........................................................................................13 9. Site Ingress & Egress ..............................................................................................................14 10. Project Rendering from Shea Blvd........................................................................................... 23 11. Project Rendering from Palisades Blvd ....................................................................................24 12. MFR Main Building Elevations................................................................................................25 13. MFU Typical Building Elevations.............................................................................................26 14. Site Section............................................................................................................................. 30 15. Conference Hotel Plan vs Multifamily Plan Visual Comparison................................................32 16. View from Summit at Crestview.............................................................................................. 34 1Z View from Westridge Village ..................................................................................................34 18. Landscape Plan......................................................................................................................38 19. Resort -Style Living Amenity Areas........................................................................................... 40 20. Emergency Response 5-Minute Polygon Map—, . ....................... — ......................................... 42 Full size architectural and engineering drawings provided under separate cover. DAYBREAK— Planned Area Development I. Introduction A. The Property Exhibit 1- Proximity Map 3 ��� T •.,�, �` sue' "t`.��; «w... t�'� � .. ����.•� ...t,,.�r r':{��. +*fir �` `" '�F� A+ SCOTTSDALE 77 F V R r YAVA �.t'",r �' - ,�" �'-.. �..+• ti,s+..4°..^,.�++. -..�+ ryr'�Mry j $fir]! W l"r •� '+w%_ a•y,.a..1•"v-.rY�y ryY q'1+1 $T " *ft 4 a DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development The Property is 59.79 acres, more or less, at the northeast corner of East Shea Boulevard and North Palisades Boulevard being Lot 1 and Tract A, Fountain Hills Resort Final Plat, According to Book 597, Page 42, Records of Maricopa County, Arizona. Tract A (36.75 acres) is zoned OSR and no change to the land use category is proposed. A short driveway entrance, utilities and drainage improvements with access to Palisades will occupy a portion on the west side of the OSR area. '4 Lot 1(23.04 acres) is zoned P.U.D. t` for a large conference hotel and is proposed to be down zoned to v multifamily with this P.A.D. application. Exhibit 2 — Assessor's Map Lot 1-23.04+1- acres I 59.79+Y- acres Exhibit 3 - Aerial View Tract A - 36.75+1. acres 4 5 Exhibit 4 — Site Plan Full size Site Plan at 1:100 scale is provided under separate cover DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 6 B. The Owner Pacific FH Resort, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilty company 1701 E. Highland, Suite 310 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Tony Feiter, Contact Telephone: 602.248.8181 Email: tonyPlevineinvestments.com C. The Applicant Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company 14550 North Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard, Suite 100 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Jeremy Hall, Manager Neil Ginsberg, Manager Telephone: 602.421.5848 Telephone: 602.469.8109 Email: igh@phxinterests.com Email: nginsberg@pd-llc.com The Applicant has authority to submit this P.A.D. application through a Limited Power of Attorney granted by the owner of the Property, Pacific FH Resort, LLC. A copy is included in the Addendum. D. The Managers Jeremy Hall has been active in real estate development for over 30 years. He worked for MCO Properties, the master developer of Fountain Hills, for 18 years and was the company president for last twelve years. Mr. Hall has worked exclusively in real estate planning, development, finance and management of commercial and residential properties throughout the southwestern U.S. and Puerto Rico throughout his career and is experienced at hillside development. His past Fountain Hills projects include Adero Canyon, Eagles Nest, FireRock Country Club and SunRidge Canyon. He is a licensed real estate broker in Arizona and former MAI member of The Appraisal Institute. Neil Ginsberg has been active in real estate development and brokerage for over 30 years. He is the founder of Pinnacle Diversified and its related companies, a real estate development and syndication company with 60+ projects including 4 diamond resorts (including the Copperwynd Resort & Spa in Fountain Hills), millions of square feet of commercial and industrial buildings, senior living projects and over 10,000 apartments. He is the co-founder of Dynamic Water Technologies, a company exclusively distributing a patented technology for an environmentally - friendly and sustainable, electro-chemical water treatment process that saves millions of gallons of water and virtually eliminates the use of hazardous chemicals in certain water treatment applications. Previously, Mr. Ginsberg was the CEO of NAI Horizon in Phoenix, a commercial real estate brokerage and management company. DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development The Development Team 7 • Beus Gilbert (Land Use Attorney) 701 North 44" Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Contact: Paul Gilbert, esq. Telephone: 480.429.3000 Email: pgilbertPbeusgilbert.com • David Suson, esq. (Contracts and Transactions) 109 Cherrywood, Bellaire, Texas 77401 Telephone: 713.560.2374 Email: dsuson ahoo.com • LD Team (Civil Engineering) 3420 East Shea Boulevard, Phoenix, Arizona 85028 Contact: Jonathon Stansel, P.E. Telephone: 602.396.5700 Email: istansel(@Id-team.com • Whitneybell Perry (Architecture) 1102 E Missouri Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Contact: Mike Perry, AIA Telephone: 602.265.1891 Email: mike@whitneybeliperry.com • Survey Innovation Group (Plat & Survey) 22425 North 16th Street, Suite 1, Phoenix, Arizona 85024 Contact: Jason Segneri Telephone: 480.922.0780 Email: iason(@sigsurveyaz.com • CivTech Inc. (Traffic Engineering) 10605 North Hayden Road, Suite 140, Scottsdale, AZ 85250-5595 Contact: Joseph Spadafino, P.E., PTOE, PTP Telephone: 480.659.4250 Email: Ispadafino@civtech.com • Western Technologies, Inc. (Environmental) 3737 East Broadway Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Contact: Steven Smelser, R.G. Telephone: 602.437.3737 ext. 112 Email: s.smelser@wt-us.com + Paleo West Archaeology (Cultural Resources) 319 East Palm Lane, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Contact: Chris North Telephone: 602.363.7451 Email: cnorth@paleowest.com DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development H. Project Narrative This is a request to change the existing land use with respect to 23.04 acres from the existing L-3 P.U.D. for a mixed -use 233-room, 5-story conference hotel and 36 2-story residences to a P.A.D. for up to 400 multifamily residential dwellings and related amenities being a mixture of 1-, 2- and 3-story buildings. A. Land Use Reclassification of land uses will result in two separately platted lots within the Property: Lot 1A: MFU - Multifamily Unrestricted - Up to a 270-unit garden -apartment multifamily community with a mixture of studio, 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units. Lot 113: MFR - Multifamily Restricted - Up to a 130-unit multifamily and townhome community restricted for residents aged 55 and older with a mixture of studio, 1- and 2-bedroom units. The Property may include amenities customarily ancillary to these primary uses including garage & covered parking; clubhouses; lounges; fitness facilities; barbeques; private dining facilities; fire pits; vending facilities; community patios with cabanas; gardens; and recreation facilities such as swimming pools, sport courts, putting greens, etc. Exhibit 3 identifies current and proposed land uses of the Property as well as surrounding uses within 300 feet of the property. Exhibit 5 - Zoning Classifications Before and After Existing & Surrounding Land Use Proposed Land Use of the Property DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 9 B. parking Waiver MFU may have parking ratios below the typical Fountain Hills standards, which are higher than needed for the Project. This is necessary to accommodate sloped site conditions and to optimize land area for open space and impervious coverage. The ITE Parking Generation, 4th Edition, documents the demand for parking spaces based upon the land use through actual parking demand studies. The parking rates published in the manual for ITE land use code "221a - Low/Mid-Rise Apartment (suburban)" is 1.23 spaces per dwelling unit. For MFR parking, Fountain Hills has not codified parking standards for age -restricted multifamily residential at this time. The standard demand published by ITE for land use code "252 Senior Adult Housing - Attached" is 0.59 spaces per dwelling unit. Van transportation is furnished by property management as a service to residents, so few have private vehicles. We consulted the Phoenix and Scottsdale zoning regulations as an additional guide to validate our parking demand estimates. The P.A.D. parking standards shall meet or exceed in each category the ITE standard and the minimum Phoenix and Scottsdale standards thereby ensuring parking within the P.A.D. will be adequate. Minimum Parking Ratios for MFU Area Dwelling Type Phoenixtll Scottsdale (2) Fountain Hills ITE MFU Minimum Parking Ratio Studio 1.30 1.25 1.50 1.30 1 Bedroom 1.50 1.30 1.50 - 1.50 2 Bedroom 1.50 1.70 2.00 - 1.70 3 Bedroom 2.00 1.90 2.00 -- 2.00 Other/Guest none none 0.25 - 0.10 Minimum Parking Ratios for MFR Area Dwelling Type PhoenixM Scottsdaiel2l Fountain Hills ITE MFR Minimum Parking Ratio Independent Living (1/2 BR) 1.00 1.25 NA -- 1.00/unit Specialized Care (Studio) 0.50 0.70 NA -- 0.70/unit Notes: (1) Section "702 Off -Street Parking and Loading' of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Guest parking is included so long as there are unreserved spaces equal to 0.5 for 1- and 2-bedroom units and 1.0 for 3-bedroom units. rar adult living and assisted care, parking ratios equate toO.5 per occupant and assumes 1 occupant/unit in the specialized care and 2 occupants/unit in the independent living. (2) Per "Table 9.103.A Schedule of Parking Requirements" of Article IX of the Scottsdale Code of Ordinances. Adult living and specialized care is on a "per bed" basis. (3) Weighted averages for MFU is based upon the expected unit mix of 4% studios, 30% 1-bedrooms, 6c)% 2-bedrooms and 6% 3- bedrooms. Weighted averages for MFR is based upon the expect unit mix of 77% independent living units and 23% specialized care units. This unit mix changed from the 12/27/18 submittal reducing the number of3 bedroom units and adding studio units. Parking garages shall be allowed in MFU and MFR with a minimum depth of 20feet. There shall be a front apron of no less than 4 feet from any drive aisle. DAYBREAK - Planned Area Development 10 C. Signage Waiver The MFU and MFR property shall be permitted shared signage on Shea Boulevard and Palisades Boulevard. A monument sign for Shea Boulevard shall not exceed 10 feet in height and 14 feet in width with a 10 foot by 10 foot sign box. A monument sign for the southern entrance on Palisades Boulevard shall not exceed 8 feet in height and 10 feet in width with an 8 foot by 8 foot sign box. A second smaller sign on Palisades at the northern entrance to the MFU property for shall be permitted and shall not exceed 6 feet in height and 8.5 feet in width with a 6 foot by 6 foot sign box. The Applicant feels this second Palisades location is warranted to identify a second point of acceess for emergency vehicles. D. Reduced Disturbance and additional HPE Area Per Article 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the right of disturbance for the Property based upon the existing natural grades is as follows: Slope Category Area(acres) I Preservation Requirement Disturbance Allowance Developable Area (acres) 00/0-5% 0.3630 0 100% 0,3630 5%-10% 3.1010 0 1000/0 3.1010 100/0-15% 11.6210 0 10w% 11.6210 15%-20% 12.6490 0 1000/0 12.6490 20%-25% 13.3300 60% 40% 5.3320 >25% 18.5940 60% 40% 7.4376 Total developable Area (acres) 40,5036 As part of the P.A.D., the proposed improvements will disturb only about 26 acres. This is FAR LESS than the allowable disturbance of 40.5 acres per the Property's slope analysis. The total undisturbed area of approximately 33.8 acres will be placed into a Hillside Protection Easement as shown on the Plat in the Addendum. Of the 26 acres of disturbance, nearly %Z of that will be open space either enhanced with landscaping and common outdoor amenities or revegetated to return to its natural state. DAYBREAK —Planned Area Development Exhibit 6 — Slope Analysis 11 DA i 5KE ATE iNr.-:.COKNt.._K0r°1'AL]'3AE)[..`i: srIr.t\ 49 -�LCTU. ANAY51.5 rLAN ► s,t LEGEND 5LOrrn rtRcENTAGF5 'i 0% TO 5% �► 5% TO fO% %L JO%a TO 15% ` r 15% TO 20% • 20% TO 25% • > 25% J/ a 5tiEA DoUtr-VARD Slope I.Area(acres) Preservation �Requjrement�Allovwance Disturbance Developable Category Area (acres) 0%-5% 0.3630 0 100% 0.3630 5%-10°!o 3.1010 0 100°/a 3.1010 10%-15% 11.6210 0 100% 11.6210 1S%-20% 12.6490 0 Iowa 12,6490 20%-25% 13.3300 60% 40'0 5.3320 >25% 18.5940 60% 40% 7.4376 Total Developable Area (acres) 40.5036 Full size Exhibit is provided under separate cover DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development J 12 E. Cut and Fill Waiver The Applicant will reduce the height of the crest of the hill, grade slopes and fill voids to allow for safe access, efficient development of buildings terraced on hillside grades and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As shown on Exhibit 6 the exceptions are requested for cuts and fills for the development of allowable uses, parking, sidewalks and signage for cuts up to 30 feet and fills up to 57 feet. The deepest fills are for drives at the southern and northern access points to the Property off Palisades Boulevard to facilitate the safest possible ingress and egress and to avoid steep road grades. Fills outside those areas will be no deeper than 30 feet. CqEZ41BELM 3' 1 The maximum unretained cut slope shall b 1.5: and fill slope shall beef horizontal to vertical). All exposed slopes will incorporate erosion mitigation measures, vegetation and will be reviewed by a third -party geotechnical engineer. These slopes are similar to existing unretained slopes in and around the Property. as shown below. Copper State Engineering has also opined on the slopes on the grading plan, their letter is included in the Addendum. Exhibit 7 - Existing Unretained Slopes in Excess of 3:1 h"vYI %KI _ •\k-' 33% to 50`i6 or 3:1 to 2:1 50% to 67% or 2:1 to 1.5:1 [♦ 67% to 6M or 1.5:1 to 1.25:1 80`6 to toO% or 1. 25:1 to 1;1 !'!!i 100% to 125% or 1A to 1:1.25 125% to 150% or 1.1.25 to 1:I.5 > 15070 or > 1:1.5 EXISTING CONTOURS ARE 5 F007 INTERVALS • y, r seen Dtw cur stores �✓� yKrs Dtvo AI' FILL ryLL Inn, y8' GUT GUT 9ioPe9_, � GLDTeam LAND DEVELOPMENT DAYBREAK— Planned Area Development 13 Exhibit 8 — Proposed Development Cuts & Fills DA{Yff)KF AK wN�lM111N flLL rm lYl� (l' .-KNLK(')I I A[.I,' Ji\Ill...-�:�1tv.IL A RCMIINwr 37.6 rerT I �✓�YRAUM rILL Ai AUlLOM Jo.o C_C1T ryrl1A-HfAFMAF F+w'llwRlM cvl wi - cxL:�-ewwY .xarrrerr _ fiiMlfUlK.l CGf 4T tk�iLPNG ]O.O •£tT MAYlMURI Fill AY � uw} Mtxn r0.i YiM - . _ ROWk4Y ]1J r{1T Full size Exhibit is provided under separate cover DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development LEGEND FILL 56.00 FILL 28.00 OM CUT 28.00 CUT 56.00 14 F. Ingress & Egress Approval Palisades provides two through lanes in each direction divided by a raised median. Per MCDOT's Major Roads and Street Plan (MSRP), Palisades Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial roadway. The design speed for the roadway is 45 mph and the posted speed limit is 45 mph. Typically, the posted speed limit would be 5 miles per hour less than the design speed. The Property shall be accessed from Palisades Boulevard at two entry points that align with existing median breaks on Palisades. The southern access will be located across from Valley Vista Drive and the northern access will be located across from a full -access driveway that serves a Salt River Project electrical power facility. These locations provide the safest conditions with minimal disruption to the public right of way. CivTech has recommended auxillary right and left turn lanes on Palisades for each driv ay-a#-tfi ty-w minimum queue capacity of 160 feet with approach tapers of 80 feet. Please refer to the Traffic Analysis by CivTech in the Addendum. Exhibit 9 - Site Ingress & Egress �r+SxT�. ifT� 7+a' •f'i' •� � ���i7tr• i ���0..lP¢ ,r ISE DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 15 III. Development Standards All standards and requirements of the Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of application approval apply except as modified by the development standards contained in this section. MFU — Multifamily Unrestricted (16.1+/- acres) Permitted Uses All uses permitted in the R-5 multifamily Residential Zoning District as well as covered and garage parking; clubhouses; lounges; fitness facilities; barbeques; fire pits; vending facilities, community patios with cabanas; gardens; and recreation facilities such as swimming pools, spas, sport courts, putting greens, and similar facilities. Density, Area, Building & Yard Regulations Building Height(�) Building Length Minimium Yard Setbacks Net/Gross Parcel CoverageM Distance Between Buildings Distance Between Garages Front Side Street I Side Rear 40' 200' 30' 10' 30' 10' 60%/30% 40' 14' Parking Dwelling Type Parking Stalls per Unit Studio 1.30 1 Bedroom 1.50 2 Bedroom 1.70 3 Bedroom 2.00 Other/Guest 0.10 Parking garages shall be allowed with a minimum depth of 20 feet. There shall be a front apron of no less than 4 feet from any drive aisle. Si na e Two monument signs shall be permitted on the OSR portion of the Property per the OSR section below. In addition, a third sign on Palisades at the northern entrance to the MFU property for shall be permitted and shall not exceed 6 feet in height and 8.5 feet in width with a 6 foot by 6 foot sign box. DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 16 Disturbance All allowable disturbance for the Permitted Uses shall consider the Property as a whole (i.e. MFU, MFR and OSR areas) in calculating allowable disturbance which shall be allocated ratably to the MFU area based upon acreage. Cuts & Fills Maximum Cut 30 feet Maximum Fill 57 feet Maximum Slope of Unretained Cut 1.5:1 Maximum Slope of Unretained Fill 2.0:1 Landscaping With limited exceptions around swimming pool areas, all plantings will conform to the approved plant list as provided in Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance in both plant types, mix and densities. Small accent natural turf areas will be allowed at entries, along Palisades and near amenity areas. MFR - Multifamily Restricted (6.9+/- acres) Permitted Uses All uses permitted in the R-5 multifamily Residential Zoning District with residential dwelling units restricted to residents aged 55 and older as well as covered and garage parking; clubhouses; lounges; fitness facilities; barbeques; restaurant and bar facilities; fire pits; vending facilities, community patios with cabanas; gardens; and recreation facilities such as swimming pools, spas, sport courts, putting greens, and similar facilities. Density, Area, Building & Yard Regulations Building Height(') Building Length(2) Minimium Yard Setbacks Net/Gross Parcel Coverage Distance Between Buildings Front Side Street Side Rear 40' 600' 30' 10' 30' 10, 60%/30%(3) 40' Notes: (1) Building height measured from finished grade (2) The last approved conference hotel on the Property had a contiguous building length approved at 1,400feet (+/-) (3} Net excludes the pSR Area, Gross includes a ratable allocation of the OSR Area DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 17 Parking Dwelling Type Parking Stalls per Unit Studio 0.7 1 & 2 Bedroom 1.0 Parking garages shall be allowed with a minimum depth of 20 feet. There shall be a front apron of no less than 4 feet from any drive aisle. SiSignage Two shared monument signs shall be permitted on the OSR portion of the Property per the OSR section below. In addition, a third shared sign on Palisades at the northern entrance to the MFU property for shall be permitted and shall not exceed 6 feet in height and 8.5 feet in width with a 6 foot by 6 foot sign box. Disturbance All allowable disturbance for the Permitted Uses shall consider the Property as a whole (i.e. MFU, MFR and OSR areas) in calculating allowable disturbance which shall be allocated ratably to the MFR area based upon acreage. Cuts & Fills Maximum Cut 30 feet Maximum Fill 57 feet Maximum Slope of Unretained Cut 1.5:1 Maximum Slope of Unretained Fill 2.0:1 Landscaping With limited exceptions around swimming pool areas, all plantings will conform to the approved plant list as provided in Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance in both plant types, mix and densities. Small accent natural turf areas will be allowed at entries, along Palisades and near amenity areas. 0 OSR (36.8+/- acres) Permitted Uses Driveway, utilities, drainage, signage, and landscaping. DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 18 Si_gnap,e A monument sign on Shea Boulevard for the MFU and MFR areas shall not exceed 10 feet in height and 14 feet in width with a 10 foot by 10 foot sign box. A monument sign for the southern entrance on Palisades Boulevard shall not exceed 8 feet in height and 10 feet in width with an 8 foot by 8 foot sign box. The Shea monument may be placed within the unused portion of the excess 100 feet of Shea right-of-way (ROW). If and when Shea Boulvard is ever widenned into this area, this monument sign shall be relocated outside the right of way at the owners' expense. Disturbance All allowable disturbance for the Permitted Uses shall consider the Property as a whole (i.e. MFU, MFR and OSR areas) in calculating allowable disturbance which shall be allocated ratably to the OSR area based upon acreage. Cuts & Fills Maximum Cut 30 feet Maximum Fill 57 feet Maximum Slope of Unretained Cut 1.5:1 Maximum Slope of Unretained Fill 2.0:1 Landscaping With limited exception of small accent natural turf areas at entries and along Palisades all plantings will conform to the approved plant list as provided in Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance in both plant types, mix and densities. DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development im IV. Site Development Concept Objectives A. Conformance with General Plan & P.A.D. Standards Conformance with General Plan The mission statement of the current Fountain Hills General Plan states: "Fountain Hills is committed to creating a Town that is attractive for small businesses, clean industry and village commerce, where the natural environment is preserved and protected, and where diverse housing is supplied in beautiful developments." To this end, the Town has established Goals and Objectives in chapters 3-9 of the General Plan, which includes considerations for residential, commercial and public lands as well as open space. The P.A.D. addresses compatibility with the relevant General Plan goals as follows: General Plan Reference Goal {Objective) P.A.D. Compatibility Chapter 3 Preserve existing neiborhoods from The Property is surrounded by residenial uses on Goal 5 incompatible adjacent land uses. all four sides. The proposed uses improve the compatibility by dowazoning the property from a commercial use to a residential use with the design and scale of buildings more in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. Chapter 3 Preserve open space The proposed development shall hove Goa16 approximately 80% of the land area as open space. Chapter 4 Encourage the development of a The Property has challenging hillside Goal variety of housing types including topography. The proposed development will creative solutions for topographically deploy creative planning principals of clustering challenging sites (3.1). density, sensitive building siting and product mix to use disturbed areas efficiently while preserving open space and appealing to a diverse resident base. Chapter 4 Promote developments that will The proposed development includes a landscape Goals continue to provide small town plan with Palisades frontage landscaping that character and quality of life including complies with the Town Cade for partially - all new housing provide streetside abutting areas planted with native plant landscaping complimentary to the material. native desert vegetation (5.8). Chapter 4 Encourage developments that The proposed development shall have over 35 Goal preserve and protect natural acres of undisturbed native habitat for more resources including setting asside than required by the Town Code, placed within a dedicated preservation areas (6.1). perpetual Hillside Protection Easement. DArsREAK —Planned Area Development 20 Chapter 6 Provide and maintain an open space The Property is flanked by two major washes — Goal 1 network throughout the community one along the northeast property line and one including protecting natural washes along the south property line. The proposed within platted portions of the development will not disturb those areas and community as permanent natural place both within a perpetual Hillside desert open spaces (1.1). Preservation Easement. A drainage plan will include storm water runoff retention so as not to exceed historicflows within these washes. Chapter 7 Create safe and efficient patterns of The proposed development will have two points Goal 1 circulation including secondary access of access located in the safest areas at existing points to all new development areas median breaks on Palisades Blvd. On -site circulation has been designed to accommodate fire and emergency vehicles. Chapter 7 Provide for and encourage the use of The proposed development will contribute an 8- Goal3 non -vehicular modes of circulation foot sidewalk along the Palisades Blvd frontage. including provisions in developments for pedestrian paths where appropriate (3.1). Chapter 8 Reduce water usage The proposed development will utilize low water Goal 1 use landscaping and low flow plumbing fixtures. Chapter 9 Promote the continued vigilance and The proposed development shall preserve over Goal 1 guardianship of the natural desert 40% of the Property within a Hillside Protection including requiring Hillside Protection Easement. Easements on all newly platted properties that are determined to be hillside (1.1). Chapter 9 Identify and preserve cultural and The Applicant engaged Poleo West to perform a Goal 2 archaeological resources. Class 1 cultural resources investigation on the Property, and no archaeological sites were discovered. Development Plan Concurrent with the submission of this application, a Site Plan is being submitted in accordance with Subsection 23.47(B) of Chapter 23 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Exhibit 4) Number of Buildings per Lot Lot 1A (MFU) —13 buildings. Lot 113 (MFR) — 5 buildings. Streets, Utilities, Services and Public Facilities Please refer to the Site Plan and the conceptual master water, sewer and drainage plans. Except where noted in this P.A.D. Application, all facilities will comply with local, regional and national codes. There will be no public streets within the Property and uses shall be adequately parked on site. Fire and emergency access shall comply with regulations and water service shall be looped through the project. DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 21 Utilities All private on -site distribution lines for utilities shall be installed underground. There is an existing above -ground electrical transmission line along the property perimeter belonging to SRP that serves other properties in the region and will remain as is. Landscaping With limited exceptions around swimming pool areas, all plantings will conform to the approved plant list as provided in Chapter 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance in both plant types, mix and densities. Small accent natural turf areas will be allowed at entries, along Palisades and near amenity areas. Retail Uses and Sin le Family Size and Use Restrictions Not Applicable DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 22 B. Architectural Concept The objectives of the architectural expression are to reflect authenticity, high quality and reinforcement of the southwest environment, culture and history. Both the MFU and MFR product will be designed in Southwest Contemporary concepts with Praire-Style elements commensurate with sophisticated desert styles. In its proper forms, southwest contemporary architecture draws from the colors, textures, masses and geometry of ranch, prairie, pueblo and Spanish styles in a present day interpretation, and fundamental elements of those styles can be found in the interpretation. Southwest Contemporary and Prairie -Style elements that are driving the project vision are • Solid, grounded massing with strong rectilinear forms • Purpose -driven design without the ornamentaion of classic european styles • Varied roof geometry including flat and low-pitched roofs with broad eaves • Colors and textures that mimic the natural surroundings, • Simple natural building materials of plaster (stucco), wood, brick or stone • Windows, balcony railings and building masses that reinforce strong horizontal geometry including clerestory windows (a band of high, narrow windows) Prairie style architecture was integral in defining uniquely American designs and craftsmanship of the Midwest and, through Frank Lloyd Wright, is having historic design influence in Arizona. The MFR product will occupy the flattened crest of the hill where grades are best suited to age -restricted residents. The MFU product will terrace around the natural slopes thereby preserving views and adding "movement" to the otherwise regimented siting of buildings often found in other apartment communities. In some areas buildings themselves will retain and/or conceal retained slopes to avoid exposed cuts and the appearance of an abundance of free-standing retaining walls. Colors are intended to be muted earth tones to blend with the natural desert. Site design goals are as follows: The combined effects of architectural style, site design, concealed retaining walls and muted desert colors will create an inconspicuous and organic sense of belonging between the built and natural environment and appear as a "softer touch" on the natural landscape. The pages following present architectural concept designs for the Property. DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development Exhibit 10a - Project Rendering from Shea Blvd v n K W xl T a x 1 v m ro a n QJ a u rn c ru 0 Ei fD D N W -j�"4 MIMI EL lam - r _ ��� �4iw1 ■ rs �_I� lag PrAArAft'rAvrArA r //I rim a ■�rI 111M_ rub a.-■ _aJ�� t!=I I■IItll rr :v- MOB% 10 111 111 1 ills I I I Aqw: t,,-A L Fill MIN A Ir M elm I r1l Lip I pn gf milli I fly 71 r ArA L* ------444� -V•,* FRQjff 9 MATIQN k I+N W 4 C DAYMLAk FoalvrAar HILLS n ARIZONA ti ti Q Y4HRNEY$ELL PERRY lVC ro fb r'! fl 1 m rm i E nVNitec[wl5AND �a%.ac ..f O Al PRELIMINARY FROWY. R L€FT ElEVAiION N co REAR ELEVATION R13NT SIDE ELEVATIN k DAYISKEAK it C FOUNTAM MLLS y ARIZONA n :z c 4 riHITNEYBEil PERitY INC n ti C W.4iTECrURE ANC PLrtk4 v! ti. PREUMINARY REAR 8 RIGHT ELEVATION v a 03 m D I ai n n rD w n rD C fD O 3 m rF SITE SECTION 0-0 SITE SECTION " MAST) .. .. w 0 31 C. Orderly Transition Concepts i Open Space The proposed improvements will leave the majority of the Property as open space in the form of undisturbed native areas, revegetated native areas and enhanced landscape areas. Open Space Acreage Undisturbed !Native Open Space in OSR Area 31.73 Undisturbed Native Open Space in MFU Area 2.05 Total Undisturbed Area* 33.78 Enhanced/Revegetated Open space in OSR Area 4.34 Enhanced Open Space in MFU area 4.82 Enhanced Open Space in MFR Area 2.86 Total Enhanced/Revegetated Area 12.02 Total Open Space Acres 45.80 Percent of Open Space 77% * The undisturbed native open space will be placed in a Hillside Protection Easement. ii Disruption to Neighbors As compared to the existing zoning, the proposed uses should have less of a negative impact on neighboring properties for two reasons. First, the crest of the hill will be brought down from 1,993 feet to 1,963 feet with the tallest building being 40 feet above finished grade, which is a net 10 feet above the existing hilltop. This compares favorably to the 30 foot height over natural grade presently allowed which could allow a building sited at the hilltop 30 feet in height above the existing hilltop. This should preserve some mountain views to the east that may otherwise be lost under the present zoning. Secondly, the proposed plan is less disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of properties on all sides of the Property. The residential use will generate less traffic, less late -night noise and less light glare than a large conference hotel. Please note the conflicts the Copperwynd Resort and Spa has had with its neighbors who have complained about noise and light from late -night events at the resort. The proposed use should be far less disruptive in this regard and far less visually -imposing on the land (clusters of 1-, 2- and 3-story buildings instead of a massive 5-story facility viewed from points south, east and north). The exhibit on the following page compares the existing conference hotel plan to the proposed multifamily plan. DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 32 Exhibit 15a - Conference Hotel Plan vs. Multifamily Plan Visual Comparison Shea View Existing Zoning L-3 P.U.D. Commercial Conference Hotel Plan (5-story, 1,400+/- long contiguous main building) Proposed P.A.D. Residential Multifamily Plan (1, 2 & 3-story, buildings with massing and colors to be less imposing on the landscape) DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development [«C3 Exhibit 15b - Conference Hotel Plan vs. Multifamily Plan Visual Comparison Palisades View f View [oolong + from I'alkado Existing Zoning L-3 P.U.D. Commercial Conference Hotel Plan (30 feet height allowance over natural grade) Proposed P.A.D. Residential Multifamily Plan (Crest of hill lowered 30 feet, 3-story building 40 feet in height from lowered grade) DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 34 Exhibit 16 - View from Entrance to Summit Estates Op +-�.�'�.. �-_ ..f�...�a-.-�`--':�-�- Asti,--�.siM:-?.;s�•-�; Exhibit 17 - View from Entry Road inside Westridge Village DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 35 iii Land Use Compatibility The proposed plan is exclusively residential, which is compatible with uses in all four directions from the Property. West- Summit at CrestView, a multifamily -zoned (M1) property for 68 condominiums immediately across Palisades from the Property. North - Westridge Village, a single-family zoned (R1-10 P.U.D.) property for 69 residences adjacent to the Property. The proposed improvements will have 400 feet of OSR open space between the Property's buildings and the closest home in Westridge Village. East- Palatial Estates, a single-family zoned (R143) property for 17 residences. The proposed improvements will have 1,800 feet (1/3 mile) of OSR open space between the Property's buildings and the closest home in Palatial Estates. South - FireRock Country Club, a planned residential community (111-18 P.U.D.) for 379 single-family residences, 229 multifamily condominiums and a golf course. FireRock is across Shea Boulevard, a 300-foot wide thoroughfare, and partially hidden from view due to the rolling topography. There will also be 550 feet of OSR open space between the Property's buildings and the Shea Boulevard right of way. D. Design Philosophy & Environmental Quality The general design philosphy is to create a sustainable and timeless built environment in harmony with the natural landscape with broad appeal in the local marketplace for residential dwellings. To this end, designs will incorporate the following objectives: Site Design Considerations • Setting asside and preserving over 50% of the Property in its native state • Siting structures along axis points which follow the direction of the natural terrain contours • Terracing building pads to conform to existing slopes and maximize view corridors • Concealing cut slopes with buildings where possible to minimize the visual impacts from Shea Boulevard and neighboring properties • Salvaging trees, saguaros, ocotillos and other natural vegetation for integration back into the landscape • Balancing excavation to minimize the import and export of native soil DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 36 • Reusing natural material where possible for aggregage base for driveways, rip rap for erosion control, and boulders slope retention and landscape features • Burying all on -site utility distribution lines to enhance the visual appeal of the improvements • Following a rigorous storm water prevention plan with Maricopa County for erosion and runoff control during construction • Common areas for gathering and recreation will be sited in internal locations or screened to lessen impacts to neighboring properties Building Design Considerations • Blending a color palette of the built environment with the colors of the natural environment to give the improvements a less conspicuous appearance • Utilizing an architectural vernacular tailored to the desert climate with wide eaves for shading • Mixing building materials and muted colors to break up structural masses and add visual interest to buildings. All exterior surface colors shall not exceed a Light Reflectance Value (LRV) factor of 50% • Stepping buildings in areas where slopes provide opportunities to create a mixture of 1-, 2- and 3-story elevations • Reducing parking areas to pick up efficiencies and reduce asphalt paving • Breaking up and concealing parking lots with garages and shade structures • Incorporating EV charging stations in parking areas for electric vehicles • Utilizing predominantly low-water use landscaping • Utilizing shielded lighting to observe a dark sky policy • Utilizing Energy Star® rated appliances and low -energy -consuming LED lighting • Burning wood in fireplaces and outdoor firepits will be prohibited DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 37 E. Landscape Of utmost significance in the landscape plan will be that the existing 36.8 acre OSR area will remain in its native habitat condition except for a 3.8 acre portion for driveway access, utilities and drainage improvements. All site improvements will be complimented with landscape treatments of native trees, shrubs, cacti, succulents and ground covers. The planting design will establish a visual link between new construction and the surrounding natural setting in the adjacent OSR zoned area. The landscape strategy will be designed around three primary treatment zones consistent with the town's standards. These three zones will include 1. Native Treatment- areas set aside for preservation and open space 2. Transitional Treatment- areas along streets and ROWS adjacent to desert 3. Enhanced Treatment- areas immediately surrounding new development Each treatment maintains its own consistency of character while sharing plant species and design elements to create logical transitions between landscaped areas. These differing treatments are designed to enhance the native landscape and maintain a unified theme. Transitional treatment areas will include revegetating undeveloped disturbed areas. With this revised submittal, the landscape plan has been enhanced with a landscaped pedestrian promenade bisecting the main parking area of the MFU parcel complete with perforated pavement where vehicle crossings occur, additional plantings and turf areas along Palisades and at entrances, a meandering pedestrian trail around the MFU perimeter accessing the main amenity area and a roof garden atop the main MFR building. DArsREAK— Planned Area Development A n ill ro Q n ro rD ro 0 b m 7 e-F vM ua-.a -rt.^r f =..� .aG�F n aJaa., •.♦_a -TJ•P-i rT R.i b O[:Cda `�' �s �-w L i;�� w�. O.�a• iR 1- ^Y^� �':l4JL5 S.:laa. 'PAi1 F - 4} IP • .- :L Ak „ v ca-s-r wil•... randmsl.• I f;� :daL•'tt•�+yJ •':L sit *. ?}.. _ '-^vim• �: 'i :zwc a!k-.`•s 1C.++4•Ye.� .'JIB•+ i� w"�� `d�••�iM b.c:r :a n., •.Yw rka �y t� -Yh•¢r 54k .yy w ..aratxir a.. Jt.m. gall .S7 rA.X n.-. •rd � :a73• tfr r a_a 1 i�:lllGa i SP.i 'v6...1 FA MiY `r •f- b PLAN KEY fiC7'E'M - ..'n• •'/... T ]fir:' J G:'l14 i :L'o r'�i -7. 8►�:+� •4'♦-ar'i�'T✓r.� T a-Y : I`� r. s i� •s. vvb- S•a".A •4"i-:wi fir-'ry '1 C-h] �'.>?ti .•y yY•b Lti +45. i�l:J ' @COS ➢r 7.dW� i' i .a ov.�c: J,.fcw • mop ew.-z._ � wc-c..�:.rs�. _ .- , :.. >o.!•->a 91IT �•�'r�w `i]R�� ate'.. ii' � IDA::i•50ai a as.-d4�• iri�T �CC7. itllt �•�. ..: an+Lri R_ ria L3 PK.++A ry. S. :i'l•♦'J�fraA ;AL JCS i� •PY•0.i^*rAi r G ram} a �.}!R•f•'i_[ a:ar7 a4aSw`:,hi:A Pae.L'LN.•yp 1 tle "� 6.. •ten s S i�fH'�T�rRaly L.apn.�sca�s Plan �� a1= co O 03 m b n I v v 3 M CL M QJ U !D ro 0 3 M rF FLILY ABUTTNG LANDSCAPED AREAS, ti b..�.Y.iit'Ji a a' b.-..� .� aT xC..T]f 4!•�: �ihrlor Y•'•e •-MSFat+OPM•ISA; +a'n ,-a Ta.4 _ as aek•.r.a-a °�--�a «a a'ru e.sw : •a �:..sa.• � �F^f91G •KfA V .sY.1�e Wy4itr rak tiA ,"Y•l ... a: Nr.eY•_Y: T' yGflf': +afa•`to-.e A:.!ICT K4' iifl +1 #iiS OA'L:t N. tbpe &.",u^�vi '�i iF.elraY'w.N.w4, .Rs.I L•w.ifaw.A" i•R.Y r: ifCJ�S".MLC._■ .�tG Mc Y. Y •-x• i pi-f.� •-t iek: -rJ! r.. N L G� ti•.� Yr.:wR'..• u.R �4M13A i V aiM i r3dv..ea" ae.an r-a -mow. aw`�^.� t.:e s•+Ts =seJ ••mot.+. C+K'fc•{9Ll3.ey5.tL•L1. . N-J CY. wC'3.': •.a ..•R LRG NA511'rJe �_-x-,.nY ++: �:" Nw.n'G b9•:�v�Pm'.:• •4 a�a.ti, � •y r%e ie^. aV tleYfla•.Y GL V *RL"4.F AaC.4 SJ. •+#e R..IA4.N ti• A AX.7 l..a tR: W. •. „y �..S M1`dx4'YL J' 1CL �: YCtl4"[ !le"S Cz- •^i V.iT �t'0 :A� ."� .tu t.eA.fi a�T¢w:n •.,,•yea. - �m.rac�x_ecat.me.zx x lfe ae.nz s.-�tce-• a•c eti.:z •.r W.s�-,e . M.'>Y••.Ca-•4'+•SC'9e FiY N•Yti.0 =4.M- wzaa�^.sr tvw.a-.eca HLYM XC.:r WsnR-T iG L^0<a'I•t•... +.ft # •S'i,.l:"J tYWe L• V �.• AMC J'w a^.� •.� t#. �. i avr ._ G6 N'.f.6 R9 w efp N SN'u9C rc ¢•.4 e.0 PARTIALLY-ASUrTM LANDSCAPED AREAS, •t6J.�.6EA3 _'t.[ E a ,•. •.t•..-N nrvt'L.-••.� w -r•ov •c._ua x.m.� L.oa-•e t+er K .6 e•csA a�•c a..-uc.xLas.•a �n :.�-.cam .tom an.s e.0 aa..a ea•.s�a x e�.re w-r��•ww J il[44'A.e.f. fu9Y #.V:tM 4I!'sfvtl .. �C�"e� �+n:fW7 }H h. ]PR9f wtli FtX1 -r.+fetrw.reeea-;vt. ..ws �.•r Ma' 1-4 Y..'R »L 1 � N ai e5''1 Y •.'Jeq 14 i. •a. r n A .•v i`4-eYt'L'fiJ K'41i:".w. ••p•�.5'...d'•hi i�"v!+'.'+[_TE 6a: "�.y'P�JF ...N _ A6.q e:aae i5.'sw^f]Aii t_..C9v a IV.: Y'.'::..taat��lw Mv`n b•aT .,. It I�':.F7 ":...�4 w..t^•6B � iE uca9Y.JL:Tt ^@ __ IaM flx.•1.'t }I• etY-a �y.CT •.[ . _ _. w..>.�:.+xee .a-' NON-AWn WG LANDSCAPED AREAS: '*k.L �•]at � d iav e• wri T•C.•v iA6?w`.w ssac �-.ye,f ++;.: wic•a.n 1.a•afx w,.reerb �t x.. Y fYiY.1.- MF 8MR4'1 \T`C 4C' R:A3 w.W R Waif-YriY3fAs�W 7.w[�CI tV• •f.+.f•b..ey. "e wr�T:w •p t .".E'..n � � V 4.fEtsla'a �Fbf' ..LAY 'r=h' w..<F MC •1L"A.„'+->Yi x'\-r':w'WY O•.Y4P'e'i�h-4:aR 95a:.s•f t•�t.1:w.0 •••�- �•.Y..c 6.'i Yti -+A x••+.•4` Sr •;yj I:•i.N h.iGO..Cy s''^=fF-iflr.9 •..Ritat �• t-�Y •-.]qCe a'C •4e6 ♦�'-._YYG� 5•a-SC ...E0.�1 4'L45110.L _'.: AK.# sat .._ Sr .•L' \ Y+t-''C 6;,� .4^?'+"JJ1 M1A'A •.l lerr 4.v..h".ySCa ._lY efi-C �.^•R .•.C.C:e• .aze.c �� w a.;.. oaf .•a -c a.�v .cc• xa.e iP.A.1X r.Soti-. +wR T^l YAK Y43n:S}MLx1C' .CF4 • W-- `S•-i .tom N6.`O. irfT r.. M Ni3VP3. a. l 1EYELOPIED LANDSCAPED AREAS: z-'.w:A.- t:ae,o+ec eaKtt-Lra+s'x• i!�5 V�4:J R]C ah.�/.: aF.i.: bb SS r•'i�!+M1'b r"i a L+• _s !�`A .•-.�'i .N:i iBlif L•I fi'•tif �;.-W:. 7777, • ... �� '• V. - pklellip E. ryan bti-.a^�6 w•,N 9 ifln ..�utw1 n� 0.um •ISe�9ni r.N:se,�r DAYf5RF AK FOUNTAIN HILLS AAIZOWA PRELWARY NOT LOPE COF�tTION WNMEYBELL p r., INC G�GaN -Aawu r[IY_ilp.! am n �n rr ARCffnlC'URE ASP>'L'WkIWC Probn*wy L-Z Z" uwl"pe Plan P eMo PREUTAINARY TORE LANDSCAPE PLAN a Av 41 V. Community Facilities Impact The current conference hotel plan contains 250 hotel rooms and 36 attached residences. The P.A.D. increases the number of residences and eliminates the hotel and conference facilities. The revised land uses will result in a net decrease in overall developed improvement area and reduced negative impacts to the community at large in terms of noise, light pollution and traffic. The P.A.D. will increase resident population in the Town and who should be demographically and economically diverse attracted to the mix of housing product between the MFU and MFR prod uct. A. Traffic The total two-way traffic count on Palisades at the Property is approximately 14,000 trips per day with 750 per hour during the PM peak hours and 455 per hour during the AM peak hours. According to a traffic analysis by CivTech, the proposed improvements at the Property should add 2,668 trips per day (19% increase) with 184 per hour during the peak hours (25% increase) and 159 per hour during the AM peak hours (40% increase). CivTech concluded that the impact to the level of service on Palisades Boulevard is minor and recommends only minor alterations to the existing roadway per the following conclusions by CivTech; • The four MCDOT criteria for determinig the need for an auxiliary right turn lane at the site driveway are satisfied and right turn lanes are warranted at both site driveways. • Combining the highest peak hour southbound left -turn volumes into the site accesses and the volumes of through traffic during that same peak hour, a left turn lane is warranted at the suthern driveway, but not the northern driveway. • None of the required auxillaryturn lanes requires more than the MCDOT minimum queue storage capacity of 160 feet. • A traffic signal would not be warranted due to low outbound/exiting volumes approaching Palisades Boulevard from both site driveways under both the minimum vehicle volume and the interruption of continuous traffic warrants. Please refer to the Traffic Analysis by CivTech in the Addendum. DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 42 B. Public Services The Property will be served by Epcor for water and the Fountain Hills Sanitary District for sanitary sewer. There are existing fire hydrants on Palisades at the Property with high pressure that will be reduced through pressure reducing valves to serve the Property. Epcor has reviewed the proposed plan and has issued a letter confirming that the development is located within the area encompassd by Epcor's Certificate of Convenience and Necessity as issued by the Arizona Corporation Commission and that there is adequate capacity for the proposed plan. Please refer to Epcor's letter in the Addendum. There are four active sewer manholes in Palisades at the Property that may be used for the proposed development. The Fountain Hills Sanitary District (FHSD) has also reviewed the proposed plan and has confirmed that it has sufficient treatment capacity at its existing wastewater treatment plant to serve the development. The district is currently performing a study of the entire Fountain Hills sewer system to confirm and re -calibrate sewer line capacities downstream of the development. Once this study is complete in 2019, the district will determine if any improvements will be required to the downstream lines for adequate conveyance of sanitary sewer to the plant. Please refer to the FHSD letter in the Addendum. Fire and ambulance service can reach the entrance of the Property within the prescribed maximum response times from both stations existing today. A new fire station at Shea and Fountain Hills Boulevard ensures service to the Property to be well within the optimum 5-minute response polygon as determined by Rural Metro per the map below: Exhibit 20 —Emergency Response 5-Minute Polygon Map = 5-minute response limit for the Palisades Blvd. station 5-minute response limit for the Fountan Hills Blvd. station DAYBREAK -- Planned Area Development 43 C. Environment & Sustainability Sustainable development is the organizing principle for meeting human development goals while at the same time sustaining the ability of natural systems to provide the natural resources and ecosystem services upon which the economy and society depend. The basis for any strategy for sustainability includes an understanding of the land, resident culture, long-range regional growth and market preferences. For the proposed development, the strategy is guided by the notion of a "soft touch on the land." The more natural environment can be preserved and integrated into the lifestyle of the development, the better chance the development will have to become vibrant and secure a sense of timelessness in the marketplace. To this end, the P.A.D. will incorporate these design elements: • Maximize non -disturbed area beyond what the local codes require • Shared entry drives and reduced parking areas reducing the "heat island affect" of additional asphalt paving • Site buildings with primary axis directions that conform with the directions of predevelopment slope contours to minimize exposed stem walls and present buildings in a terraced manner where the finished topography appears to be an extension of the natural environment • Enhance open space areas with low water use plantings and indigenous fauna • Reduce the use of retaining walls where possible and soften and stabilize grades with plantings and boulders • Architectural design themes and muted colors intended to blend with the natural environment and reinforce the southwestern culture and compatibility with surrounding design themes in Fountain Hills • Grading areas of the Property to optimize mountain views D. Commerce The higher resident population with the proposed plan compared to the current plan should produce a greater positive impact to Fountain Hills merchants. In particular, a Fry's-anchored neighborhood shopping center nearby to the west on the south side of Shea Boulevard should garner the largest positive impact. The center has languished in large part to the lack of residential density surrounding it. Few in -line tenants remain, and based upon the number of cars parked at Fry's, one can easily conclude that it is operating below its peak potential. 400+/- new households at the Property should have a positive impact on retail sales at the shopping center, especially as compared to the current hotel approved use which typicaly has little positive impact on grocery stores or neighborhood -oriented suburban retailers. DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development 44 VI. Phasing Plan The Property will be platted and developed in two separate residential parcels in a logical sequence given shared access points and mass grading that has to balance between the two properties. MFU Property & Entries Begin End Description Comments 2019 2020 Design & Permitting CO preparation to follow P.A.D. approval. Duration subject to Town reviews & approvals. 2020 2020 Water Utility Access Water service for dust control and plant salvage Across Palisades nursery subject to encroachment permitfrom Town. 2020 2020 Clearing & Grubbing Commencement upon approved permits. Construction entry to be at Property's northern access point. 2020 2020 Rough Grading Work to likely proceed in a north to south manner with staging near the north end construction access. Note the MFR Property will partially obscure this activity from Palisades Blvd. 2020 2020 Wet & Dry Utility Lines Includes minor work on Palisades to access manhole(s) near the north access point. Unlikely to need natural gas. 2020 2021 Construction of MFR Vertical buildings shall proceed in a north to south manner. It is not anticipated that any buildings will be occupied until all parking lots, the clubhouse and and the main entry at the southern access point is completed. Some apartment buildings may be in a state of construction when the first residents take occupancy in finished buildings. 2021 2021 Construction of Southern Includes final looped water connection, drainage Entry retention, sewer lift station & force main and alterations to Palisades for turning lanes at both north and south entries and sidewalk. 2021 2021 Landscape & Signage DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development MFR Property Begin End Description Comments 45 2020 2020 Design & Permitting CD preparation to follow P.A.D. approval. Duration subject to Town reviews and approvals. 2021 2021 Clearing & Grubbing Commencement upon approved permits. Construction entry to be through MFU Property at the north end. 2021 2021 Rough Grading Excavated material to be placed in the southern entry area for construction of shared access with the MFU Property. 2021 2021 Wet & Dry Utility Lines Includes receiving sewer force main from lift station near southern entry. 2021 2022 Construction of MFU Includes all on -site parking and sidewalks Main Building 2022 2022 Construction of Construction completion to coincide, or nearly Townhome Units coincide with completion of Main Building. 2022 2022 Landscape & Signage Proposed phasing of the development may accelerate or decelerate due to market conditions beyond the control of the Applicant. DAYBREAK — Punned Area Development VII. Addendum 46 DAYBREAK — Planned Area Development A. Plat FINAL PLAT FOR DAYBREAK TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ A PORTION OF 5ECTION5 20, P.I. 28 4 25, TOWNSHIF 9 NORTH. RANGF 6 FA5T, OF THE rILA 4 SA4T RIVtm. BA,,5E i MER€DtAN, mARCOFA COUNTY, AR17O^.A I F� xr�r r�zuer Mnc+.x an �na�[S+n ao-vNR/+>s�[�v6w*MM1t• r,Y f J•./`la,T �..e w�S�r.\�^.•nry .xpnn..0 rV�+U v G , SITE .J O m .n m O W N Nt Yw(K1,: a ¢� JU ' u.orx 5.n.fi� Q LL Za hlL -+ Za af O` (' U. N W 5 nN'3 11C4C3 0."vCP'lrt':b'iti dVCx AF! d.: F z CL Y d Ou'OJ y O VO 5EE SHtF 3 FDRADD17IONAT. INTERIOK EA50-ITNT5 ISM D • l — - ten... .a i .. .� M � t r , � fRrW l t� , i q I tifF Q � ! c FAC LF.�EtdD c } m w 2 N O {D U) N Ywcr �Q �W�yy rn u3 y: J aLLZ (]0Q W Z LL co co ¢ uI U z 1 B. Circulation Plan ml L LD*Team LAND DEVELOPMENT W— 6W 1* M DAYI�)KE-AK K01 I Ai JLA Bo lEn rINJ. Mr 60 Ll .TTWu aav C JKCL ILA I ION I't AN �W T." �l �P J, 116 Fu 1 iu I Fa - tlM 'M I iTill :75; k� W.Ca -etas LEGEND wcRfiE e55 L-J 5HEA, 130L)LFVAFo C. Master Grading Plan Ni_.C.OKNI_Ko l f �l..l��ADL. i.ry:yf 11-A /� - -.ter. }r- �t`trs:� `_ - •Q •--•--_ -- S 4 z LU r - %�41_~f 1 `l 1 . I 41 LEGEND EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS 5 POOT f.ETAINfNG WALE. L®Team > LAND DEVELOPMENT 3420East Shea Boulevard. Suite 7S6 Uixe602.3965700 E<y , PhWWK, ALSZOna 85028 Far602.W5701 D. Copper State Engineering Cut & Fill Slope Opinion COPPER STATE E ENemmNC, INC. .. I ti I L 6 E 0 T E C H N I C A L- S E R c'• I C E S January Zia, 2019 M. Jeremy Hall ygh p"Merests_com Hilltop Vista Pmperties 602-421- #8 14550 N. Frank Llayd Wright Blvd., Suite 100 Soattsdale. ,Z 55260 Subject Daybreak Project Preliminary Cut and Fill Slope Suggestions [daybreak Project t Fountain Hitl , Arizona CSE Project 4601 Dear l'Jk_ Flab, Copper State Engineering, Inc. (CSE) herewtth submits our preliminary suggestions for cut sloes at Ilse above felerenced p"ect. We understand that cuts as deep as 40 feet ► 1l be part of the proposed new construction at flue sine. The approxi to area of the site is shy in U-se aerial photo below. Some street views of exmbng road cuts with some greater than 20 years old, on the souM and east sides (yetkyw 3nows below) of Me site f>on w on the next two pages. "•• sti. si4f ,.YrF }fir ?,w • .�. `� ' � ,, • ' �t�*� � � k L � ' .�•-��,-- �. .. f •' "R � it 1%21 N 91" 5rrW,. Suite 104, SCOQT dale, Tic 85760 Phone (0) 368-1551 Fax 1480) 368-1556 I Dayt)teak Project Preliminary Cut and Fitt dope Suggestions Daybreak Project - Fountain Hills, Arizoma CSE Project 4601 Photo below. Shea Boulevard looking NE at existing road cut. r, ._� .. •� ,� �_ � mow. ._�. Photo below: Shea Boulevard JooN ag NIN at existing road cut. Daybfeak Project Preliminary Cut and Fill Slope Suggestions Daybreak Project - Fountain Hills, Arizona CSE Psrject 4601 Photo below: Palisades BoWevard Wking east at existing road cat. Photo below. PalKades Boulevard looking SE at exis*�g road aA.. 3 Daybreak Project Preliminary Cut and Fill Slope Suggestions Daybreak P"edt - Fountain Hills, Arizona CSE Project 4601 CSE reviewed) a geotechnical investigation report for the site prepared by Western Technologies, Inc. (WTI) dated AU9US1 19, 2005 (WTI Job No. 2126XF186). included in the 2005 W'rI repw were eight new test pfs and a summary of seven refracthre seismic lines run in 1999 on an earlief WTI job (2129JC244). Offer exppkorations Worn in 1999 are shown in the lute below but not discussed in the 2005 WTI reporfing . The approxi► to locations of the 2005 test pits and the 1999 seismic lines are shown in the figure below. 1 s y� f&JW^ft fe i I +e SCOT • • 1 I�MM � i�.4e i.A �. it 4 Daybreak Project Preliminary Cut and Fill Slope Suggestions Daybreak P"ect - Fountain mills, Arizona CSE Project 4601 CSE was asked to review this information retatrve to development of preliminary opinions for fill and cut stapes in the native cemented soil formations at the site We understand that cuts as deep as 40 feet are proposed. The seismic v0xities from the WTI 1999 testing were reported as fol[ows" the tollmWng teWo Irtta the dOpth o€d the grated mnWassion wavir velar. Lila Sn"Unttrad In to sewn INGI&MIC su Imes pertanTod dtins ow VrOVIOUS la"Wan Mr octobo of 191ie. Our field a ulp~t wu odwted to gather data to 0601hi of 10 to 111 test: beitrw the arming ground errrtwA. 99Tg11dTED CUMPFOSSION WAVE MOW" AND LOOM ION no" ���lucs 40.7 fame SSG tUsec, it MC11Wet detnee 001 Line 1 >A7 NM 1920 Met, donee to V" donee earnrttad IO ".6 feet 093 ftleac, nrnetdler M dense st►i t i*ra 2 >0.E toot 221* fUsec, donee to very dwW oemeoted eon 6931ueor') irnerlkm d.rreer eo�i v f 0 We 3 ma-9,1 feet 2250 his ee, denor to woo earMae cer t+ed a* > 0.3 feet 44a4 lt/UC, vr,ry CWM 04r4W C11MOVIOW ant to FOO ti14 (rat 110U �Mc. mdim" dense to deove coil Lim� 1.3 feet 2438 N"e, den" ee WY 4WSS et"d ON i-1.5 feet 3B irj"c- roedWm donso loll Line 1."J fee 1462 ftim. dernme nVid"Ildly COrnentlkt 66C i9.3 too 2105 lose, VMY dlarwe 4*M~ OR 862 Mmoc, meftm dense oal t3-1.7 resat Uner'a 1.2-5.5 feet 1bbd Vim. dMee MmilsrdillY 08mdM41d 401 >6.5 feet 2002 ftisec, v" d!>fw camalted SoR g15111116c, Modem dare ao-t ".l1 tort Lim 7 >D.I! feet 12252 #t/eac. **air to veryr+denele eeremeated coil Daybreak Project Preliminary Cut and Fill Slope Suggestions Daybreak Pr*c1- Fountain Hills, Aftwa CSE Project 4601 Site topography and esOmates of exisltng site cut and fig slopes by Me LD Team are shown the figure 1 Now 4t' � WCCATTKOr"Al sr'It OeA i1fIC -%Oft lit 33% CM 3 f 3 3% to SM 025% to 1150% a Ism LD-Team +�SM� f2C�C;i3Ph{C�11 aE notes- 33%= 3.0.1_0 (Horn to Vert) slope 50%= 2_0.- 1.0 (Hon to pert) slope 66.7% 1-5: 10 (Hopi to Vert) slope 10a% - 1_0 : 10 (Horz to ven) slope ISO%- LO : 1_S (Hart to Vert) slope 6 Daybreak Project Preliminary Cut and Fill Slope Suggestlons Daybxeak Project - Fountain balls, Arizona CSE Project 4601 CSE DISCUSSION Rased on out review of the provided information, CSE belies that cut slopes at the site in a range of slopes from (2-0 : 1,0) to (1.5 : 1.Q) (honzontal to vertical) can be considered stable for the upper 10 feet of cuts into cemented sandiconglomerate rock site materials in the investigated portions of this sit. This material would correspond to the more cemented materials that the eight 2005 VVTI backtm test pits encountered below backhoe refusal depths of one to two feet. In the more cemented areas below a depth of 10 feet, steeper cut skapes at the sate on the order of 01 5 : 1 0) to (10 - 1.0) may be shown to be stable with addit onaI site i eotechnlcal investigative work - Fill slopes Constructed with on -rile materi.als as step as (2 p : 1.0) woulid to cons4ered stare as long as they were placed. compacted and tested to requirements of engineered fill, placed over horizontally benc"M tW stable foundation materials. and maintained in a relatively dry cortdttion free of: significant erosion after constructim. Additional sate investigabon vvo(* would to necessary to provide more precis recommendations for permanent cut and fill slopes at this site. CLOSING CSE's suggestsions are based on the MsuttS of the pretir inwy review to date. 'We resetre the right to expand or amend the suggestions, as additional information becomes avaitaable. Reliance on this letter Is subject to the =ctwed General Provisons. Please contact CSE with gums or comments. Respectfully submitted, Copper State Engineering, Inc. Ism - JAMrs C3 OFA 1-NPAD i J David Deatherage, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Attachment_ General Provisions General Provisions For enjine*mf work pwfornsta by Coppw Mate Engineering, Inc (ENGYNEEERy for (CUE147). Paynntent provisions CLIENT w4h retake payments due to the ENGE ER fot seniKes and expenses within third (W days after receipt of ENGINCER's stw*rnern The amount due ENGINEER will be increased at the rate of one and pne- hanr p,rtront j1,5%1 ape► Month Srnm caul thonv#th (3 day, and inaddition, ENGINEER may, after Ong severe (7) days' wrv"en notice to COUNT, suspered serences under this Affeement until ENGINEER has been paid in full ail amounts•due for services, expense s, and charg#s. CLIENT woo reimburse €NGINEER. f®f reasonable Atturney fees should collection be nice UtV Te-rrni►mticn The obligaRiart to pruvide further sa?re m urtdier this Agrtenwr mi may be tefta awed by *Khw pwrY upon seven (7) days' written notice in the evei t of subtcantial failure by the other Party to perforin An aeeordame with the terries hereof through no fauit of the x+ minxiinL pany, in the event of angr t"Mingbon, ENGINEER wdl be pair! for all services rendered to the date of twmination, all reimbursable evpense, and terretrtati on expensese ContriAlI ng Law Yhts Agreerniint is to ba govewwd by Ow low of Arizona. safety MINCER is resporniWe for the safety on site of ate own enillAvjees and subcontractors- Nedtier the prtafesskmal activia" of ENGINTEP t, ernp"s and subcontractors &aA be construed to imply ENGINEER has any rest onsdiility for any aetimies an ske performed by perumnt4 other than EhNGINEER's e"Vlowes or subcmtrmtors- 1EmirohnWraal Liability Prowiu an% CLIENT agrees To defend, indemnOy and hold ENGINEER harmless from any cla % liabdity od defeme Cost for in,ury or floss sustained trf arty Patty dire to any hww6o t; rondrwn that E:ANG]WER alteredhy Created or permMted to exist at the sate if such cond6on is softly attributablo to Cl Im 1" s arc` nt or aaactio". CLIENT vein nut defend, irrdemr0y, or hood ENGINEER ttwmiess in regard to any Vatm, liatAdy or defense Cast for irt*m or doss sustairted by any party due to any hazardraers condmon that fWINi=ER allegedly created or permitted to exist at the site if strth exposure is IntributabW to Ilse rite or Bite Rionral of ENGINEM In such circumstance, ENGINEER agrees to to*ly beer all tam of the Claim trnd dwkgnw Standard of Care Service le'fbrmedb`yENGINEER under this Agreement wall be• cor'duCted in 9a e7iamer tonsrSWt wnh th At lesrel of Care and skill ordinarily Lmercised by rteembers of there pectossion cunextly practicing under %amilor conditions_ No outer warranty, ,express or implied, is madee. Umirtatii m of Trty The CLIENT agrees to Emit EfilG NEEfR's frabiifirIf to the CllENT *nd act torrxtdutvon Ctxnrarton and subamntractmrs on the Project aritng from pro fesstor►al am errors or omissions, such than the total aggregatre laaNlity of ENGINEER to all those marred shall ntm weed the fees received for the services, kwur3rice and General #lability ENGINEER represents and warrants that it and its emplow#s by it are ptotetted by wwkrnrP's compensatirtn insurance„ and that ENGtWF- R has Genera'. Liabifity Insurance of One Million i3ollan E. Master Drainage Plan Pre Development Flows (1 of 2) C: DI (, ,-- PKAINA(,111 . FLAN Pre- eveIownentMows ' Bert III or Ooncp ntratlon Pent Q2 {CM tiro ( 01Do (c1s) . 1 41-14 _ (C.; `s -j�" r 64 F] a y F;O 2197 Aga IF 7, s.� Ari 70915 '+x A 7 142 �� 4, .Ae. 2 ZA pig}, +2� A i Uu 59 :�►i , 'Yl 45 4341 RI 2F-,4 41 46 1: 1 19 212 1141 L 4 C1 24 81111 11 �i '9 115 38 1:? 37 iP 4rj 49 a_I Ei1� 1 i I iy(1��ys2F�!1 w F31a 57 1 r I 1� -4 l: r B '14 M F, 7 49 �55. 9' 923 150 1 t 7166,q Pre Development Flows (2 of 2) LEGEND i_ AXi �. Cx3�iaHG pA�IN ReAlSC�. It14 - !; ULD-Team 1 {i LANE? UEVi.L.OPMENX � •...�,.-sr�'^• - Post Development Flows (1 of 2) ..---_.___......_... Basin IC or Cattcffrllratian Point Pre Devel mer" Flours _... �!_ _ .. Q2 (Cleo 010 (els) Dino (G%) _- _ Badn 1[}ar. Concufitratio Paint 1 _ 02 It: W 1''ost 6crea lnprn4nl 010 (cps) Finws .,._.. cico tdi 4 ....^. 'Overflow out of $I.nrm Drain tetaj _ _. TotaF Oioo fcfsl Post-Dev mtntla Pre• Dev lcfsj A l _.. A? A3 A4 AS 41 0 14 C 7 66 2.5- 1.3 e t` 0 a4 Al r - }+A1 ? �vPA4 _..... PA5 w� 41 �y .:, 1 1` 4 i Fe i i"; _.. _ �Q a.-. 15 9 '� _9 d d4 A7 g 5� _ 4i -. 29 E47 9T __ �7 Do p 0 41 $ 17 9 73 f3 17 9 32 8 ti7 8 _67 00 __0 7, -i AB 52 95 _ ?0 PM _ A98 339 r P'A8a 162 29.0 88 6 s § $ M 4 135 A7 f4 26 44 14 -24 - ^^ _-39 - 9.2 a-_4.2 .._ V0 AB 24 3.9 92 Rya A10 rS9 3 _ 533 1D56 1027 # 241 7 23r1.D PA; 62.2 97 7 714 7 82 2224 -19 3 PA10 �48.0 i37.4-211.9 200 -231.9 -.7.t A1' All, _ _129___ e2 _7 _ 23C 434 f 11 7 2 Y22 Ati NA12 126 _ 57_$ 230 `.._. !OS_ D � -. 434 247 9 3ii 0 �. 434 :87 9 00 -4.4 41 I 95 81 Z 5 ..� 4: 9 6.._ 9.8 -- ---0 5- B2 1 12 2.1 34 B2 12 00 63 15 26 42 PB3 14 26 4 1 41 d3,1 t}4 - '$5� d1 0.2 06 Il4 _�5 01 02 b& j 06 00 tti8 191 i 374 f1[i 4Ci'� 4,1 _- Gt - 37.3_- 66 57 _. 9.3 179 - Be ��a_ ,1 _.0.4 t79 179 00 617 04 0.7 }d _5 _43 U,Y�. 1.0 r_, 1.0 0.0 Be 88 121 14.7 - 196 245 i 383 - 498 Be 1`B9 03 1-4 04 23 1.0 S.S - - -34b 1,0 25.2 -374 74-5 810 12 t9 30 810 12 - ice, 3.a 3.0� 00___ #ft+ 90 160 300 all ®0 i3{j` M6 306 0 1312 G3 08 i79 812 03 0C, 0+) 09 ^, 13 9 9 177 33 1 61- 4) a 177 331 13, 814 21 3 3& 4 61 2 pB1a 120 220 44 7l 1 106 7 1 F n1S 29 40 _._�-w $a 3 pi5 29 48 q 33���10 3 ale 2.2 3.8 1 5 9 816 2.2 3 8 � 5.9 .�.-.- -..i4._1.9 .. ilia _ - ilia -Bi51 0$ G.3 1,4 D.6 k 24 �_ 13 017 1316 08 0.3 14 0.6 2.4 1-3 2.4 1.3_ 010 jr >> 93 " 2 -109 51 9 i-- 3B0 _-- 1 * A 019 PB29 - 93 .. to 5 t59 j 35 " x0 -7 2 _ � 3 s 1 360 43 ' 00 hS] 5 2' 022 `7 _ 4`_ 5f} 141 �- PB21 15,322 ?fy :4 1 i... 4> A 1 75 011 n i59 21 7 8a 335 7 ... 675 1f, 9 f32 i ;: 7 7fi 7 Y£110 lyl#23 : (} ? S: 1 :37 7 i •21 7 145'i >A:J 4 f.:f•.Aj� N'" 192:1 4461 CP-PAt3 59-5 i 167 a 392.8 °1 7 191.7 .. Post Uevelopme nt f taws Balm ID or > "�;o ="ffloo in roe ConcerarvionStorm (rant Qv@rAow to Point 02 (cla) Ole (clsl 01DO fcfs) ArN) Basin ill ri "3 11 4 15 1 F'2 tt 0 17 S 29.7 1 tt_6 ss_........-_ 1'4 ?S 45 4 2.9- ---- Wij T 35---- - ....-57...,,.. __ _. �,;;U P+ 07 i 2 30 08 _. I t5.p._ _. .__r$ 7 PFJ21 f'9 i i ;! 2 i 3 '" i 5 P821 P 1a 3 3 54 6 f1 3 5 4-;?, Pit w9 95 15.3 --...._ Pik -.. - ---102 --- ---3f13_--- -- 641--- 13i r•s14 5w .11 11.0 179 139 503 131) 214 214� - - SO4 14 f1 25 8 258 Si35 14s Y )tF ?` 79 Y� 306 - _-18.4 32 6 985___ �_ - SOd 478 393 393 • �� SEA 23 4 40 A 40 fi fiB 46 8 62 44 14680 10 t y 2#i 4300 i Post Development Flows (2 of 2) Storage Basin RB Storm Event Fit1�lx(isg�0.,ea N N ,, Flush t6Y..r l00.Y..r � z-How z+w�r E _ ti•are�e typo .t oa Fyrc'C v.i,.ef V JU l M suluc area itn,=tal OM I �e - Pwe 18 :,n tlesth T ,.t-1 p 9f! _ Rwpriw151,aapV.-CM CSFJ - 1'1 35C mrrrce.,Yr,rg[usys �xd __ _ j cr-nn:r ii¢`n ipeuram 5:ompe Gm a PdGd tl W UlY1 -- Total Srorap. Raquhetl [ee OW 1 31 3 ......•..T -. —_�._� U.r.g. Fr.vN.A f.e fe 2M !'tie ltl'ua.a� Pax1 Av. S 2 !.}fi R .•.•. "" vee,xt sae aoc ker mutt +n +�3? +'tn f�ts7r;y.•a yzrovtwe Vara•=.n r«afi, Fkwl.r� t9fi .�` 1G1:5 satp Gt Sras3e Storage oatav, y � � � �•F t0'OIA>1MV d t5*.M 1.M _,V N p y I O bw Pipe W W pipe{./.nets _ 8 T 1e";rang1Ixi •6 . —.eA a. i? 0�1 ,-y __G 1LTE.UL' '1B G33 il}t d • �t t acc tldZ fc o i V.d Sa' p _�'__ rm,x' aa� cot • owweanny se.rag. rorq r tt:e.wli F• ua .r x.; Batas a.i:,.;H t rkZ7 n Tmn l.1)1 Ct,n4..I1P6 Rem r1 .M Al— SAnxciP,:r. �,na-`rtn Sr[t ups tt¢ T, ai.P�.vr •ryn't{}"�C✓, ril :Y�[rn„h} ih Va,,,Ra al —+ Srs.Le r-]xage ,Went. . drag. 6tmgr Isla . d <ernrca m c na�n irk.-rrOalr9v mocv. us;+& Mxer !f�+rr. �a.m>n .'rloe.s 3 F,n14'luen r'f :p Rryairynl wn'i i a' IA«rsIC9 PF to :u waiq rpp. 4', Callh ,.d IL.,ti.n 11: V«5' ^ IWu :nrcyyl`, ,W Y�91 ^_ W..Y 541:;m ir�ar UUFlurW wlharYq�.xsr[rwr.,iill a:'al."a'uik+fepa �'r�L`ncxb 'ilrr+;�ll F. Master Water Plan 1-tAA 1--.K r ..\N NORTH EAST CORNCR OF PALI5A0117 5 & SHEA WATER DEMAND CALCULATIONS AVERAGE DAY DEMAND NIA IMUM DAY OEMAND PCM IaUR DEMAND BUILDING AINIUlING USACFI UNITS LAND USE UNIT 1GpD1GVUZ ••�S..FiC �OPNF3 GPDk �GPNI_ .A W 4GpMj_ q_ ..-,..24 - _. iVF.N I!.11NS;:.. hi+ARTMf N'`; .. dip ••. • ....., �a 40 10, 366122.-•••- B 3D _—.'Cl-. 4dIXi 7� d64 6D 1464b 102 6— ANAN FIALN(S �,tl� i6(F0� m'33 C� eta fi4d' lU __....._........_A __tl-BMl 6.640 _ ......�! 6 --.'A _ E 20 .._...__._ ApkFMEN3S _.__��- 2;p __-.. T....__....._.__. aEC4 33 __.............. g610 . 6:u 1A.C88 102 F .0 APARTMENTS 240 4 BZC 211 e.Ea11 E 5 ta.E38 102 G 20 u24 APARTMLNT5 2l`z 4 8CC 33 8 CAO G 0 Sd E&9 H APARTMENTS ;.Alia7!43� _ 40 10,38A 72..... t`E.'P _74_2 121 J 20 APARTMENTS I40 4 804 —.� 3 n,1i40 K24 APARTMENTS 249 m..Y a '60� — 4p _ 10 3t1$ �. ? 2 t7 6?s �1? 2 L CLUBHOUSE 4i0 011 610 06 F377 10 FA 24 APARTMENTS i49 S.iBC 40 1096 72__ S7.6cK �72.2 N 24 _84_ APARTMENTS 243 5 7FS 40 ]U.,S8B 7 2 t7,6_Z6_ 12.2 O AFAN RAEN13 _ ....f..:4] _ _ 2a.160 v 14V 38.2dR _ 25 .'� 61.@50 428 _ AMID P 30 LIVING 20 B 000 42 iar800 15 1a ?&4 120 . 8 .__..__6_ ATTACHED 2a9 1 44FF T O 2.se2 2 $$ 4 4% 11 s-o_._.. 2.992 ._. .__. 1.�_-.._ _..-4i - ]1._. -0 '__'i'7 -1T2....... Tor ..gym.. ..__,.r.1____.....�-.a..._..�.. A7sim LIEF7iu..--.. .__....__ b33'__._.._..F.L:_.'. f2... .._ 2.._.._.-APAIMCNTS.._.. 240 _.4 ..............3,1.._ .N4 - - C&.- - 146f,.... ... t.6 _. __. G3 -_...,._2..._....APAAV4FNTS 24.3 ._..1�1 _ _ ,...._. ....__ AnA"Ff"r-uFNTs" — -�r — 4e POOLS POOL 1 i 3 1,240 2 3 5 SC8 3 E TOTAL 400 9T,Gb0 6T.4 sTl,69p i2s,3 298,875 w "6,2 LEGEND WAI LK04f, (AU d` UNLL55 OTHERWISE 40TPD9 EXISTING 12' WATERLINE FIRC 11YDAANT S usSTING #I*f MPpRA.NT MIMMUM 2d WIDE FiRELANE Qr" 3IJFT PtWC1NG VALV . g z LDTeam LAND DEVELOPMENT 3420 East Shea&,Ae-,ard, Swtet56 MreW3%57[G Phoei m An=na 85028 Fax 6b2,346-5701 w•kw.LD-Tea corn G. Master Sewer Plan DAYf--'SKEAK �F-.WL.K FI AN _ Pa14 RF8VI1FNiipL _ •��y�_�� F(a(1Y 9EwER 7O>lEWpl Ep/La11J0 Pw£LLEM6'. Any! AREA ACRE AC I AM sue' AOF 1gTAL i Cum11yFW , A# 9t$; AI]F i YJUIYWA IIOOE RO[!E LANC IiSL LMTS - IIXI! (CCY TOTLF tlaipj IGA41 AUP,t ��' fOFAL 1 TOTAL ppF ASTRCI DAY FLOW .{ (�� I ILii 01 � 6 i tORIH =.15 I' 4 Af'ik I4SFNtS !I 'IS% 4 W+ 't:w•• +nF J'J s, f+ =321r •t 11 _ _ s3L5 }i5.4 i, - 1SlIk e.44 21 H W'ANS4,F NSb /a �12 inv. 3n:fi �'S tl/a2r 15 SP: c12 1? 1 MAjFI;SL k?5 :? •57 1W C11 LJ 0, :A6dw1VFM,R 24 '41 J0q i4µ'. 4TP t?43 x1i - - 1214n S T1F Y4 L5 - 1},afE 1142'41? 4t M) c11 L5 1. CLLEF.5S75F u: t,am ISl I.TII, 2:'L5 107 l5 Ltl 13 fifl FT42'4.1T s�67Y Lt0 L6 M AYRIarNL%M 14 f52 11139 549 6 4TA f aTA 13 ib Flt ..w L6 N R9'4-4IYL1. 24 t52 97..9 3659 4"•+ iiaP6 4S!f 14 Yj6 �'! IQ CS 4uA,i1H1 N,t S59 L'. 'KY aN11 4 4�" 1255 VW 4 1t 221 •ASrA - IF •+%u 7fl!1±:f if---- 1Nl 1:{1 7{3 17 tST 'Ti.; Gr:.fly Fbw 12 12 r_ .Ru AE1LO LIV4J: .. � � ,_ ._.. AS i ... fiery %H- _._.. mH i), n. [}! S7 h a'f1FnF `L1FNt YnP' 1µ t9T ,R an7 17 wrf IF43 ?755 •1 57171 •2 19 17 W, YjST R1', - - T1 tsa R V b+P 41• ,!p 23T.6 1, }785 1a26= 7374 41, is 317 10 9 11i'm 416, Ic 7�JPy .t 4 U !.`VWLNV.NfALik1 4 35I E!0 GIG , Y ... 4 I, 2 r!A a 16— 2^t 41, TJ lip - ..s I, tows - rJ : 'FM'4 of •6x MAIAx` R.. �_•� A1F _ ,iv - "74 it ;�F74 d11 ._. _ .. rlifi 7-A a - 4y?C 2574 f t1 flt )g1 11 1k1 n 4 4rWt1ltf r•1S ?] 152 1:91!r 4,� un ,PaM1 4J+ SS 7l9 �,3 •M1 1T 43'fi+ii,l'/dTB ^ •17 Eyt �' 4A a0 44� Gq •s ,l59 E".i IS G4 FPnRN,IFN?5 ? 152 JM ifi! ][Y 4 11 � •^• 7 9 4 Sliq +519 '9 14 - des+ ?9 442 Y.60a 14 955b 415 442 ]q T99 tf., 41e is yy3 i 1 Gi'_9 Er' 4! 0Y.Y i.4 J U pYA1111fL 1,tS J, rsf IU9 3644 J4x +:41" 421 /2 FL•T .. 1GL.1 a IP - - np aTe CY A3 G1 AF,A IE9FN95 Z's =52 a;•= 43P%= "-24 •„'s4 a3 33114 221. f1 e 142 .AA,, 1:1 •y. !ryN n..14 i1C +ta lru ' iK Hn 1P'-w• — 75, 4 4 IL STl'I11: LEGEND EUI INDICATES SFd.'MINF ClEAHO,IT NUMflFR O'WICA.T[g MWrkt»a£ S.lA"C3 5 NTWj%UK O1-V'CATE5 tTwERL'NE FA*%,#O E5 4(>N1R15UTINCi 10 LSPT j1Al sU. KlF.CEN 4 : EMKLJNE {All Cr UNXE!10TTTfKVY19E NOTED} — �.. F&!b i&G 12, s£MRR 4m �! LD•Tea m LAND DEVELOPMENT 3420 E�l Shea i69Y6pmcl. 5Wt T% office 60P 3965790 1,EIAem Ah2ma R5076 FU 607,3%.5701 H. Utility Company Letters 2n5 VVE-t ► omade Peak hied, S( f- _VR fl5f)27115l December 27, 2018 Sent via e-mail to: Jeremy Hall at igh@phxinterests.com Re: Will -Serve Letter for Water Seavice APN 176-14-560 Dear Mr_ Han, This letter is in response to your request to EPCOR Water Arizona Inc, (EPCOR") regarding EPCOR's willingness to provide water service to a proposed 4004 unit multi -fancily development (the "Development") located at the northeast corner of Palisades boulevard and Shea Boulevard in Fountain Hills, AZ, as shown in Exhibit A. EPCOR provides the following information for your consideration: I _ EPCOR has confirmed that the Development is located within the area encompassed by EPCOR's Certificate of Convenience & Necessity ("CC&N") as issued by the Arizona Corporation Commission. 2. Water service to the Development tyy EPCOR may be conditioned upon developer entering into a Main Extension Agreement (an "MXA") with EPCOR in a form acceptable to EPCOR, and upon developer fatly performing its obligations under the MXA The MXA will provide, among ether things, that developer will be responsible for constructing at its cost all water main extensions necessary to distribute water from EPCOR's existing system to the individual service fine connections in the Development_ The design and construction of all such main extensions will be subject to EPCOR-s approval, acid ownership of the main extensions, together with related real property easement rights, must be transferred to EPCOR prior to the initiation of water service in the Development_ 3. Based on the water service currently provided by EPCOR in the CC&N, EPCOR will have adequate water capacity for normal use in the Development upon developer's fulfillment of its obligations render the MXA 4 Developer will be required, as a condition to EPCOR providing water service to the Development, to pay an required fees pursuant to EPCOR's then -current tariffs and as may be provided in the MXA. This letter assumes that construction of the main extensions within tt* Development will begin within three (3) years after the date of this letter_ If developer begins construction of any water mains in the Development or any other water service infrastructure intended to serve the Development without, in each instance, the prior written approval of such construction by EPCOR, developer wall be proceeding with such construction at its own risk This letter does not independently create any rights or obligations in either developer or EPCOR, and is provided to developer for information only. Any agreement between developer and EPCOR for water service in the Development must be memorialized in a written agreement executed and delivered by EXHIBIT A Location of Development FOUNTAIN HILLS SANITARY DISTRICT 16941 E. PEPPERW001) CIRCLE FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 8i268•2901 TELLPI TOME: 480-837-9444 I-AX: 480-83 7-0819 www.azAllsd.gly Mr. Jeremy halt Hilltop Vista Properties 4515 E Palo Verde Dr Phoenix AZ 85018 January 30, 2019 Re: Daybreak Development, NE Corner of Palisades Blvd and Shea Blvd Mr. Hall - The Sanitary District has received your request to confirm the District's ability to serve a proposed development for the parcel located at the northeast comer of Palisades Blvd. and Shea Blvd. The information submitted includes a conceptual layout and request to serve up to 400 multi -family residential units consisting of apartments, independent living units, and assisted living units, Based on the proposed type and number of units, the Sanitary District can confirm there is sufficient treatment capacity at its wastewater treatment plant to serve the development up to the proposed number of multi -family residential units. A preliminary review found that there may be limited sewer capacity in the gravity sewer lines downstream of the subject development, which may require off -site improvements. Any sewer line capacity issues will need to be addressed prior to the execution ofa. final sewer service agreement between the property owner and the Sanitary District. A Basis of Sewer Design Report, as required for all developments, will determine final sewer requirements. The Sanitary District will require review and approval of all sewer facilities construction plans. All sanitary sewer facilities must be designed and constructed in accordance with District standards. The Sanitary District has no objection to the proposed rezoning of the parcel. Sincerely, FOUNTAIN HILLS SANITARY T)TS1'RTCT Dana Trompke District Manager L Traffic Anahisis CivTeeh January 31, 20181 Mr. Jeremy Hall Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC 4515 East Palo Verde Drive Phoenix, Arizona 85018 Rea: Traffic Analysis for Daybreak Multi -Finally & Independent Living Communities, Northeast Cramer of Shea & Palisades Boulevards, Fountain Hills, Arizona Dear Mr. Hall: Thank you for engaging GivTe & to prepare this proposal traffic analysis for Daybreak, separate multi -family and independent living communities proposed for an approximately 80-acre site located on the northeast corner of Shea and Palisades Boulevards in the Town of Fountain Hills. The multi -family complex is expected to provide 270 mufti -family dwelling units. 100 [Senior) Independent Living dwelling) units. and 30 private Assisted Living rooms (i,e.. beds). Two (2) site accesses will be provided along Palisades Boulevard_ Both Shea and Palisades Boulevards are operated and maintained by the Town. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Palisades Boulevard provides two through lanes in each direction divided by a raised median_ The proposed site accesses will both be located at existing openings in the median. The southern access will be located across from Valley 'Vista Drive and the northern access will be Dated across frornn a full -access driveway that se+ves a Salt. River Project electrical power facility. The Town of Fountain Hills requested this traffic analysis. which is an abbreviated traffic study that addresses specific issues of concern to the Town. This version is a second submittal addressing comments made by Town staff on the first version dated December 20, 2018, in that version, the name eaf the development was u:ndarstood to be Hilltop Vistas. Primary among the Town's concerrls is whether or not left and right turn lanes approaching the proposed site driveways are warranted and. if warranted, what the appropriate queue, storage lengths would be for each. Other concems include sight distances in both directions from the site accesses and for left turns into the site accesses and the need for a traffic signal at either site access. CiwTech has based its analyses on Maricopa Department of Transportation f MCDOT) methods, guidelines, and standards. EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadways and Intersections Palisades Boulevard begins at Shea Boulevard and loops northerly and easterly until it terminates at Saguaro Boulevard. Per MCDOT's Major Roads and Streets Plan (MISRP). Palisades Boulevard is classified by the Town as a minor arterial roadway. Palisades Boulevard intersects Shea Boulevard at a right angle with a traffic signal_ As can be seen in Figurer 1, from Shea Boulevard northbound, Palisades Boulevard curves (horizontally) slightly to the left theft to the right with a radius of approximately 700 feet to the center of the median, then gently curves bark to the left. Based on this radius and the grades in Palisades Boulevard, the calculated design speed for the roadway is the same as the posted speed limit. 45 mph. UuTah, Int- • '-7WS Msr'h 14,,0t' !4 .0 14C + Scup nnjq n, Al ahra -. A,!U U9.41YJ +mar: «YJ-U59 OW, Uuycrva!k rraprrrc Allirysis 1"` Subrri.+!u1 NEC SFhea & Fairsadv,s Book yvmJs Fryjr!am "t,Fls 0'}rq„' " AOJOCent to the deveicipment site, Palisades Boulevard is a divided four - lane roadway With a taEsed Mod are zhat is approximately 24 feet wide Each +direc. n has 28 feet of oavernent nat provides a 12-foot widle msida lane (against the median), ar 11 "lz-foot wide outsi,de farre and a 41/vtoo: wide bicKle lane. The sped lirr>;t is posted a. 45 rrtph just north of VaW Vista Drive for rordrtaourd traffic. Valley Vista Drive is the main ectrarco to The Surnmit as Crestview, a gated community. It provides :vwta 18-foot md.o lanes diwded by a landscaped mediar island Figure 1 - Vclnity Map approaching Palisades Boulevard. The Summit ounm,un y consists of 68 lots (r clr.aSters Of two adjoin r g lots with single-family detached houses. Recert aerial photography shows that 41 of the lots ate developed_ The community is limited :o the si:rgto access Valley Vista Drive provides, as there is only acraess is gpa ed for arnerger.cy ve.Ndes, One sates amass f"Access A") will be provided across Palisade Boulevord frorn Valley Vista Drive, (Se Attachment A. Note nat it wife pass through another parcer owned by the same owrer as the parcel can wtflch the development is probe ) The otorsection of Pa isade$ Boulevard and Valley Vista Drive is presently configured as a three-legged lee' intersWoon with s1top•control on the oawbourd Vatlay Vista Drive approach, Malley Vista. Drive approaches Palisades Boulevard at approximately right angles, afthough Palisades Boulevard is c€iving horizontally as described above_ Ar exis *g (break in the rated rrWOM allows all Movements into and from Valley Vita D ive- With a width of, 18 feeL tt a eastbound approach is too narrow to allow two fr,.rrt-width approach lasses: however, dust past tMe and of the median. it may be possible for rgfit- and left -turning vehicles to separate. atlowiN the right-turring ► ehicle amass to Pafisades Boulevard if the left-tuming vehl4je must wort for a gap in traffic to compie' e the left :urr rnovemen_ The second site mess (Bess B") is shown on the pier as being loceed across from the southern of two d6voways (the "SRP Dri"way")that serves a facil,' y for the Soft River Project, which provides electrical power to the area. The intersection of Palisades Boulevard and SRP Driveway is preser'tty configured as a three -leg lee" interscrction without signagc, lout stopcontrol as required by state, on :,he eastbound dfivevway approach to Palisades Boulevard_ The SRP Driveway afaproaches Palisades Boulevard at approximazzely right angles. athotrgh Palisades Boulevard is gently curvirg honzonially as described above. Are e)dsting; break in :he raised median allows all movements into and flare lie SRP Q nv"ay, which is . With an urs;riped weh of 34 Feet at Palisades Boulevard, the drNeswoy is wide r:rourgh to allow an entering vehicle and two outbound exiling vehicles: howrevet vehicles cornirg and goirg kilos this would likely be a rare occurrence Traffic Counts To conduct. a proper analysis requires traffic courts. For !his exercise, i, was dwermired that data from traffic volume coups published by the Town biennially supplernr;rted by itaffac data recorded by Field Data Services of Arizona fFDS) or the Urt0d Civil Croup (UCG) for CivTech in the past few years would be sufficient. In part this is due W the fee, that there is little regional CivTech * ?",7 ards, FFYj"rapi Br ie -gage 3 "fl~ic that ocerufs. on Palisades Boulevard, The hista6cM •raffic counts reported by the Towr briar tNs out. Yoof 2006 daily two-way voumes on Pallsedos Boulevard rorth d Shea Boulevalyd were 16150 vehicles per day (vpd). Ir• 2017. the latest year reported (graciously provided by staff sirce the data is mr. yet available ore -line), they totaled fewer than 15,400 vpd, Ir, February 2014. GivTe ch recorded Iwo days of two-way traffic volume's of 13.514 vpd and 14,160 vpd, ar average of 13,837 vpd, or a ppmximately the same as the threi-aday average (13,230 vpd) retarded for .he Towr the month more_ Attachment B providers the various traffic w'o1 urrie3 maps and traffic counts upon ~which the analysis Dtrlow will be base Table I is a summary of some of *I" reported traffic data from 2006 through 2017, Tsblo 1 - Traffic Volume Data on Palisades Boulevard north of Shea Boulevard tuts Source 5outhbound T Northbound Twos WY Total Dasiv V101UPn s €n s e'S:t.0S ,yrsr Da : 2€917 1own VT N1a;�i 7 e2 7 "71 15 3!Y3 2014 town al Mace 7,076 5.162 13.537 N 014 UC0 !vT 1.237 C923 141 f; 2A=14 UCG1',;ivTech 6.912 T5 e 1 13 514 117.114 FDSrrcrwn 5.758 OA111 13 IMU14 FD&Town fa. 792 6,538 8 13 111W14 FDS.T«,hn 6.694 64ug 133M 201 U T own 1k13T Mai:) «,€a27 7J59 11,9m 2008'.f m n T MA2 1 aim'_ €'wT Mai VCak HOW VOILMCS ,r Vviiielbs por elFn,` vphi Eire Uircct�wza Wits in 1' lvice^t FDSS? Pf.4 - 1-00 A review of the vaf% data surnmartze in Table i mveals that there was a decrease it daily volumes drop after 2006 ar?d that they volurelea haver ye.* rebound backto 2006 levels and that the largest northbound hourty volumes most likely occur durirg the PM Doak period as F'oui%,`ain HAI residents returrb horse during their afternoon commute. The directional splits between seouthbound and r orthbound traffic volumes calculated from UvTe:ch's 2014 traffic counts are 75%.t25% (south ar>'dfriorthbourd) during the AM peak hour and 369ls 64%during the Plot peak trpe,sr, reflecting the.:here1 are more Fourtair Mills residerts working outside of Fourtair kills : tan roe-residonts working in Fountain Fulls Titus, this coWd be expoeted to be refloctexd if, fl`se trips gorerated by the rxmults.family componert of 0aybmak PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Arap sed Land Uses. The ;site: pfalr provided to QvTech shows two separate comporrers, a )*;$ �l iriuiti,farrtily complex surmuriding an adult Iiving r porent. There; will be 270 rnult4amily velling units, WC [Senior] Indapenaent hiving dwnre9lhrg units, and 30 Private Assistoa LAvir°g rooms (a,e.. bodsl Sde Trio Gonearation The potental trip giene iratlon for he proposed development was eslirnale:d using data published it the latest (10i) edition of the Irstkute of TrarsporMbon Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and Tfip Ganesa ♦on Handbook Y' Editran. The Trip Genefai5`Gn Manual commins data ca.11ec*ed by various tmrsportaltior professionals for a wide rarve of different lard uses The data are summarized in S15ef report are; averago rates aril equations have been i stablishod that Col"0 ftd the miatiorrship botweer at', indepandont varra ale that describes the CivTech �r D-�yb€ ak T-aff)c Maly-.-i�s, 2'd Subme!,Ia NECShea r! Fountami F? is PiryK- Table 2 Trip Generation for the Proposed Development P# irtx! t an ITE Land Us* Code Lit $40 Units VAWkd>ev Trl S Dah AMP** 14*ur I PIN Psak Hos►r 1 otal In r Total In To arlmen!sind. AdUl S= 22'• 2713 Dwe' 7 ;lnils 2 o 0 28 95 123 901 53 "43 Sania-Ack- 252 1C,3 Dail -i mils 376 7 13 24 !4 12 2E A,Ju:` ar rlorne6 22 Bag-& 4 cr olirte A 38 rr 140 1CO 69 It developmem size and generated trips for each categortzx:d land use. The report provides information for daily and peak hour ;rips. Table 1 surnmanzes the UV generator for the lar e uses described above Attachment C is the detailed trip ge ration calculations. A review of the results summarized in Table 'l mveals that the proposed Daybreak developmer•t could gt r+erwe approximately 2,500 trips daffy m6th 148 (38 inil 10 out) generated during the A1S1 peak hoar and 176 (109 IN69 out) generale-d Curirg the MA peak hour Ort-Sft Cimulation. As can be seer. on Attachment A, residents *0 have mess to t c- proposed ske accesses_ Sie TO ,DistribOon and Assirnmni. The project site ,s tented near Shea Boulevard, wvtrc#h is convwe lent to mttlor employmert centers in both Mesa arr`d Sco-sda�e_ Therefore, the sizable majority of she trips is expected to use Palisades Boulevard toMrom Shea Boulevard during peals flours. As reported above, CNTech had recorded hourty, bi-diroetiorYat volumes atong Palisades Boulevard in 2014. Brrsce no major ernployrner•t centers Crave opened within the Tow n's boundaries since then, it can be assumed that to distribution of the site :rips round sill be similar to the overall peak hour directlonai splits found along Palisades Boulevard in 2014 arA that, sinCe 80 percent or of the 'grips are ger^erated by the apartments, that the sire trips could be distributed in similar patterns. Thus, OvTech will assign 25% of the AM trips and % of the PM trips to Palisades 8 talevard ro"bound and itte rS3r't`taimtng peak hour site gips mit be dImcW southboiurd A review cl Attachment A reVeals 3 total Of 12 resii w—iial buildings ire the apartment complex. sever (58 ) of whim are wlosar to proposim Amass A. Itte southern access, Since guests of the apartments can be expected to use Access A and the majodty of the parking wens for the Irdeper*dem, Living and Care Home componer *s are closer to Access A than to Access B, k will be assumed that 60 percent of the site trips will use Access Aand tho rernainingl 40 percent will use Access B Tho silo traps wens assigned to the two svie accesses per those dis%dbvtiort percentages. The results are illustrated in Figure 2_ also shown on Figure 2 are the cumber of exiting trips expected each stay through each dr¢veway fused on the 60%)40% access NAccess B apht CivTech Figure 2 - AM(PIV) Site Trip Distribution & Assignment t�y�r�h T r,,,ryrr. Elr�,•�yr�s, � .� �i++��°Mrf� Paisadas Snide rds, Fount&r 4.0S P-YX#7 I; IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS Traffic Simi Needs Assessment. %.rx a the site accesses are currently arty in the planning stage. actual hourly appoiaach tmffc vta;'urnes are riot avaiiable to conduct a b-afhc signal warrant analysis per the aural on Uniform Tmffyc Cbnlfol Devices (M UTCO), Therefore, ITE's Manuat ol7raffic S4rtal Desr'gri provides s methodology to do such an assessment of intentions tamed on estimated futufe daily traTc volumes. Figure 2- 0 of the si" design manual (see �ttnchment 0) provides the minimum warranting criteria in terms of estimated average daily traffic volumes in vehicles per day (vpd)- Warrants 1 and 2 of Figure 2-10 are daily versions of MUTC® Warrants 1. Conditions A and B, respectively- Warrant 1, Condition A is known as the Minimum Vehicular volume warrant and Warrant 1, Condition B is known as The Interruption of ConlJnuous Traffic warrant. (Mmani 3 of Figure 2-10 is not applicable hem. since it is for existing intersections only.) Figure 2-10 pnN des minimum daily major street volumes (total of two aoproaches) and minimum daily ^ninor street volumes (hider volume approach) for urban and rural situalions for both warrants- (,As in the MUTl0 houirly warrants, the rural criteria, applicable here dire to ttte expe l speed lir'rits on Palisades Boulevard, are apprommately 70% of the urban criteria.) The warrants are met when the rnapr street and rniror street vniunvas excel chose found in Figure 2-10 for the rural situation. Table 3 sumirriarizes the results of assessments (cw either site driveway Please note that, since volumes recorded on Palisades Boulevard have been at 8Pproxirnsataly 12..000 vpd or more since 2006 with no decoease expected. the currem daily volume exceeds the higtw of the two rnajor str+eel volumes, leading bvTech to condttde that the m,*or street. volume world be Piet under both Warrants 1 and 2. Therefore, in the analysis below. CivT'eth will only consider the taxi ingl oufttmd dr�veway volurnes ja total of 1,250 for the site or half of the total 2,500 trips generated) expecting to approach Amass A. thfough which 60 percent of the outbound trips are expected to exit each day, a toUl outbound volume of 750 vpd when applying these warrants. Anaiyvs. As noted, the volumes on Palisades Table 3 — Access A Traffic Signal Boulevard already meet the major street volumes Needs Assessment Surnmary specified in 'warrants 1 and 2. For Warrant t, with a minor street volume criterion of 2,240 vpd, ttte criterion would not only not be cot at either diriveway, d would not be met if there were only a single site driveway. For Warrant 2, 60% of the 1.250 exitinWouffxwnd silo trips (750 vpd) were assigned to Access A. A daily approach volume of 750 vpd does not exited the warrant -satisfying volurre of 1,120 vpd for Warrant 2. Therefore. the results of the traffic signal needs assessment summarized i in Table 3 indicate that a traffic signal would not be warranted Simmiria Pallsartas stove nil Site A A A + .k, .was. Min 2+, 2+ 1dr;� i _ 1 �atisr��� ....... I?Iu!l, h" r 5t t' _..... oue low voluMs from both site dr;vewayi '�y.Y: :4i M]u"'"D i� 3"'"_Ii mil, Azscd.3-Mac approaching Palisades Boulevard under loth tl ''s�� era' c'-rm5x�ra dad-•.n��rrA:m.,, ftnimum vehicle vN iume and the inlemiption of cD.r inuous tralkwarrantn. Across from, Access A is Valley \ft a Naive, As notate above. Valley Vista Drive serves the Surarnit at Crestvmw corrrnunity, which amild eventually have 68 single-family detached hrxnes_ Trip generation calculations included o AttachmeM C suggest than the Summit comrnunty would not generate more tha^ 70 trips durng eittaer peak hour. Thus. outbound trips on Valley Vista Drive would not warrant a traffic signal either. �/ C i v T e c h Days' n* i rjjffit Anraiysrs, 71" ursm.,F: & Pa4saaas BoU ras. bran H pnrY Auxn'ia Tum Lane Warrant and Qyeuinja Ana ems. The need for auxiliary rigtat- and left-tum lanes appmxhing each driveway is asset here. The reeds will be baseet on to CDOT requirements. which are found Sections 7.15.1 and 7.15.2, respecLvely, in the 2015 MCDOT Roadway Dm;gn Menual (>RDIV) Eat sector^, is reprinted from the RDM below with an analysis following. After each analysis., the; required grew storage capacities are discu d_ 7.15.1 lt1f;)l T TLe>;t.'ti L.► EIE A drivckvay right turrt decelcration hwe is rcgraired whrn either oftho folio ing is rtrct: The outside lane has an expected volume of 250 Nish or greater and the right tarn volume i� meter thin 55 VPh_ • Any three of the below critcria arc nwt: n. At lcma 5,000 v0ticle per day arc u%ing or am cxpected to be wrung th+e adjacent sheet. b. The roadway*% posted speed limit is tcrcater than 35 mph. e_ At least 1,000 vehicles per day are using or are expected to use the driveway. dl At least 30 vehicl" are expected to nuke right -turns into the driveway within a one -hour period. Analynis. The Rf3M Pmsents two d4fere t methods or deteaniTwV the need for a right turn lane - With respect to the first method, as p* eviously noted, the peak no Mbound VOlume of 750 vph was retarded durng the PM peak hour. The 2017 daily volurne on Pafisades BWevard is reported at greater r than 15,000 vpd_ "fats value: without can be used in the ana." any projected growth rate_ (riven that ttwe are two lames of nc &bound lraifc. even d it were assumed that the outs�de3 lane would carry oNy foray pelt of that Imffic. there would be at least 3DO vo in the outside lane- QvTech split the irbound PM peak hour traffic vol€ mes % to Access A and 40% to Amess D. yielding a rnaxirmurr inbound rigs# lum volume of 42 right turns per hour and ass A, Therofwe. this dem is riot sat 5fied, as the number of turns does not exceed the mQuirerrent of 55 vph. However, the above assessment results in the satisfaction of at east two of tote four critera in the second set of crritena, the daily volume and ti'�,e howly right tumirg volumes. Since the steed lirrit rs 45 nVh, ttsat rrimft ar third criterion. Also, with an exxpecMd tnV gonemtit�n of 2,500 vpd divided among just two driveways, it is also fikely that the fourth criterion. that of a two-way voi.urne of 1.000 vpd tosinrg V* drrmway. would also, be net. Therefore, the tour MCDOT criteria for determining ft need for an awdlia y nght turn Iw* that the site drtveway are sateted and right lure lanes are warranted at Wh site drivewrays, ffea8e mle that the devekoer antiCipafed this awd arsd digit these right fum la°res t* shown, an Attachment A, 7.15.2 LEFT TURN LANES Volumc warrants for adding a left turn lame to cithcr an arterial or collector roadway arc .5ho%m urt Table 7.6. The volumes pravided ire Table~ 7.6 we the rnituxnwtt left turn peak hour voluane and mini rr wn through volume in the sari diircction, Al left turn lane will be required if the left tam peals how volume is equal to or gwater ffian the volume shown ir: `fable 7.6. �! GivTech J; fxjy:vvakh I r1fraf: Ar?,9y w-, ? ' ` tilh, TABLE 7,6; VOLUME V4'ARRA.NTS FOR LEFT -TUN LANES Peak hour Traffic Vohumc. on the Roadw3y m the Advancing Direction Mincrraum Peak I [aur Loll -teen Traffic Volume # of ttar 1 I sperdirection I 2 = 45 MP11 Posted Speed ? 45 ' 011 Posted Spccd < 45 MPH t o0cd Sid 45 MPH Posted Speed :!� 200 30 is 201-300 12 12 40 30 3014W i? 12 30 25 401.500 12 12 25 III 501-600 13 12 15 I: 1601 x I ON 12 12 10 8 1001 • 13 9 10 Analysis, CivTech clarified with MST IhW the lern "AdvanciN Direc lion" in the header of the left; column means the direction in which the left tumfftg veh:ctes a, re traveling_ The peak numbers of southbound left turns entering the site (24 and 15 at messes A and B, respectively) would occur inuring the PM peak hour, vOwn the higl�esl scxrthbound traffic volume in 2014 br one hour between 4 and 6 PM was 409 vph between 4:45 and 5,45 PM as shown on Attachr*nt B. The six mwdedlrep®rted daily volums icr 2104 averaqed 13,544 vpd Sires the teporled 2017 daily volumes were nearly 15,400 vpcl, CivTech applied a factor of 1-14 (15,400 + 13540 - 1.137) to the 2014 hourly maximum vollurre 4f 409 vph to estimate that the ►zximurn Pill southbound peak hour volume currently is approxormiteiy 466 vph Cis this, used on a "nu -yt rs•orrly' approach-� not considering other factom, such as roadway geometry and sight distances --a left term movement of 24 turns per hour would vwaffant a tarn tare approaching Ace A and the 15 left turns per hour into Ads B would not warrant one approaching that driveway. us Stye. The MCDOT m-mimurn queue storage is 160 f€ t. approaching either a signalized or urmignalzed intersection. Q'uesae storage calculations were made according to the methodology documented in A Fblky on Geortt+etrlc Design of Hi ways and Streets (the AASHTO "Coreen Bock'). For an unsignalized intersection. the stage tength for a turn lane is typically estimated as the length required to hold the average number of arriving vehicles per two mnutes The formutas used for the calculation is therefore: Sty Length - [(It vp1T30 Wo t ?hou*}] x 25 feet x 2. Thus, using this formula it can be estimates that a turn lane with the rrrinimurn 160 feet of queue slorage can accommodate up to 180 turni j vehicles per tour, (Looking at this from a different perspective, 160 feet can hold 6 typical passenger vehicles. which are assumed to occupy 25 each front bumper to front bumper on the roadway_ If the 6-yehic le capaoty Is two -minutes' worth, that infers 3 vehicles arrive per minute. which is a rate of 180 vehicles per hour_) Since the site is barely expected to grate 180 hips In and out darning the busier peak hour (184 clump the PIVI peak r), none of Uh* required diary turn lanes recuires more than the MCDOT rnnimum, queue storage capacity of 160 feet. Per the ROM, the approach tapers to the turn lanes can be as shcsrt as 80 feet long, which is simlar to anther tapers for bath left- and right -turn Enos along Palisades; Bou*varq Sight gist e. Adequate sight distance must be provided at intersections. A sight triangle >s the area encompassed by the line of sight from a st%rpErcl vehicie on " mirxx roacMay to the appmaching vehicle an the ma or roadway, acre m rA be sufficient unobstructed right distance along teeth approaches of a street or driveway inters lion and acmes their included cornets s to i. CivTech D aytreak ir(frr AraafM& �T'= Suun�t:`-d NFr, Shoo 8 Pallssarfes F fmn f*w; pagr ,R allow operators of VehiCWS 10 s each other In firm 10 pfevernt a coflisiM, There must also % sufficient sot dstance along the ngor street to allow a driver intending to term Ieft rtto the site to see a ve hde approaching in the apposile dtre:ction. A development can ensure twat adequate sight dish is provided at the interseclitxIs for left and right turning mawernents from the de vek)prnent in several ways by keeping sight lines free of obstris>cWns. An intersection sighl distance analyses was perfomvd to set guldeelinees for establishing lines of &,iglu for the Prormsed devoloprrent at the site accesn points. Using the guideline , t forth m It* AASHTO Greer Book, apixoplate sight distances were cafculated for a Left tum from ttie driveway (Cases 81-), a right tarn from Me driveway ( Case 132"), a crossing rrrravement from the driveway ("I se l330 and the 10 tum nvvemnt into ft site driveway iCase F'). Recommended &ght distart es for r vvennents irony site driveways are summarized in Table 4. Sight tdang`e calculations are rncltx:led as Attachment E. Tape 4: Required Sight Distances Posted/ Case B1A33 Case B2 Case F Design Left TunV Hight Turn Left Turn In Speed Crossing Movexment (W left of (A Awed an Raadw s —Am-ph) to right of drivewva d6vewa Maier Road Palisade, 31VC at Site ACWSs 1 45.45 595' 456- 40C f;,iv'fech recommends that sight vas,61ity tdangies al the site driveway be provided per .AA HTO gWe4ines. wth 595 feel of sight distance to the right of fire driveway for °eft-turn6g vehicles (Case 81), 455 feet to the left of the driveway for right lurning vehicles (Case E2), 595 feet for vehicles intending to cross the roadway (Case 83), and 400 fee + for left -burning drivers as "y approach €sutler site amass on scuthbc and Palisades Boulevard (Case i<). Please note tint OvToch has confirmed ftwsew sioat divances ioi th the site cW "gitwor, WW can demonsfeaMq on f roil,5trtrc bon dbcurrwis Mat ftse ,sight &sNmvs are 'eva . As rVed Previously, the sarr-e awner also owns ttre adjacent parcel on which Daybreak is posed and Access Aa hab been routed through '1f'rat adjacard property_ A review of the site plan. Attachment. A, shows a driveway location for Access A that was considered nearer the boundary between the two PmDerlies, Actess A as sh~ does not require another 63n opening and � allows the dnveway approach to be ftatierr, provides the proper sight distant e's, and wand beeorne a sharers driveway w.th any future development on the surrounding parcel. For this rerason, CivTech wound re convnend Access A be left in the location shove, on Attachment A.. In addditxm, witfun designaW s:gtd vi4,bjlAy triangies. IandsC&ping s1mid to rnwntanned at a r ximttrr. of two (2) feel in height Tree brartJ*s longer Man sin (7) feet shoW be Virg and rrraintalred to meet current acceptaUe L-Msrape requirements. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Baled on the above, CivTech has tlie foiloati ng conclusions and remmmendat-ons- ' The dosed Daybreak developmrit could generate appro)6malely 2.,6w taps daily with 148 f33 iTV110 out) generated during She AM peak hour and 178 0 09 01159 out) generated during ttv PM peak hour. != CivTech E,W yl"aarr iru"Ir. Andytws, : S-etrmthii P14 n �) • GivTech Calculated from hourly volumes recorded in 2014 that 750/4 and 64% of ftse site tiros would be ! from Shea Bwlwafd Ca_e., to the soulh) during the AM and PM peak hour's.respectrvely with tt�,e remaining 25% and 36% would be tolfrom Ralsades Boulevard to the north. • The four MCDOT criteiaa for determiniinq the need ror an autiliar'y ripM turn lane that the site dhve%vay are satisiSed and right turn lanes are %arranted at bath site driveways. Both drrvemys am stx7wn on the site plan. * Using a mbers-only approach Ctxm'bining the highest peak hoar' soulhbound left -turn volumes into the site aoesses and the volumes of through traffic da.rrirg that same peak hour, a left turn lane is warranted approachiN Access A, but not appToaching Access B. The results of the "Ific signal needs assessment indicate that a traffic signal would rat be warranted at either Aocess A o` Access B due to low oulbound°e)dting voluivs aporoacsirig Palisades Boulevard from the driveway un4er both the minimum vehicle volurrwe and the intera'uption of contnuous traffic warrants. • None of the reg6,ed auxiliary turn lanes requim nvre than the MCCOT ir►ininvrn cueue store capacity 00 160 feet. Per the RDNI, the approaM tapers to ft tum lanes can be as short as 80 feet bang, which is similar to otlw tapers for both Yeft- and right wm lanes a►ong Palisades BmIavard. QvTech recommends that sight visibiltly triangles at the site driveway be provided per AASHTO gui"iine s, with 595 feet of sight distance to the right of the cirivewNay fat left-turnIN vehicles (Case 81), 455 fret to the left of me driveway for rigt'rt turrw nq vebic i s (Case 132),. 595 feet for we des inWdng to cross !'�e roadway (Case 1133), aind 400 feet for left turning drivers as they approach either site wxess on wwhbound Palisades Boulevard (Case F}, CivTod? leas confirrxred O)eso .sight dslances WM the set& dvif engeneer, who can derwnstrafe an the coostrEjOon documents that these s+gfrt 6stances are achievable, • Within dessgnatad sight visibility triangles, landscaping &hrauld be maintained at a maximum of two (2) feet in height. Tree branches lower than seven (7) feet should be trimme€f and maintained to r ve! cement acmptable landscape requirements, Thank you for alltYuv ng QvTech to assist you on this project, Please C ontad mewith anyr quest** you may have an this TraMc. Analysis. Sincerely, t OwTech t I F. Spadafin , P.E., 0a. PrP Project ManairerlSenior Traffic Engineer A=chments (5) A. rift, Rao a. 1 raffC :-r Qarn �. Triyt Cyan �� D Dail SiPV Watra-1 L. $rt Dish. Caick �.�r��{�N1 kdl WSki%�aiaf al�RVil 4dlMre, wreA3F4 wgr111d3 �%iM[(l,r rrM�l �I{�t! Irrk CivTech L— -/ NORTH ft, w tkod A nach ent A: Site PI an CwTee hr Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: '�tpm n O*va fie:e-, ier.z nit OYlromA twr r 71 iz' . "ect #- 14-1017-001 FMC'SUMMARYQFPa%sadg,-,; Md. & F le &Ld e L%: APMVCM LANES 4* RAje Dr. Eeg{r 9 md4e Dr. AM Ems• fre T"'-�� 35 16 19 t . awmai _ 24 19 43 p i 12 7 0 37 14 24 73 1 E m ro[nr�t]w r. sx-i�x7-�i a 21 1 wA�r�arx o1,�L�rm2# AM'OCH LANE ,tee ,rc�r,�s A" R M(I f�CikM AM P" FCW +UJH 44S om Anachrnmd 8 sheet 1 Of a I!#rti� stl[e� � Yip 166066llR Ptep and t)rs ,4Lktin O a Scmvrcs;s or AWOZ OtAA hoc. V w r sic LI ytr Df bs g r uu p NSr ww" pallows Wd DATE:V 7sn''ii4 t[CA,T"! FO+nC Mlb 1P*smis! f" WO Ct Ili- Ar'F s rr ftlff3EC'i 14.44174M WA 9 �L7 [.RY iAtS 41k. 0 t1 s st 1� a 17 a 1tl M°r 4lfl h�A: LAMES 3 li 3! AK 6XAM i�"AM 7CCA14 3 39 L L Loi 2 L 4 7 L 5 _- 7g1Am zS4 7 s 114 4 i 1 0 li 0 1• i ?mop ) 04 i 1 AN 1 L 0 1 t 4 a 741AM 4 1 1 t s 17 7 :CCAM 1 0 i t 1 5 0 L J x 15AFt 7 AA 4 5 1% 6 1 0 17 7 7 7 0JVAM 4 h 3 ! LU 11 ► s 1 A 4 ._ 0-41AN 1 9 L00 Al+ 91SAk G J*APF 9:45 Ali WO9MO W�lIAM W h1 AM La i5 AAt LL=AR' LL 33 W. LL 34Am L.l 45 AP* �4A 6 2 4 X, 1 a 114 L 7 ti4off-a 14 M7 U 14 7L4 VOKA4% A I s m M* 4% I S to !.i 4c6 I 1 WTrL�L 4 WJV Slip SW (FM 5$ ice, `+9 RS 24. I SI x GI L&V 4St:e41 it#1 '. L I s411 I aL1A I mr Intersectim Turning Mimment #i�Lit OAT* 3LVVlC&A i7! P&Xt--UMi, INC. n G P� i� fifQ i fSl a j� ! R.70.3*GA3?4% q SIMR; M1600 UtA. Oft L3ltiys" ;575ALr1(m rb-wUl" seli t * SVM., 111Se44pinr b ke. ,1t(F 111 11T 091GAvt L 4 0t v x t LAIM 1go F04 : d M4 a ixFM ::3L7 fM 3 d4 i44 1;1sr++ 31G »4 ) 4151" 4+50 11; 4 )im 9 40 LQ 7 to 7 , 2 a 3 0 4 JN U? P#4 L4 M 51 4 +4 L 6 4 3 2 i 6 21C 4_1%P" 10 1" Li 4 i, 1 121 9MF" 6 L42 Ld 6 K: 7 6 2 i 9 # 30 1.ts 0". i 114 L 7 E 44 7 it 7 3 1 1 , M s:)Ovl 7 *4 4 ) ii 1 1 0 1 1< 1 Jl 30 5,15P" i 141 7 2 47 *AGP" CU POW 6 i0 r+1 445" "OVA 148 Apowam P t mt : P%JCWW IsKQ*VWd Lamm : Pk 01' VOW V K,4 Dew@ Tn& MStwt Cxr t mr 40W 17 • a :?I 00 is a 7 aa.±oN x 00 01 is 3 G 3 01.30 3 It Will 0o ► 11 # + 12 N 15 1 7 4 W b 1 s 4 02 ai 0 1E 4 0# 00 S 11 1 16 OS JO 1 4 03.45 2 S 7 04 00 3 13 .1 31 S 43 04 1S 1 # 14 04 30 3 # 21 04;1 05 14 7 20 15 03 )0 %........,. a 14 44 $6 ?a 06 00 4 #4 60 421 68 .. —. SOJ 0615 S5 90 20S 06.45 3] 341 'M 07.00 54 Na 174 797 2.'S4 191f5 07 15 % 271 141 4710 71 ,lot ta0 a 00 #7 M #w ail M 1004 00 1.E 74 I M ml 09.0 1i in t5i a all as ae » 140 144 V" 217 6110 CC 1.5 70 132 202 0130 71 131 2" os as 414 112 1% 16,00 $4 332 134 514 2n W4 1415 ME 1104 71b 19 00 » SIG i0b 10-43 !i 113 2+0,F 31, 0 7 M 140 41K 177 ILL IL41 91 1l 124 . 112 21.5 M United Civil Group -W N, M Avenue Phc+rm, AZ SSOM 34 Hour Volume (VoLire to w O.SOO) !.A'Jir�41 ftm 4S $a comt6n4d 12 X S22 Sr5 122 477 314 672 12 is 1.6 11S 2a1 12 310 99 122 "1. 13 D4 114 0i IG1 Ott iid #till 13,1F2 lib 1QS UI >< 14 00 ii #444 i 16 4-# 1 1+47 14 45 ft] 1.6 zm 14 16 1.S7 ON M - 14.4s lea 96 at$ 15-?0 104 445a 44) :1t 1*4 0 It ISO ii1 1F4 0 M i#7 121 :Nvr 15:45 15v 1!6 Z51 if 00 i41 531 04f 347 Ns It m hi t3 im M 156 3� 3xi i51 i0.� z� 1? 09 111 Fin Sit vi fi 1715 11 i0 1912 i14 10O 17 34 17% log 31 .. .. .. 31.40 ita $7+0 A! 211 l51 Om lots M FA 220 IS 4i ila 65 A3 Woo 40 305 44 12 2 120 417 S1 IS 46 21 10" 0 30 64 A 101 294.5 75 34 10b M, 00 64 J.0 21 ii 1, i! 167 " is k0 is 46 M u tx N 45 54 21 tT 2100 41 JA 1.1 7S 96 113 21-15 74 16 w 7; N 44 1s 64 21 0 NO 11 41 22 94 -12 is& 15 5z 47 in V 14 to 11 41 N !C �1 4� Ia *b is iA 23 ;* 6 41 0 1/ 1.4 *1 71 15 14 4 71 23 35i 7 S 12 i3.43 1J 1 1Y Vokwal TMIS Do so comawed 0,1,40. 12M 1710 )700 541d 4191 32L3 1104 M-4%) (39-6N) 4HO0n 6601 6413 � i3 51t ,. (48A%) [51 %% Peak Howl me 81F29-i So combmod SlOrNd 11-00 07:is V*J-r4 104 121 FACIV 012 Q91 a.-Ia 11:00 477 1115 & 9 5 .91 P01111 Par.4wa 6a.+'wrd r m?% i % d V V4A ^vl 1f+[0nvio Stan 9 5.6 b^w 0000 4 d 1 i 1 7 i3 00.1:5 1 4 it WAD 3 0 3 [�04i 0 4 11 s71 1'd 4 1 S 81:l0 ! k 3 — 7 ti a15 4 3 1 4l >a t ) d 4s 01'00 7 4 7 E � S3 43.ix 2 2 + 4]:30 1 2 3 d3 4s a 4 24:00 2 ;9 3 I1 2 41 �t t,s 4 7 11 04 34 0 14 14 Q-4 4 14 0% 04 ! 32 2t lu 114 �. S f4 41:: tS 4 3 14 OS 10 6 sl M pS:4S 7 SD 57 06 09 1i M 0472 1 M 1;72 06:11 20 109 12@ 0630 22 146 %70 04.0 42 136 L76 07.co 44 M in 776 lids 1021 07ls i2 d0 1P 07.30 60 20 Az 0745 94 101 375 005-15 itS 17i 3"S7 00.10 A! 1ti IMA 06:45 #4 863 M 0400 74 M tO Slid lit all W.15 66 134 ilia w M n 141 114 ^`A.4'1 is 1Si EJrt 10 40 i1 I}1 17d1 5.44 147 0" 7$ 1!.1 64 W4 M i[+:i0 4i 152 240 11: 411 E fill! 1 11.:.1i 102 1" 146 11 l0 147 130 41a7 11:4$ 311 160 107 United Civil Group PhOeNx, dZ SSW7 Moral Sin Na Si Gaftbn4d Q16 114 "1 341 476 AS 44'? 12;15 147 113 3SS 12t30 116 124 240 iIt41, 11t ii f17 13106 114 467 i{3t'r 4 3 I i0 i2O 1i:13 tit 113 l41 13i36 11a is* --t:4 — x - 11#.- l4; 1 91F 114 14;15 125 0.2 Im7 14; 14 Ila !li TM 14:4.* 14* IA #it4 TI'M 1% so $1 QS 200 M) 15:►3 15t i.�d 3!i 1.5>16 114 141 217 Ok4s S" 16:09 1755 %I lit 4"44 2" 1 TT WAS 141 1ST 277 14; 14 M 45 11% 177 112 10? 241 2% 17:00 1M0 lii 1.14 441 M4 1104 17:IS r21 135 354 It: 34 176 104 M 17:41 172 90 24F iSM "4 34i w0 214 344 10; IS 1" 64 :46 W30 137 76 M 34:45 W t3 Si# 19:60 101 363 34 :13 $S7 5+76 hits *D 41 1I➢ 1ts30 im 34 L34 19:45 72 14 l0i fi0,1f 3`3 1i q iM 34 M S 1 0t 20!45 72 MIS 62 14 78 r1:10 34 19 Ft 33:43 41 14 is t2:1s ilk 10 N 4 1 1 ffi 1 7t }]:13 11 4 1d 11:i�5 1d t la 13:45 34 2 if Sft 52 ZeSI2014 1 dlag&Y NO 'JAIL COmbined 00 040 - 12:00 1791 38013 SS% (12v%) (04A%) 5134 3414 064 (59.9%) (4011%) 24 Ha] r% *73 7217 cq1 . (4d 44) Plitt News he Coftbltlod 11:00 03:15 V 06 V* All 7§2 07:15 10?2 0-47 UMAM me M CAW S;!A r ) i5:45 V COW TO 7�. f 447�X f].B� 14:M 16;13 U 1 1221 +102 a,t's OaMA"Mi Twgkdrampo 'sIt NO I wm 10610416r ��l�rb�einrr�NrE«t�fn�ril+rhTrditGpgo*114741 %wommf■r b�''•■R Y■tsn E, as � wA!•• Nr Rmdww T►Ei?Tc.! wd—br- Mm*%lra k%3w cup €ST"w"I b !rolm" !f]llilL3 ta"m€Tlts+ratl:K aa:+r d€\p. ##q■d Larias i bod- NO, .06 rff•« & pRa DAY i SR RAt• i/ €N a +R naj'#" ab 0 �B YYY yW r Y Ji a •t ■� T s: -r at ■N r r a■ i „� �� a ^a f ea ,2 a• s .v ara a>a st oA s 8 ds f _w Ei• 3 T 't :! .aYi ..d eta ( af? t� rr a ! Arrt N K ■r � [ w■ as war Ni Y a 1 4 s!f Yf _f r� Z h s't ar 5 f # N ■ W■ 9 H xx R ■r ! Ta Ya � 1 f . ■ • wi a _■ ■ n wb J 1! ■ w .•p Y. aN � a! rra .w a • it N • ■� A V - t it .i f � ■rl id• ! ! -! _(� •N f^ !■ A:f #1 'Ya air N ! 1e1 Y"�� my :1d at •a i •`• • ! Al [t i xa au a i .. Aa rf • a r+ N a: w t) :# w -.r ■ 4 aS # a9 � ■• s N TaN rz ;e 400 A A c a ar ar va r 3TA :T ■ s■ a .r ra xr e. ae s:.r 'cave.{ v a■ r�i mr ^•� wr i■II• ■! �� a�Y tm al" OW POP OWS t m ri r rc ■■. wl n .w. ... V.6— ft 1 1.i7 TY - to* Otto Yi CM a ►al A■ f■ DAY i AM Pe.■i Np `A if tb iit Mi*'Yi6 1� ¢! b M� y!& Y F • 4d Y i [i'lE T A ei A Nhll ! � . ■r : w [ x sxJY J! •1 # 3 aA d# Tti a r �xc er . ■} a ■ •} M YT r.■ M# f JI n A. :•s ON 11 4■ yk ai ■ r1 .i !$ bs Pa_y � ■ J Y° .rtle aim w >! ti. !f r[ xN -_y,,,,, ,% nl • IIN iTA • 79 c°a .n of :a■ Sa St a tY E a )LSY A )! Al 10 AH mi ! ra M e . ■ ..e Q Yr !1 [ 'i it Lf '11 A ail 1; 11 -:r r • ] . to It s+ ■ ?ro aAa ■ .a a■ rd r° P MI s� #'. m iY■ A r i.f 6 � `t■ i a sr\r'trT liJ} 't'i - i t'1 cm e•■ur■sstw Y WirraiN ['�' iri�.rw`w #P• 'tr rtw�iwo.r i! AM OR "Um ar I" r r■ lea #NF r■ rt, 4A }rf rr [r ry.r■,wet I�»e [tom el■waw aYiYr■RLFr.�1Mert+Fj rirlt�e>r..�; sib stt�vti ■Ilw" NR1 flat lM n s, 410 ftr F-Aft',a *qwo a 104#4 iwMw. P9i'rmwo ts#d#'i�kltyls A' ow 4[a!bS 1■ S# a rN %l rroR.t � ■ 1N [LN ! � .- - • 11 ■ ■ $ J J J i r d 7 �`�. 34 4 F f'4 14 �_ @ i_#_` #win.. .•�.�,.. _.i ,_—,.+er+.... w ■r t t . a@ Fs z! a■ � A J � J E M! w. wr r n • Z • � f9■ ra I a ■ .r■ M �r s La • az._st. _ _ - __— �.n r! rr +>t •E y ,y # T �+ ■ i r ■ rs RR rt •@ ;r N s s Lr y[ r s ■ !s • ,F rr ! fY •i! 1 i• iAa a[ 1 !■ r ew •IF 'a !� w i► ..r 9Tt w3. wr lF - Pw r �F CI @,! A A. Ik N Jµ 1 •w1 aw • �■ 93 ♦M ■' i1 eF■ 7i N re a :a a■ EE !1 4i a�• R 1 Is Lit W. !!F. @] ■f f` as d:. @ J r }J E'L �! l :• am :! L • iF * R i w }i # C W li is ar !! 9 tsiwai !! ■a a+ka ssr EL)L [a! JPFS'srial R: Y al* 1•nr r� !riw 4i iR14 S ... IR! Mf! aai ra , ALL tk■ "Wo to 3■ j@a a rw L,arl w■N la Jw t■ w to 8r rrq#al■a" tabs Oi&2afts"r4witauftamop 1fd lr ammo W JN-OMS "*A,F■Rfkr vNe" .Iraac M ITIJ Cal h9000l411 voo" it igofm nw. hxlt V, ZIF Irsmom - dl09e� 6►i YrM Lfiri1M i-DAY AARAGI y[Fcfp1 Rw+ 'y. FN FYN el inLE w.g :• lit iii mr L E L .a@ tie 1 x r aJ e f E k■ d. � i [ • il. R ) C 7 f [ f F !- r 76 .a m i+ a3 ! T^: 1 1 � M R y s E [ w ■ FI �F 4 AV 1 — . C> f 9 A 1 ■.■ cw i F L 4 1 A 3 L [ ar ■ .1! = l 1 A A T C RI ■ n! A e A Is S [ NR y t € F t.r • e L LiIJ E L f e F■ F NR a i f s !■! B■ 1 ad E E ,' # NE • F f �• r ai LA ! [ [ L E I� a .Lt I[4 @ AN L [ t +w 9ra r LI e i ♦i -IY r e F r IF !+� w6 r¢ F € [ F iys. _.. 1Fa kr •" w w. a r ilr 00 •1 % A' sr LI r 3 F Br w it t 4 id t` } I t p. r r !i ■ !1 F & ■■ 11 ! k ► !Ji w Ri 1 7Qi ii i L ! a■ w J t i ba I 3 1 ! WIN ■ 71 E 1 a! >d 71 % A 12a A# 3 w f a♦ to /1 t [ R J rl [ 1 a! to r w. le aF 1 t NtW '7_ f r f wr.. 21 1 F 0 Et s t tlAW Y■. /1 lr1 wl !w 1,-. ell rR L!!r'rs s ri 4 Fri!d/t im'Z 1 i '�eT i iP�t y j" !L! wrlk+ MR #RYr wrr .,i ;+B *• ii JR ir.• w� aJ 1s 1@at ri w� [Ja I tY lM awe 1.7 tJl a i. taw TOWN OF VOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA m ilea/'' ' ^J. V V—X 105 -4 :SAvf Daybreak Trip Generation �LaClrnert G 'he WM tao"m IMP QQEefak m es"abw ,sR domm ♦ M !rye WMZAP of TM"44r1>ra.,rtr!' EngrS ors f� i TrA9 k:4r1e/at�Y!. W'Yka1, t l9R E®an ar�6 rSlathlbOo,'� k1CY3 krFYrr9 fT�y Tqp G+rfhe+adaY NOWNw. 101 e~ 'Nwst rev+kd m prr> ae tetokm to at 1www and fw.rr". m *O" rile'Awwx noftm na VAMOL&rsrsra .: ti v%*t tar a lafdk: rah¢ ssr erx EarWt was, we each vv rrse Cbi7o►3�1cQTjc�r.`tl b9i a S7r+0 use cmw 1LIc'�. &MF3 e r arrd egeQ95,xra ttane bee, e9pprE.lkHJ ra c ",votm htp LC*een ae "candod rwaae 11w dr2ames lice ae%vwmm sa arid liwm"ftd "m Wesch caa gwWo "f is Vo,�OL r neafnp wv+ nmt o W- Ttnr r<R abeax t 71CYkC1 ar euatrRsrrav '�tQ"tldOMl M' yr rypre 1C urt Qdlfs ta"0 0 MM M lire "+M %*' *W b rdt fht "MM VUNJ l+ialW of #* OVewt r" 00 5Kr1Ms r7 agwm- wet 0 t" wYnr! 0# ro, *,C am vwaie irk? FOR bl so. rm -crad aq, steps ace zero mdumlym bum; M Fgav 3.7. TM wmRsheCt NOjrs cscj3Mmz *or mKh bm r a N,be Trre &%* sl t 1a P" ar WWWrWhe i_UO a4 bmd w We sus 315e+rgylsr4 unNaltkA C far%i uses 'Tre sbx c L!st ld d u:e a# k tice`tie d M re Gcmce m r i�[[YerrrlewY raeS�r s bs eacnl frre ts+� use ('eaer'rpt-' 7,1R1t *glare lecCCT buitlty 4'eSl ks y eerrrani_ Lamm klrm Tatum aae amr,. P4OPUid Ilea AMEN& A im. UE LM FFE LWrd W" "Offm AparfnEm M£iA"ftl:hllS ««:L REullC +yWua�n@'.i.4r'Rt7c �lKtBr.40nt F+4a4dalSr+kr tn1'! t3r4tinq ,y%,;.. -------•"•.�••-••� ftM* Ar '-.—• .� /tat cos ! ^°!S .30 Oci irc 9eft :Sd A=tgvd Lvra sip#Rcmvfw.Ikl year 48 OowwvU"ti M . •Rw"!htklianra+ � j "gar" *'A'r"Mne; et "3rmpy dR'P#"llt A"~" SMAWY Intl 3 A * mw - *w *rkf 1 .." *,we p+ASCro of frartyp tnp Ida ar **inky, bcor", or b'W44 `"ft as LS Mie +e �eex1 art !.'f'he urlrsr sxsaraa:c drh t+M1>aA =+Jb'°WrikrAr's's�-Akrrat. SlenareE lx�lk , tkensa Mrilatr6Ma'6Hwr arm COMM CRY Cron, thls a wkwett t#rreif ses tf.r !oiorrg amnr. ancrs, ?eL"R • Cs , D . and C . The WM +rt UM aIM tWa7 xe.-"93 t1' ai• Ma k!S see;. 5er to ladle cr ehe nut AaX L+tl•C `E-z C Y,c Pecnft, - r Vrn Uwe to nar crwm , kris `cL"Ov Oran'sub~ wjpv a to" a" W,*A '*rx 100 w r .zcuz an .e+twor M far 4 Rs-rreu pmfaa W a twkm rraetsay as ran as is .4ae peak rti.r and f%m prat hw -'Ow ame oa.rml I m*i to or ra r_1 lrr Caforld JWw 71ow fteleft - Acwm tmebfa totIhm riots Amsrree. w I erg a.Ai­ - .mu" varjre4*- e"Mv .siarrB�kRi4 :a APT Ci Ci - RIA P*aF F�ae[ 111010 O"N 'ia PS Peat H A+ub" U&M :f r krkot utadl f.-enkar but tls,GnQ--.Aaa�ryhrffg`iutartSkEf7pa �+ G •r". ore 4w"" errnrrftAv*C'aJ11~ 4➢ ct 'G G $ {} �y Sun-" aC Gre1"w* Subp -,jQP% f rftmmowt G G a G G G z -t*1vhftfM tiLo wl a etude "M wr -Mrub!d Liam r l-tqua mm m cwe ID each 1-.--. "ft-1* WOMW', L wmh 'as a 4fted c lve, ftre k ft= a princes lure 4Z to drMT & e when tm Yt It —us ¢mmine i raved vmnw em *F cflY*c" w-w riles. Trw -%M 0wi:xb '"Airs twe"lleirm 11d nerl h ear* cv:""slar x-" andpdrlC 4 llaee7+? JL,30,"" n Owl"' Oe ar "Tate 9Egk/i '"tV oft# JtCftvtm No be= Cot" ftlor'riF e. stems I" ib 0sut,41 "il kD 0coner aftwef ► 4m oft rb tht aapae ahle W" uar to" • %,K h *t rift ql rn ;•vt -nrxri d nr Wr tra m ".4 ; epta . e 2= L.GC !}aka h a ksca►ie� are*. s Im to Wiser& h, TIC wc" xkctm 3fttl cur im'Sev"d *tarp" Mr-2 SMmi SrmL53C ..Aw P50 I+4,r #s s�i.�ea dY' SSt h�r.9 Y-rr�egt?. ERtalAaer Tree• Eararrn L#arrt t�d.d tr>•rt r'r�. ra �r�r�w,.,� wr.,.�.rr . Proposed am .A" All Pia, ttdwmF PE PaaA WOLF too rogo . 160AFVrIris gib, T+79,3k.q o6^4t1 AC LMtT,-gSS`kftkreSilo d5[ F6.LmTipiiruwxGNtte3d Ser l4ark r+k ►rp'^�4aacfeep . T+W.Ci:'7fr35.tT $)_"'; FC: T_Q.: ek-a IS 0_11 PC. T-0.N4 X.2�.'6 �213 .!4aikil Care Horns,! WA; T V4.0 ft.U-3 YY'err T-,1t`'�1%J �.131 WA; Tft%T M p'�D ru^r+11 if f7te tw 5kdgr rston PC tJN R l�.l� ifer3kr �1 r 4a Y P . i.4 " 1 q.i : J iHC: t +" �.li trra ! 1 fl30 Sea LSOJL f -Eefhrmpir,Saarkirr T0ArEat*w TKps �APPq EwAumr 2 .and aou cftvvx, 2m% BAE*uw a*strwr.r Trim -- _ WAOORwAAIY 1�r .am Ali V1! Tow tikrla AfA Pea .Flow Ave Ow Ts" MA* PAlPatflea' In *A TOW ► d+mme ar7*tr#fs 3{ZK 1, I= 123 63% M S3 ia.3 ar++6rffitrtkiormatp-•AEachea Sm sm lag M 3M ? 13 T SEAL u 12 :5 Apykt G!a NO %I 93a TVIiNIe UW fi�iM sxmp n IV 14# 10A} MP in 'Re k wn.-ota l cmmft ea SubmWrm 0% US -74K 7341 -S% 13 .40 E21 63% Ag 26 ?a OvTech tRAFFtC StQMAL WAS RANTS 10sood on Ettrrrwated km" pr Datly `drape ---See Mote 2# URBAN RVFtAt, {4fsnrrrwm Requireawty f ADT 1< hipn+r�;tfa `VetArWlfs lfiehiciea veer f+y an rrwpm Vehisses pef day on ftr9e (EOtat approwh mr Of both h4 w volums eta~ street sppro de (Ono Nkurmbasr of tares Ear mavev irtf#rc on owo- drtc iron onlyl appros& Maim Stty" ry ,Aw sisal BJrtwo Rural 1Ertion fturaf 2 or rnsate ., 1 . _.. .... , E1.600 6, IX) 2,400 l..8w 2 or mor.... ,. . 2 or Mote 6.720 3.200 7.240 1 .., 2 or mom . R.070 5,600 :! 20C 2,740 2. In rup'14on Of Continuous Traffic :r' son ow day On mstw vsh,ict" pow day or, Satlo d- iyGA Sst+sfwr3 street (unsi of baftl #rule+' V*k0r* O"wVf nVroach tf street app'tt ddl Irene dirrelvon OnIO NuffAbW Of WrAn for mm rq JoeffrC On *a& apomach MAW Strartt Minor Strw urban Hi.,ral 'dtbsrr Rural t ..,.... ".............. 1 _ ...._ . 12.0w 8,400 t,?w 1150 2 or rsnorr ........ t 14,400 10.0w f .7w Itso 2or maos .......... .... 2or r r 14.400 10,080 1,6Q 1,120 3. Ccrnbenal io-M S&IroQd _... "Satrsfwa. _... 2 Warrao" 2 Y►'rrr�lr9� _lifts 1Al urn— - _ f1 but 1040w+nq wgrrarkti fulfblW fM Or mofe _ 1 2� NOTC 1. Lefty turn movements fro+ the Mayor Street mw be rnakrded wfih fee+nor street vetuf-es ++ a ratw*a'e s.pna ohm to to tw pm► jdw tot rho left turn moae"w"t. d To tw uwd only for HEMP 14TE RStCT'iONS orother iGcatf[NM whwe attrral tfs4#� xo=vrnrs d arrrt5t be coufrtard- Fvurs 2•10 Sample analysis Poem far now srllersWion% {Saurre sUts srf Cshfbrnm, halt. r Attachment INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCES FOR ,■ [CT'IONSWRH STOP CONTROL ON MINOR ROAD ¥AkU: Passenger CAr a . V & } 9# _ $ + $ Z k � ■ jog,o # 2 } a a ■ . ] $ E 2 Z V § 2 f § 45 2 2 z § 12,0% m% 430 495 400 Time Gap Cakulatio_ Cast O@F���� E | � � | ■ § \ $ $ ■ f ■ ƒ i 2 � & 2 » E ■ � J � � ■ — $ ® - § r ® 7,5 05 4�o #o &505 O.so mlersettion Sight Distance ISD .2s«3600-¥__• No All formulas are taken from AAsHT0.Geometric DeOgn of Highways and Streets - The c» haw been altered because Of unit maers ion CivTech � attadmemE 1212012018 J. Power of Attorney LIMITED POWER. OF ATTORNEY Pacific F14 Resort. l J.(,' f''FIlR"jbcvr faints idil:rop Vista Pmpr"i, LLC by W Rough I%auk rMntatives, as it 41110rnvyr.kntlrt to act for FHR flefthy pTX.V' S HVP full power mid authority to perform those aim fir FHR aand m FHR's mane, p' xr, and stead on!y as. +expressly prtsvi&d below in any Lim-5rl way wM w1cly with respect to tlae Ajttxwi:Wd Ac (dfxnted be1c,W). l . Ily plmeing my initials They description of the Atftkorizcd Acts, and by cm:tinyt the wimm to ply his or her initials below, FHR wknowlcdg= it has mviewed and approved of the deleption beftwulier of x1t Authorized Acts described below: l tIR Eby ap rots, girls a M grap% to HVP full power to do *11 NAP a netessary t£r neptitate, exccartc and delim on F:H K's ' hWf, arry dommml it deearts.rmonably rccaiary to rezom the Trope in a manner daermined sok-ly by IIVP mid to obtain theracesr remofthe Property for aa uhederdetacbed:resi4entialdwe'lings (tiom for rem or for a »restTkc, rrsidcntisl. retail and 1w:61 L= ("Rezoning"), which shall IrKlude, but wl be limited to a zoning appireeNon, a atr"ral plainarusradrraerat apfsl�ca4son, a rlrtltapertt agxrctnetzts a pie':taary p1m C A uthonzed Acts") of 'die aMrox itnafly 59_9 acres of land known as tl -Fou amin HiIis Resent Prc+pcvy" located art. the northeast ooma of Shea Blvd, and Palisades Blvd, its FourWn !fills, ,ski., Mati pa County Ux atwsstar parcel rs=bCrs 17' 14-560 aW 1 rd-14-561 � %Ouch is nwre fully described on Cxhlhit "At'"artached in this Letter (the" perty"). initials. FHR kl� Witness I 2 This Poy4r of Attorywy is ective irr awdiaWy aW stall continoc vintil the sraoner to occur of the temWution of tbe. Agmeffient for the Sale of Real Prtipeny belmm FHft md HVP dated 0z',,cber 17, 2019 or ffie closing of the Purchme of the ?ry;t by HVP pummt to that ApmrxM for the S31C of Real plopeM (the "Termnatior, Dxe)2' HIR herby rstrmi.t th.L* a[l perioni "y tell% upm this Power of Attorney urticn such .pason'.%w actual .notice ofthe ttrminatim of this Power of Attomey The expirstitm*f tbix Power ofAnomey orgy the Tertraintaio s Die sba11 not affect the validity of any Kbon taken by Hsi" p=umnx to this Power of Arwmey prior to the Termination Dare. IIVP ack w1rdges that, in the c3=t HVP fails to acquire fcc title to the arty, FIiR Ali have the option of retaaWn& the Rc7oning or not retaining such Rezoning 4. .If any prrvi.wn or prroyi%iora ofthis Power of Altionxy s?aail be held to be invalid for any TC450n, the other prvveaionx Ofthis Power of Attorney SMI w-Nvertelrss remain in full forte aqd cff,= -( The laws of the State ol`k-iionn shall govern this Puwcr of A►ttcarroey m all respe . The uMeniFJ-m-4 :•rtl y Mies that he is an authvaizg4 rertsentativc of l: -HR ar-d has i�c right aril poutr to sign thii Po%v ofAttorney or: befit of MR. Vated: NovrmbtrP, 20E8 Pacific FH RAW * L iC` rr✓ As iU, ,13-D t WIT NW' i,siVi my n&Tw dCt this Pt}vxcr of Actonev bein g first duly s►om atad I do declare to the undersiptd authuriiy dhal d is pemn suing this Fewer of Attar on beef o€Paei5c iFH Rom. LLC has MW that he has the powet &W auOjw-'v to li and hw sigmw d thig Power of Attorney ar Parilic F11 Rwrt, LLC`s power of attorney arsd that l e signed it MIUgiy, and that I, in the prewme and hea g of the sipatrrry above, siped this pouir of attarney as a wig to Thetis sigrdns and that to the tress of arty knowledge the sigratory is rightmn yean of age or olda. of x=d mind and under no coMraint or W43C in ucMe, Signamra of WFsrtr : STATE 4F MUZO 'A) COUNTY OF .MARICOPA foTegoing Pouw of Aztomc,,v ww acknowledged Wh= we, ttatundersigned Notary Public, this ay t Sober°, ,2o i 4, by Ate. � the �r of paei�ic f i { Re rti, LLC, an Ariz timiled lia> 7ity company, on bcWtof the limited liability z y, and i the %Vanen. WFCVL USA MALMTON ==#rrr+s raw � s7oca�t"w Notary Prrbilc M'V ct rn%1 t6a fxpitb1-t2 _ q Ko Title Report ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance j First American Is9 m by Commitment First American Title InsuraLlCe Company Fie No: NCS-9306EWHKl COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued By FIRST d MERIcAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY NOTICE IMPORTANT -READ CAREFULLY- THIS 00MMTTMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE OIrE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS IS OR REMEDIES SOLK*fY AGAINST THE COMPANY INVo LYRJG THE CO 5NT OF THIS COMMITMENT f IR 7HE POLICY MEFST IE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NUT AN h957-RAC! Of TITLE, REFORT OF THE O0INDLTLON OF TITLE, LEGAL CiPIPalrr . (aPWIUN OF TITLE, OR OTHER FJ PR15E TATION OF THE STATUS OF -TITLE. THE PROCEDURE5 USED By THE COMPANY TO DE-, MINE INSURA6ILITY t)F THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH NND E•CAMINATIOM ARE PROPRIETARY TO TFLE CCVPAWY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COM PAIYY. AND CREATE N() EKT'RACXMTRACTUA,4 LIAg9L37Y TO PINY PERSON. INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY'S O6UGATR%fd UNDER a HIS COMMITMENT is TO ISSUE A PNILICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A Iw ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND pRCIYLSi®NS OF THIS COMMITT'tENT. THE COMpANy HAS NO iIABILIEY OR O]3LIGATJkm INVOLVING THE CONTEW (IF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OT14ER PERSON. COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Nabcw, Sdiiedule 8, Part FRequ—ents; Schedule B. Part ti-ExcelPbons; and the Cmmnabinw t Cmidb w, First Rmerican Tweln5vinwacre company, a Nebraska Cotyoro— (the ••CompAnyr"), cotnffi is to issue the Polley atcording to the terns annoy pao.'isiores or this Ccrnmitmeret This Commitment m e*Kti m as Of the Catnmtmetrt Data shown R Schedule A for each Policy described a Schedule A. miy wdaet, dw Company has entered in Sdw&Ae A both the speced dollar atnuudt as the Phvpmed Pcky Arsoiset and the home of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Sdneduk B. Part I-R p%iSrements iaave rid been met within sit morA is aft+ the Commitment Date, Our Comnsitnient teiminates and the Carmp ny's hiabrMit' y end obligation erwd. Fuss American �T..,r,,,@ Insurancil? COMP017V 13%- v0-T/sILF-c�'YL' JrJdrtY h IR7:Im:Gn sra an if W6 jaLkatwas -"bad d dairar3cna;•C, 8 wl,sKbAes a n VWW docYnsPJnt T7rf5 page a DaryaiYa 8�,b 4, Wit' Ct'pr,,,% a iX T6te AmotaW PWAid Bl' aV Atre4a7 ivNe tRA'A'X'C CarlEerlY• 77>a C.aOMY' I t is 2Y ralG ns'Cru.YA'le Al e, rsr Gvroevurr�a,tN.rTA-ve R58.y, Cr Laserafhrern{Cri' x11 Sd ed' +etL+YA �aryr-R�l+yeina+a•.S1"'410 P"r li-f..e�.s'iret: axe aau�`-sg'aasrweir CatL cry crag srtatgay rtdarmay Pane--trmr�brw C.apytipht 2MG-2916 Anse idlob t.Aad THE ANNicietlwn. Ad vi" .---- The r,se of tlys W r„ 6rX any da4v8hve CtteteaQ is reW, d to ALTA I:Cetuees bid ALTA member in gold srirrdag ais d t30 date of ose. Ali e11�a uxs are Prd,Llle& Rapvt�d trite kaase Math the Arier1an toad Title ASSOda w, 50=2 (5a)-m age = M to k-rA CWIA"era (x Tale Vl WWO C&1-16 COMMITMENT CONDITIONS I. DEFINITIONS (a) *XC ledge'ar "Known': A=al m impLTed knowledge, but not coaimucvae notice imported by the Pubic Rerwds• (b) 'Land': The land described in Sdw&,Ie A and awed •mvravemerrts that by law r astute real Property. The twivi `Land' does not include any Property be'N'+d the rl es d6e area described in Schedule A, nor any right (ills, interact, estate, w eeAff R it abuttag weM lads; ave*r„es. alleys, Ines, ways ar waterways, but+' does not mwh a limin the a uR than, dglm of access to and hilt the Land ism be invsed by the PDllry. (c) �MDttgage A mongage, deed d Vast, or oUYr senrrry instrument, including one awidenced by elecner+ic mean atRhormd by Law. (d) `Policy': Each carrract of tide Lnsurenm in a fatm adopaed by ire AmpiCan Land Tide Assoceat+on, issued a in be issued by the Company pursuant w tha Comma re m. (e) 'PeDposed Insured': Each person idendfied in'3cwe. doe, A or t1e Proposed Insured of each PcTKy m be .issued Dumont to Nis Commrtnett. (ik 'Pmrposed Pahy Amount': Each dollar amount sDecfrtd in Sdmdule A as the Propned Polc Amount of each Paicy w be issued prmTuem m this Cm" tent (g} 'Public Reoxiis': Retards "tablished under state statutes at the Commitment Date fix- Ot purADse of imparcng cortscuctive natit4 of m tmm r>ddting to real property to purchase13 for value and without Knnswtedge. (hi 'rrje': The estate Dr interest dimmbed in Schedule 4 2. Tf al of tare Schedule e. Pan I-Regr:irements have r,ta been me vei&,in the t me period specfed in the Conti went m issue Pcicy, this Commi Two terminates and 6e Conmporrys liability and oblgatan end. 3. The Company's li biky and oblryawn is limited by and this Conenitnem is not v" or tSwuc (a) the Notice; (b) the Cammmnent to Iswe Poky; (c) the Commintlem Cnnditiors; (d) Sd advi. A- (e) Schedule B, Part 1-RequremeMs (f) Schedule B Part II--Eecegrimrrs: end (g) a count& signaare by the Company or is having agent that may be. electronic form. 4. COMPANY'S RIGHT TO AMEND 7fue Company may amend this CD-ft—nent at any time. If the CDmPany ame, �s t♦lis C`Vi nivrem tD add a 69ect meat, enwmbrance, adverse darn, or other matrer r ded a the Public Records Prioa tD the Cwimm„em Da% any 661lAy of -,he Campary is Imited by CDmrntrmem Cw&xin S. The Company shal not be liable for any other amendment to this Cmmra.t< m 5. !IMITATIONS OF LIABILITY (a} Thp Campany's Fablity under Ca mlenena Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Inwred's amA a peruse incurivd in the mte val between the Company's deloery w the Rapowd Ensued ud the CDmmitrneit and the delivery of the amended Ccmmmo art, rmiang from the Reposed InRuee rs good fath reliance W. ji) ovmply with the Schedule L Part I-Aw pvernents: (o) eliminate, with the ComparVs written tom, any schedule & Pert A -Exceptions; w (Q a wire the Title ar aeate the Mortgage cewm d by this CDmmiDnent. ('b) The Company s+al not be Gable unde c,,nwcmen t Candtion 5(a) Y the Propas d Insured requested the aTandr—t ar had Knowledge of the matter and dad not nosh the Compony about it a writing. (c) The CDmgany wtl anly' Mat tability under Co mmitinem. Callihan 4 if the Proposed Insured would Trot have w caned the eppemse Kai tree Comm-Mrmma mdrded the added mw tw when the Commd—nt was firy etOwred wthe lligw ed Inswad, (d) The Cp lh kahlM shall note teed the lesser of tfle PTOPDsed Trmnad'4 amual eaperuce ;rcu*red in good faith and tieso'brd in Corrirrit rtt Corditimis S(a)(i) thrct,gh %ayld) w the Proposed Poky ArmwnL (e) The Company Sal not be r ble for the avAem of the Tra.nsaaimt IderAifica�Dn Datta :f any. (f} In w evem d,e Company be W94ad to Tsm ow PDity mf Kred to in this Commitment unless al of the Sdtedule B, Part T-Requirements have been met to (fie saddection of Tire Conwny- (ag) In any eve v% the Companels liability is limited by tI,* terms and pmns of the Polity. Th& pWA uAfyppe ova Tii]b ACTAN Carfrnmwrfkr lapamraW4eii5dbY&VAne3'rat TFae rnN..a,r.¢ ,Tv!J1as GMWM Tdrot .a¢u�YOcwrye]ttaee•bv conrarstemoN PD4,Rwi—DravcaxftnrG ASchc1&EF&f2r-Asp.�'Sdmd*APad t7-£,a; rx,>.•soa merret3graaa'pA"CCaga'rr'arla Bargaftoutmly hear elR v awry. Eeptelllat 2MG-2015 Awe iron imw Title Amocim am An rloue rNOVOL The vie Co &S form (V any "t aim tlierearr K mt tW W MIA rWd! ft and ALTA glainr851n goad sWON M of tme date d nark AN MW u5r5 Tie p,0NVgt1. Ryvrnhed uMer Icerae tram the Arriation Lw J Ttie Awwdlo 5aIU= j5=t171 Patf 2 M lD AlTA cwiinhlnent fm Tale hnn r [15- LIMLITy OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMYrKu4T (a) (Ady a Rosased llnsrred idenffed n Schedule A �-Id no other Pets % may maraca a claim under this Commitment. (b) Any ddi r muse be based in contract and must he restricted solely to L4e cenns and provsiorc of this Commmnent. (c) Until the poky s dssued, this Comxm3mr rL as last revised, a the ex c hive and a nire agreement btzotyevn the parties with respect ref the s *eect neater of tftis Cnr:smwnarrS and �Peesedes A prior oammkrnent negotieom, iWPssntarions and piopmok of airy kind, whether wrtmn of oral, express or anp:ed, relating lit 6e sL&,jen :swtwr of iiis Commitment. (d) The d4edw a rrrodifxation cif any St iteduie B, part ll--Excepoon does riot eowa,ce an dgrernenc Or obligation to Provide cover�W beyond the teens and provisws of this Co-Mitmem or the Policy. (e) Any an�dmeetar endorsemenat to his CommiiL ent must be in w ing and auewltitsted by a Person aut}uwized by the Co-r-ny. (f} When liar poi" s issued, .I hd&lty and ob:gatian under this Co,,nit neat w1W end and the Company's only rwbrEty will be under tive Policy. 7, IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGEM Tie issuing age¢ is the cm:np«ry s eyert only for the Lmited Purpose of issaeing tide--nsurance commitmems and parries. The iw-ing agent is not sane Company's .gent for tar' a purpose of providing closing or setxlerratTat services. &. PRO -FORMA POLICY The Company friary prVAde, atthe request of a Proposed insured, a pro -forma policy illu, ing the coverage that the Company may pmv'ide. A pro-feirm: policy neRher :eileits the stoats of ride at the time that the pen-fw'sw policy is deFmered w a Proposed Insured, nor is it a camnloaae w insure. 9. ARBITRATION Tie Policy contains area arrbitrd*m..use. AA arbiter hW matters when the Prop -0 Poky A^Mwnt is �2,OW.DDD or les shaI be arb=oted at the option of esdae- the Company or de Prvpased Insured as d-re extluste remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the eirbicwBion rules et eotm:lfwww.alta.oM(arbro t*n. Tad purjeKasya�vf Na X,,S &ITAg, Cax .W-e .CWr4nWW alas CatarraYrrt3 Wt KW ML" h:W aw &4ce' fke Cid,>'7aiYelenc liar ffiue RxtY.' tll° CamuonrYCanlrGarxs," SiLaSal" 0.' SCrz+�nL H, Fsrt I-Ra BA.WirM:' SP'kv#sL 8, Pa�7 TI c..�an:�„r: avzia msra-!q dare br cM Zivn�anpof itr a4ar rr»r de av ekrac:ruc A3'rw. CogyrigM MOO-2016 Amnkaa LAW TtVs ftswJ&5WL All riytrts rewerv&L The toe of ads Form [a arty deAaatl r. t wwPe is ntftYse3 fa ALTA iia>tasec and ALTA eh=b® its 9MA st woiSrig as 01 the Gate d rGf- All other uses are pmnoee9. Rye urtdtr Juba se "m the AreriMn laud ITGe AiSo;iAUL ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance • I First American MSLW:D ffy Schedule A First Arueri"lTTitle InsuranoeCompany Tile No: NCS-930680-MXI Transacfwa Identification Data for reference array: lssung Agent Cyst American Title Iraurance Company National Issu"o+g office: 242S E. Cameback Road, Suibe 3110. Commercial Services phoenix. AZ =16 coenmhmerrt No.: ?JCS-930SGD-PHXI Issidng Offwe File No., NGS-93000-PHNI Property Address: Approx. 59.8 Acres, , AZ Rev%ion MQ.: Escrow Officer: Name: Tom Antdkiva Email: Phone:(SM)S67-D100 Title Offcen Name: Daniel Figsreroa Email: Phone:(602)567-8100 SCHEDULE A I. C mnitrrrent DEW: tXlober IC 2018, at a,00 AM L Policy to be issued: (d) a ALTA& 2006 Extended Owrw Porry proposed In red: HiM op Vista Properhes, LLC Proposed Policy Amount: y3,100,006.DD (b) n ALTAS Policy Proposed Insured: Prepared policy Amount; i fc) o AuwD Parr Proposed Insurred: Proposed policy Amount: $ 3. The estate or interest in the Land described or referred to in $is C'.ommltment is Fee Simple 4. Tale to the estate or interest rn the Land is at the Commigreot Date rested in: Paefic FH Resod. UC, an Arizona limited liability company S. The Land is descnbed as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto arid made a part hereof 7as paneKasyapx da �f5at%AC1, C&nfMmr&KMr Me5'WSAr Ce*WOWbY f34.i VdQ"77grLrsAvsx'e C4v+L�'q'. 71th CtrnTaiatlenfKNt r w1CeaR V, AUC A Vie CPr+Arallx'rs( m l3A.e RNty; *67fthoram f4l)doyif,JVV" B, Parf7-�uvtmC.N;' .Sd:wt� A P. ��,: area mrsyev-spatGee A' rr>e rrnrn�n o-,ci aa� ap°nt mar nmryGear ekrao'AY year. Cepf ftM 2Ms-26310, amertcsn cane ntte A.xocMton. An rtglrt, carers& Tone uw of ties Font Car any derrvaoae o'eerean is eesC7ch�j W ALTA h3 reees and ALTA netrrLas in gM SUM% as of tie We B sse. AO W*F uses M pretrt bi j Repeeed under iktrsse from Cie Arrerian Lvd Tabu AssArt�- 51330002 {5-}17b Page 4 d to ALTA CdnlEnitelerrt tar rile NswBrre (% ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance Frsf American BY Schedule BI & BII trust American Tide insurance Company Fis No: NM-93D6813-PKX1 Com fitment No.: NC5-930680-PHX7 SCHEDULE 8, PART I Requirements All of the hdlowfrwg Requisernents must tie met 1. +he Proposed Insured must nrmtfy the Company m writing of em nine of my P^ not referred to in this cvmmiLmemt who mM obtain an interest in the Land oa who mil make a lean an the Land. The Company may Wren make addib'orul Regurements or F�vepbw.%. 2. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to he insured. 3. Pay the premiums fem and charges for the Policy to the Company. 4. Documents sArfiackcry to the Com ppanny id%at convey the Tide or create the Mortgage to be insured. or both, musk be properly aulboroed, executed. delivered, and recorded in the Pubkt Recwdt:. S. Compliance with ASLS. 31-480 relative to ill documents to be recorded in connecom herewith. see note at end of this section for detaiis WTE: In carnvettiarr with Armna Revised StAvies 11-4&0, as of January 1. 1991. the Comity Recorder may not accept documents for recording that do not comply with the fatbwing-, a. Print must be teen -point type fir Larger- b. A margin oftwo atcfws at the tap of the first page for recording and reWm address information and margins of ortrhalf rich Zang other borders of every Page. c £act+ n,t steal ire rvo longer divan &1 j2 tidies in vridNr and L4 tidies m fengHn. W)TE: In die evert any Adiidavt required pursuant m A.R.S. 33-422 relating to rnsubdivided land n an un8ncaiper4ted are. of a cow" h.s been, or wil be, recorded pertwning to the Land, such as Affkhwit is not reflected in this Co"wniknent nor will it be shown in arty VAcy to be issued in connection with Nis C cTrrmmtmenL G. Pay first half of 2018 taxes. MOTE: Taxes are asmmsed in the told ammoa of $19,339.44 for the year 2013 under Assesso's Parcel N . 176.14-56D & (Affect Lit 1) NCtTE: Taxes are as.9esed in the total aanourt of $12,354.64 for the year 2013 under Assessor's Parcel No. 17f,14-561 S. Triop.Ve is rn$, apvrda �A6A7A,'3� 7avl u.ry acre ansrraa74a„ernY fiVAmft3 a20sawrxxe Ca t. *.La's cc«rvrro a6 vaail arC:a.0 file W&W LAC casar+arhrrvu 014rr R*:Y1' e4e ram--btaea caxAwm sdem+e 4 Scre.Xar 4r AM T-4s�r+er�: `xlar-ntiE 4 +� l7 ia: av7a osusQr-.otZaea'e oy em :a:€ WW m its &++V ag" nrdy De a3 eLgtrmnr Aypx. Capyright 2OM-2016 Arm ells sm card Title Ammisf%e. All r*" reswved. The use or tNs form (or airy denvat.e Lretwfy s Meted to AL7A keroms RIO ALTA reemtreas in gsoo sraxlrg as tit tine deft d n M a0ner eves are pohUhad Reprrftd un:jm itm se Liao die Amett=Lh-4 Me As dWl 507000i (Sr}17) Pa¢ 5 at 13 &TA Cmnnuurnen[ kF T9Ce 4nerarve (Affects Tract A) 7. proper showing that J assessments due and payable, leveed by Fountain lidls SanRary Drsuivt. have been paid to and including the closing date of this transaction. $. Fiastesh pLt of Survey aF the subject property by a Registered Land six or in accordance with the 'Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTAJN5P5 Land Tilde Sno� which became effective February 23. 2oi& Said PLI of survey scull inehnde the required certification and, at a revnimvsn, also have shown thereon Hems 1, 8, Ll, 16, 17, and 19 from Table A thereof. If zoning asswances are requested, Items 7(a). 7(b), 7(c) and 9 from Table A and information regarding the usage of the property must be induded. W 1TEn If a Zoning Endorsement is requested. Items 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c) of Table A wdl .1w be required. If *parking" is to be added to the endorsement, the number and type of panting spaces must be shown an the survey, property use iriformrbon must also be provided to Fast Asnencan Title insurance Company. 9. Furnish copies of any existing leases affecting the within described Property and insertion of said leases in schedule 6 of the Policy of Title Irmx.nce. 10, ram fish a copy of the Articles of ctrgarkzatlon, stamped "filed' by the Arizona Corporation cornmiaion; • fully executed copy of the Operating Agreement, and any amendments thereto: and a list of the current members of Pac& FH Resort LLC. a limited liability company. 11. Retard Warranty Deed from PaoFic F 4 Resort LLC. an Arizona limited Labiltty company to 6uyer(s). NCREn If ths wfA be other than a Cash Trarsection, notify the title depa+tnend prior to dose and additional raqufrernents will be made. 2. SudS further requirements as may be necessary after completion of the above. 13, Retwn to tifle department for final terhack before recording. 77A3 pdSY %orn4' � patina eGl6 ACTA3'tmvrplena'W A1v Fi,@ LtivavLP iCiai7 t7f' CalYMreNfa'r 7aAe L�slrarxY Clml'.�'lar rlaM Cmurtibaaeatai raN .xar9 aaavm asa AniF�rtr fnrnn�ovsrt m � +4x6.Y.riso camainnmrG�xF.>l�SSA' scraslap ft fdrnt-1Aiqu�afarL� Rrt°slalr $ rein .C- Aa'rs: art 0watiB-& rut"As'ty emra'" w as asu^ar agent drat mayle in"acta cAim. Copt MM-2016 Artsetican Land rdle An =Wfi n. AN 69bb ,esieve6. Tie,, of Cur rwm for arry datvatve tr5eleorf is restrittea to ALTA ilneru�s. and ALTA +rertir,5 in 9M4 sW'*rg 25 o3 the daft or sm�e All uerar all proMb!E. geptVi5tl Urider [Lease rsom the American Lard Tine A5,9o[ atlon_ 50M002 [-}L7) Page 6 0110 ALTA Commtprie nt fin Tigle Ireurame (PI -If] ALTA Commiirnen€ for T-Me Insurance Fir-4American MR0 er Schedule BI & BII (Cont.) first American Title Insurance Ctlnlpany Fie ere; TICS-53068 -aHx1 Corermihrarrrt No... NcS-9!'%8Q-PKx1 s[4fLDOLE B, PART ti Exceptions THIS C("MITMEUT D(y PRIT ttla k.VL15M AAIf CtATKANT, QrMDMIl y. ltE5TRIC"O"a Cut UKFrATI(A WWTATRED M ANY DI-KMMEFFT IREFERRF33 TO M THIS Ct* oMENT TO TIME EXTENT THAT TIHE SpKIFX CrWEKANT, Crmor.ji ft RE57RlC7Y^ OR I-PtITATICAl WtATE5 STATE OR R3Wl AL LAW ak,AD 1W RAL'E, CkkM RELIGItitd. 5E5, SE9CUAL 1WZNTATlt^ GENDER @ENTM. KAAPOICAP, FART" STATUS, OR WA71(* 4L ORIGIN - The Paikr w E Trot resit ar{+ar'st loss or AW r9e re *-q F ram the terms ,rhd ru—niom of any le. ,et o' e.semera identdred in Scf*dtAe A..pd Will include the fo:oadng ExcePtIGM tartless Cleated to the satisf,erwn of tine ow"P.W r. 1. Any dsf a. ltn. a .wrkr.a+cq, sdvirme r`--, oe otim ar-Mow d+.t xPParrx fir the fu+At firma ah the PidAic Reconk ors crested. at'� or s dw3a5ed between the Camnsetresent Date and t)he datl on wkich Aof ** Sehedlwlw, a. Part F-A;eg+rrn+[x+ts rare mat. 2. (a) Tones or .zsexsme.a`-x that arc -3t sham .s sxeil" bin% by tM'.card%d —y tw" ^Ahor" thrt levies taxes or assessments on real property ar by the Dh$k Records; (b) Ptoceedrvs by a p,"k agony that airy rrwah rn L.—an o,, ice +r.r h: a riau m of weh proctwi r6 6...teether or pat Ammon by the moads of sari eWwy or by the € ublic Records. 3. Airy fact, ri#ht, atme5bs, or c-'same trend one not shown by the public Records but could be rceA"wd by an rhs;.rct m of tfrc Land gar 0%,il may bt asserted by prrsaea an P nV essnn Ifla .4, 4. Easelnewits. 4epts w sruumb Ames. ut el.a+ns thfteof. eat dwown by Ma Pribl a Reeards, S. Dscrepasrcies, conikts n bwsrdarr I•xes, shortage as area, ~o.d.#rsatants, a arty other farts which a cz rect survey woutd eisdose..apd •dWh air not shown by the Pik& .recce ds 6. (a) Unpatented minpvg (terms: (b) reserl#sb s a e [rpborrs m paterts or m Acts at rixq the Koonce thieved: (c) wader rKlhM dories or We to water, .Ahether err rot the m,.ctees *!.cepb:d order (a). (b), or (c) are s)xc wr by itre Public Pmcords. 7. Arry litre or right to alien far sr —km labor ar mat" not sFhowrr bV tF w ;hA'6c Recor'.,s. Exceptions above win be afimiwmteh3 from any A.LT.A, E.>•tended Coverage PoVWV, A.L.T.A. Homeowner's Polity, A.L-T.A_ Expanded Coverage Rasadenrtial Loan Po1:cy and any short iortrr versions thereof. Howww, the same or similar exception may be made in Scf emillu e B of those policies in conforruity, with schedule B, Part Two of this Carurnirt"M"t. This pipee+><+Ya}err a/a3C=i6 KTA3?fatva t'it rae.cYsrra r�ssraat A'FrstAmaRatr SrAvwi^rsue+- nViccnesenivanor YaAt rMhnFLr trre Ala" or co-va'"-w k 1tyt3':nr Cc.r.rtA..t CuxYax'as 53yrrVt,d` 4;' SctrtterJt Aw I'AMdra/4vr/rffij.' W..o**x rarr 2F£eC$hCP`es "&mcAx-syateae9'treeawowa,, &A'."+ thaw map A: are orw*on CgnT$VM 3"6-2014 Anrerion tarn Vale Assadvor+n. An e4" rowed. V* use of d% roan (a any de *61* diermr, Is rrr910,s ha A_7A ik9 6ftr, W ALTA ftWNtwM to ZylW SW%JAQ as at L'E dhM Y uC AR aVI& uW are walbw. 4ftWWeP W%Iz: limes" Brie AnC!h6Ar^ ;.ar6 3RR Asa rw$w t_ SeGond'rrpnl116— a MIS Soaves, a ben. pwy'pbin M a bafom M.Wch 1. 2019. and drlrhyumt M.V I- 20M 2. Any dserge Lean sand land by eesw of is siciusm in Fourdrar Hills Sanitary Dstnct lAlt ffiSessmErts which ere due and Payable have been pod.) 3. f?eservateoas cc faceptKwu in Patens6 of an Acts .Udmr=FV the issuance thereof. 4. The esgk to entrt uPM sad End, Prospect For, miw and r e[nnae al minor ak .s reserved by erflvrraerd recorikd as Docket I839, P.ge 426 and Doikt 6Zfl6, P.gr Si. (A6fvcltz Lot 1 and Tr.Ct A) 5. P.Vb c ors rf.dcatorm congkxw s. rrar, .hM'% aasrraanks and other —,attars SfhPwn on the Plat of Feurd.in"As Resort, as recorded in Plat HRk-n74J5dp5-qA ill 42, ird &ktinQ a" covenant condition or resoiction grtirobng a preference. Imhrtebon or drscnmamtwn basal on race, co4r. re6gior4 sex, hovbcaq, formals st:Rus or n.ewnal orcyh to the extent sudt correnar . corsiabons or ftsh,ctiom vo6te 42 USC 3604(c). (Affects Lot I and Tract A) & DveLea.kas of Coaen..rta, Cendltionn :red R.sAm4ona eacarded at 99.9507W of'Atad Records. but 4okobng any covenant cardih or rest ictran wKScdhrlg A lrrfe�, 6md-&m o' d�—tmn b.sed on r.te. cab,, re4gmh, sex. han&op, FrerdsrS status or r W'—A w gsr to the ecte,# Such caemnaed3. condrt+ore; w re_strictiorrs violate 42 US= 36W(c)- partial 14`wS.er of Restrictive Covenerk recorded Irene 34r 2dYr as Z00•t-753i23 of [ACW Records. (Affects Lot I end Trod A) e. The wns ind pmv orts cx4aynd m the document eroded 'Agisernent for Mann Term" trecotd S Apil o7. 2oo3 .s 2oa3-42153e of r 4fici i Reecords. (Affeda Lot 1 +xd Ta.et A) s. The Tarn P.ovizi r and Eawnwrd(s) cordair.d in the dreurnert aetit6d "ingr"a. Egram and mbtws Ewwmrrrt Ago-,,,nt' r.ew&d hl+e 30. 20W + m00es-7S3575 of rrffrcirl RrCordS. (A%cts Let 1 a"dTrsd A) 9. T the Perms and ptcroslons confirmed in the dowment anhtled'ReQrational Apniyr"ties llcerese Agreenrert' recorded rune 3fl, 2oD4 as 2004-753526 of rhfficW Records. (Affects Lot L and Tract A) iL). An e.UW * Far overherd and Underground powea rid ireci6sr" Purposes in the docunherw +.coded � Doc Let H-22 Pipe 328. (Affects Lot I and Trait A) ':"7as is aaYapvtara371E,pit r[arstrCnw+r Ahr Ilk sax,rarrt ia3:a97G1 rani Arne'darr 7MP:zA'r fartrparr:I? Ccrr-uh?rnt&poi .ad�.�a�s9e Aeea Nr i;'snxa4laerir @n kit AnrLy; ar taaamorarrr rrayeurq5�aiss�A S7res,k 8, fart:-dgre n aaSevri�d art itret.rtdxhr w+ia ux+rn eb+hdr+* h v+r ft+waww o` as aaaatc Ara+ fAr e+oy ar w M+cadtirWr fihr� COPsrpdre 71Peii-7Rtfi anrutrarr tAnR TMIa arRAKsq(ea AlE rfyMe raearr+d. s'rr race art,,, rXM an am *rf at. T*rtmfl is resgrq %D ALTA. s SWdeKid 97A'hyntWl hn�)Y A SUT-SV as M tee rSapr Or a9t Atl vvner teaes are Ar .WaL ie&rse (rive fine Aeer4W Lr d l"X* AISLUe rc . iiis0GP2159-17) pre d W :o kTA Cornnwrr''d 1a Tg4t 7rr5,zays {&1 a6 4i 11. An easement for a*Les and mcalent.l purposes in the cbrument recorded as 91-06S827 of Official Records. (Affect's Lot 1 and Tract A) 12. An easwrient For m w head and under7our d power and incidental proposes in"dacuwW* recorded a5 4i-2�1469 d rl Reardx (Affects tot 1 and Tract A) 13. Covenant Ruvhing With The land recorded in Docket 8814, Page 545 , but deleting any caaenant condition or resbicb on. zu rcatsrg a prefenerrae. Lmka6an or discriminatitn based an race, color. refigiom sex, handicap, familial st h.es or national origin to the extent such cud norsts, conditions or restrictions viotate 42 USC 3603 4. (Affects Lot 1 and Tract A) 14. An easemerrt for television cable and rights 'stcident theTeW as granted m fret=un+ant mcmded February 1, 1972 n 2miwt 9213. P-aae 464, aver the pubic ubti ty easement s6cvm on the plat of said subdivision. (Affects Lot 1 and Tract A) 15. Af{ mafters as set %nth m Resokutim No. 2711-10, recorded March 28, 2011 as 2011-025%34 of fAficia[ Records. (Affects Lot 1 and Tract A) 16. Any chin that the Tr& is subject to a trust at ben created under The P#,ishable Agriculteual Commodities AcL 1930 (7 U.ac. %499a, et sea) or the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.5X. ISlal et sea.) or under simaar stabe laws. 17. Any fads, rights, irMTEStr a dairos that may exact or arise by reason of the k4owing matters dsdosed by an ALTAMSP5 survey made by on _ � designated Job Number IS. The rights of parties m posses by reason of any unrecorded lease or leases or month to month tenancies affecting any portion of the within described Property. NOTE: This matter wilE be more hilly set forth or deleted upon corroiance with the applicable requirements) sk forth herein. 1% Water note, caerrs or t6a to water, whether or riot shown by the public ranr ds. rM agoY apvr d a Xjei XT.4 q C-507-9.4v FAk L2wa kern SAY' K V Agj&*� 7W k� Can% r- This fwcvrlit'"Waror a4f nuxod,t the Atrt; tip Cp,mrV," m m+ pi, &l: rho r,�b:�r � Caaj&x* .%J%t k a• sctrs,t a sm+rt-Ake, a6 hf� Srsrea& s, F*t 17 fa-4 o. aai.o -4yud4 a tr rare Cw4wy Or m—IV as w Men may L"' dr a1 Maur 4arn. caPyrlyrt 2ies-2016Arenaran rmraTide Amdallo-All rgbb sword+. Th* use of tvas him {w any o vaijv tne, rj is ,estiV_teo % A -I TA li:urssees aid ALTA nwrbc M (pod sc M&,g as of the date of u An we uses ate pmtzLiteii. RepwLed urn.* irE fmm the Ar,eri.n Ld,4 714 Asodd OI iS�4 Sr ;s i First American First American Title Insurance Company Exh bit A File No. NGS-930680-PHXI File No.: HIC.5-9306SCI-PHKI The Sand referred to herein below 6 sftated m the County of Mancopa, State of Araana, and is described as follows: LOT 1 AND TRACT A, FOUNTAIN HILLS RESORT, ACWRDM TO BYXiK 597 OF MAPS, PAGE 47- RECORDS OF MARIaVA {'OLKTY, ARTZLMVA. ExcuT ALL mmE, lrffiJ= AND MINERAL RIGHTS AND MINERAL LEASING, AS RESERVED UNTO THE STATE OF ARIZONA Ili PATENT RECnRDEO IN LiOCKL7 IM, PAGE 426 AND OtrUTT 628a, PAGE fit, RECCt405 OF MARICt7PA COUNTYr ARIZOtiA r:,A phi s saga prod a �72e Atsrs+ cmrrx»,a�,r kv'me rnsvanre r�,eea� rrrst.r+rerxos� ;nor �ns�saae tarraPa�a. 7nis Came.�xsnar ha&Frar':urrhoe rewe ua C.cwnueroeum aiu par'Ve care tWN caaiwm *Ji, SeLs"s, Parr.%P--7. kWW4£SOIL&&S' AW n-&r#Z�, ar as mvam-si;�i ao.eW tar [0100i, a & rss"VROMf eW awry rein nra-Vo-c r�" cnpyryne 10 11,U26 Afflaidarl teed roe AMOMOah. All rtghrs revM& The"dr eas Ferri tar " derfvasae thereon a r SMi ed th ACTA dYYd and ALTA mryntiM in goad siaMng M of vre ease cruse. U surer uses aiepugghe&I Repm 'A Lmder HDaue tom the Arner%= land :11e AsSmlaaon. Ala A 1519117y ID of 10 ALTA C*TMtnrsd Mr ode irahrraihce (S l la From: Kristopher Rotter To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak support Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 3:13:15 PM LWARiVIN(-, This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you ave verified the sender and know the content is safe Hello„ Quick note showing my support for property rights, including the proposed Daybreak development. Please keep in mind that most of those that are opposed are passionate due to an emotional response to the plan (and have presented few rational arguments against), while most of everyone else will be indifferent or an unenthusiastic supporter - my point being that you will likely hear from almost all of the detractors, but only a small portion of the supporters because they have nothing to be emotional about. Regards, Kris Rotter FH Resident From: Sheryl Ptak To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 3:07:21 PM WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon. As long time residents ahead of the meeting tonight we would like to weigh in on the Daybreak project. We do not support a change in zoning nor this Daybreak project for this location. Thank you and we would appreciate you not supporting this for the good of our town. Sheryl and Kim Ptak Sent from my iPhone Paula Woodward From: Cheryl Straticoglu < Seat: Thursday, September 12, 2019 10:45 AM To: PZC (Commission) This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe I support the daybreak project as it is currently being discussed!!!!!!! Q September 12, 2019 Dear fountain Hills Town Council, staff, Vice -mayor Leckrone and Mayor Dickey I am writirig this letter of support for the I]ayhreak project. 1 have been surprised a: the apposition tOwards Stich a positive project for the Town. There is atways going to be opposition frons the nearest neighbors to any development, but its critical that the overall benefits versus negatives to the Town for any project be weighed carefu I ly. I do riot believe that the site in question will be developed as a lodging property in the foreseable future. The development cQsts and the overall hotel metrics do not make it viable For resort use with out access to a golf course, retail, etc. Leaving it vacant forever does not seen) to be a rational business decision. Adding 400 residential units will dramatically impact the retail, restaurants and other businesses in Fountaitt Hills. Park Place has increased our restaurant and many more in the Town:. Daybreak will allovv for more dining and retail options to flourish in the own, We are constantly refering attests to Scottsdale businesses because our small town can't support enough dining options on its own. The site is ideally located adjacent to Shea Boulevard allowing for easy access to the rest of the Valley. This gives us the hest of both worlds, as it will minimize the commute through our town, yet give a boost to our local businesses. This site was always intends-d for a high traffic, high density use. The fact that lodging is not a viable solution today and it can easily be converted to what I feel is a much less irnpactful use as multifani ly is a win win. Multifamily will also create more year round benefits versos a lodging property. Fountain Hills is a wonderful town in need of additional residents to ensure it s financial viability. Hitless the Town. Council has another solution to our financial predicament, this project should be supported. 1 do not want to face the day of reconning when we run out of money and look back on decisions that could have helped put us on a path to financial health. Sincerely, 4 illiam D. Hint 111 CopperWynd Resort K Club Paula Woodward From: Dale Robinson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 9:38 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Support for Daybreak This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Hi I support the Daybreak project with modifications as proposed and accepted by the Planning Commission and staff. Best Regards Dale Robinson Tumbleweed Dr, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Kathy Ruebusch Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 9:05 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Hi I am a resident of Fountain Hills for 15 years and travel up and down numerous times a day on Palisades. I am for the development Daybreak. I really do not see the problem with it being built in that area. I am unable to make the meeting tonight but wanted to offer my support for the project. Thanks, Kathy Ruebusch. � Ashbrook Dr. Kathy Sent from my iPad Paula Woodward From: A Bofferding Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:27 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Support Daybreak WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Not sure I can attend meeting; but as a homeowner and full time resident of FH, I fully support this project. Anne Bofferding E Chicory Dr Paula Waodwa4,d From: Tonya Himes Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 7:16 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. I will be at the meeting tonight in support of Daybreak development. I will not be part of an organized group I will not be wearing red I am just coming as a Fountain Hills resident. I want a thriving town and I think this is a project that will help accomplish that. Ton a Himes E, Links Dr. Get Outlook for Android i Paula Woodward From: Maureen Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 6.54 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe, Dear Commission, I am writing you to advise that I am 100% behind the Daybreak project. I know Jeremy Nall and I also know how he loves this community, as past President of the Fountain Hills Chamber I know that with this improvement it will help our commercial businesses, that is so much needed, it's so sad to watch so many businesses close down due to low population, the vacancies of so many buildings is heartbreaking and , as a Realtor, it is hurting the community as a whole, they need your help, they need your support for this , it seems to me that the folks that are so opposed would be happy if the doors to Fountain Fulls were locked, our average age is now about 54 years old, this is not healthy for any community. I implore you to do the right thing, sometimes that's difficult, but it is the right thing to do, without growth our town will just slowly die, we need this project, please do the right thing, thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Maureen Pignataro Sent from my iPad. maureen Paula Woodward From: Ishutch Seat: Thursday, September 12, 2019 7,35 AM To. PZC (Commission) Subject: daybreak project _- At, N This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified I the sender and know the content is safe. As a former p&z and council member and long time resident I support this project. I have long been known as a preservationist but I realize that land that is privately owned will be developed.... the current zoning would allow for more disturbance with less advantage or benefit to the town. Please approve this development. Thanks Sharon Hutcheson ME Tumbleweed Dr Fountain Hills 5ciit from illy VCII/on. �a:��<uti�w �aal,ivy ;ni;r4�t;�hnri. Paula Woodward From: Catherine Gilbert Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 1:18 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Proposed Development at Shea and Palisades This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, My husband and I have lived in Fountain Hills for over 1.8 years. (Aspen Drive) We have generally supported the various developments that have occurred in Fountain Hills. Seeing them as a positive step for our community. Including supporting the apartments on the Avenue of the Fountains. After reading various articles and comments about the Daybreak Development, I believe that this would not be in the best interest of our town. This opinion is not formed out of some of the disparaging comments about the potential residents of the development which I believe has distracted from a meaningful discussion. The central issue is about how we as a community want the Gateway to our town to look, In particular, the size and scope of the project is too large for the proposed site and distracts from the amazing views that make Fountain Hills a special place. I happened to drive by a development being built in North Phoenix today. It was a similar size and scope of the Daybreak Project and gave me a visional perspective. It truly cemented my opposition. The density and height blocked views of the mountain landscape. I do hope that a developer would see what makes Fountain Hills unique is the expansive views and unique character of the residences in the immediate area and develop a project that would be more fitting for our town. I encourage you to vote no on the zoning variances before you tomorrow. Thank you for your consideration. Catherine Catherine E. Gilbert Business Manager GILBERT I BIRD I.AW FIRM. PC 10575 North 11411 Street, Suite 115 Scottsdale Arizona 85259 490-494-2162 Please nort: my dircet stwnh%<j !' IhertaiyilbertbirdIaw.com Paula Woodward From: Ken Jeschk Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:34 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Proposed Daybreak Development This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commission Members, As a relatively new resident (3 years) I do not regret my decision to relocate to this welcoming and wonderful community> However I cannot help to see a very troubling pattern of behavior by some longer term residents whenever kind of change from the "good old days" is proposed. It seems that an inordinate number of people take up a crusade to resist and change or progress for our town. I truly believe that this behavior is based on very selfish motivations. Personally, I am supportive of the proposed Daybreak development re -zoning request. Fountain Hills needs to grow in size and this upscale development is a great way to accomplish that goal. The architectural renderings that I have seen are aesthetically pleasing and certainfy add to the existing look/feet of our town. My understanding is that the original estimate for Fountain Hills was to a population of 75K. While that may no longer be the goal, we need to continue to grow, especially based on the age demographic of our existing population. I would assume that the additional population numbers would be of benefit to existing businesses and may even serve to attract new enterprises. I urge you to vote in favor of the Daybreak for the good of Fountain Hills rather than the selfish view of those opposed to the project. Thank you for listening to me and hope for your support in this matter. Regards, Kenneth Jeschke _E. Gunsight Drive Unit= Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Paula Woodward From: William Wood Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:26 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Stop Daybreak This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click finks or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Members, We moved to Fountain Hills in 1995 because of the way it was then - a small quiet bedroom community consisting mostly of custom single family residences. We were promised by our realtor (MCO Realty) that FH would stay that way indefinitely because the zoning and planning was setup to severely restrict business, apartments, low income housing and other high impact uses. Over the past 25 years FH has gradually become much worse than we were promised and much worse than we expected - it's much bigger, more crowded, more commercial, more traffic, more crime, more light polluted. There are now way too many people and businesses in FH. It is no longer pleasant and fun to live here, it's too crowded...... there are houses, buildings, people, cars and trucks everywhere! Even at night it's a mess...... my astronomy hobby has been totally ruined by light pollution - there are lights everywhere and the zoning ordinance has been modified to weaken the light control ordinance. Neighbors in every direction blast us with lights all night. The most grievously detrimental development possible is more apartments. We already have the abomination of Park Place. Do not repeat that mistake, Stop Daybreak! Regards 1 1�1d Bill Wood Tumbleweed Dr Fountain Hills, AZ Sent via desktop computer Paula Woodward From: Jeremy Bell Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 E03 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Vote "NO" to rezoning for the Daybreak Project This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Keeping this short and simple, development in Fountain Hills should blend with the existing landscape per the FH General Plan. This project will not do that as it will remove the top of a hill. This does NOT follow the general plan for Fountain Hills. There are many more reasons not to approve this zoning request, but this one is enough to VOTE NO. Thank you, Jeremy FH Resident Paula Woodward From: Sent: To: Subject: YVONNE WILLIAMS Tuesday, September 10, 2019 3:18 PM PZC (Commission) We support Daybreak WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. My husband and I have been homeowners at the Ridge in Fountain Hills for over 12 years. We are Canadian so we are unable to vote but we do support this rezoning and development. Regards Yvonne Williams J Michael Kenyon Paula Woodvvard From: Keith Pavia Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 3:09 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: DayBreak development This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. 1 have been here two years and am really excited about DayBreak happening. Let's keep our vision moving. Peace, Keith Pavia Executive Pastor Christ's Church Fountain Hills/Surprise www.chri sts church. o nli ne Paula Woodward From: Rosanna Monterosso Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 2:45 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak t,.ta This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. I would like to voice my support of the daybreak project. The voices of the naysayers are so vitriolic and so loud, it drowns out the voices of other citizens through intimidation. I'm not sure supporters feel safe in voicing opposing opinions and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. I feel that the community needs to grow to remain vibrant. I feel an upscale apartment complex will be a wonderful addition to the FH community. Thank youll Rose Monterosso, Sunridge Canyon resident Paula Woodward From: Trent Renner Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 2:40 PM To: P,ZC (Commission) Subject: Please build DAYBREAK! It is smart and what FH needs!!! TNs email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Just sending a quick email to let you know that I speak with hundreds of people around town, and in our Church, who are in favor of smart development and growth in population for Fountain Hills. We are in support of the Daybreak development! FH needs it! Stand Strong and stand up to the ones who are strangling FH with all their NO's! Please build Daybreak! FH Resident Trent Renner Office: (480) 837-3121 ext 107 (CF CHRIST'S CHURCH Paula Woodward From: Steve Friel Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 7:35 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Fw: Fountain Hills - A Town for Renters t, E4r; Exr� This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Re -sent to corrected e-mail address — see below. sf From: Steve Friel Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 11:31 AM To: gdickey@fh.az.gov ; sleckrone@fh.az.gov ; atolis@fh.az.gov ; mscharnow@fh.az.gov ; amagazine@fh.az.gov ; dspelich@fh.az.gov ; dbrown@fh.az.gov Cc: gmiller@fh.az.gov ; pac@fh.az.gov Subject: Fountain Hills - A Town for Renters To the Mayor and all Fountain Hills Council Members: The decision to approve the 60 acre site for the Daybreak construction of 400 additional apartments for Fountain Hills should be NO. There are many reasons to say NO to this project. Many others have provided the details on why this project should not be approved. However, this past weekend I visited friends in the Mountain Vista/Sonora Vista streets area For the first time I got a great birds -eye view of the site for the proposed Daybreak apartments project. It borders the entire area which is the scenic and wonderful entrance to the Town of Fountain Hills at Shea/Palisades. It is the primary first impression many people have of our Town. Cluttering our entrance with an additional 400 rentals will not bode well for our future. Last year Park Place was completed with 230 apartments (has divided our town). Keystone has just been approved for 147 apartments. The approval of Daybreak should seal our future as strictly a bedroom community of renters. We already have numerous apartments, condos and homes for rent, now it seems we cant build more rentals fast enough. How are we going to provide and pay for all the services required? The area is currently zoned for a resort. At least a resort is an actual business, bringing the attention of our town to a continual stream of new people from around the nation/world. Presumably it will be attractive and hopefully classy. It will help provide opportunities to market ourselves in a variety of creative ways. Visitors/tourists will want shops and things to do other than just groceries and gas. It will give our Town another opportunity to diversify into other areas. Please say NO to Daybreak and sealing our future as a town of renters. Ownership is what drives responsible stewardship, care and concern for the future of our community. An over abundance of rentals is not the answer to a prosperous future for Fountain Hills. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steve Friel -N. Mimosa Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Jay Schlum Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:48 PM To: Jay Schlum Subject: Daybreak This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe, Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Town Council members and 1-own staff, I want continued high quality development in Fountain Hills, Arizona, the greatest Town in the World. This development is also at the most picturesque entry points into our community, so it should look great and welcoming. Now, when looking at this 60 Acre site I ask 'What are the options?' This land has never been zoned open space nor a park or preserve. This land is zoned to be used and a land owner has the right to develop the land. Obviously, codes and regulations must be followed when developing and building. Town Hall and the community also has a say when a developer desires to use the land in a way that differs from current zoning. This is where the developer, Town and community are today. Ultimately, this land is going to be developed and not everyone is going to love it. The prior plans I have seen showed for a large resort or other use development, each would have caused a greater impact to the land and neighborhood. As I understand it this plan will bring year round residential use. Views are paramount here in Fountain Hills and this plan looks to lessen view impact by building the taller buildings on lowered elevations. I believe the highest rooftop will be about 10 feet higher than the highest ridge here today. The cuts requested will benefit the neighbors by lowering the building elevation which will better preserve mountain and Verde River valley views from the West and Red Mountain views from the North. What I viewed showed the closest home to the nearest new building at over 400 feet away and most of the 60 Acre lot will remain untouched Sonoran Desert. There are some very good elements to this current plan and others to be worked out. This process is an opportunity for those engaged to respectfully obtain facts, share ideas, and consider options. From my experience when parties, communicate, meet and dialog respectfully and reasonably, with facts, that is what brings the best outcome. Our Town needs more year round residents. Positive financial and social impacts come from good development and more residents in our community. These new residents will help fund our great Town through the Rental taxes, Sales Taxes and support for local restaurants, grocery, schools and more that each new resident brings. It was shared with me that Daybreak will financially contribute over 10 years more than $1.5M Rental Tax, over $2M Local Sales Tax revenue, brings more than $40M in resident consumer spending and more financial benefits including construction taxes and impact fees which are also important to our communities success and quality of life. Our community was originally planned for more than 75,000 people? This is why some of our roads are so wide and our commercial downtown land is so large (8 Kierland Commons in size) and vacant lots and store fronts exist. Fewer residents in our community also causes our Town budget to struggle and our local businesses too. The Fry's grocery store and the restaurant / retail plaza blockE from this proposed development will likely benefit greatly from the hundreds of year round residents living nearby; so to will the schools, employers and community organizations throughout Fountain Hills. Here is what I know of the Daybreak developers; they have built quality projects here in Fountain Hills, look at CopperWynd, FireRock, Eagles Nest and other neighborhoods where they led those developments. With developments we don't always get exactly what we want because, particularly adjoining neighbors where primary interests differ. When our Town and neighbors work together with developers good quality neighborhoods are the result, the past has proven this in Fountain Hills. Thank you for serving our Town. 1:!� IV Jay Schtum f602)301-7855 REfMAX Sun Properties T,� 16704 E Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 USA Man The Arizona Living team - Business Person of the Year 2018, Fountain Hills, Arizona. Mayor & Councilman, Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona 2004-2012 - Assistant Governor, Rotary District 5495 Social Media- Linkedln Inst__ agram I=acebook Twitter Website Paula Woodward From: Erica West Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 3:10 PM To: Paula Woodward Cc: Susan Dempster (P&Z) Subject: Daybreak Development Attachments: Daybreak Development to P & Z [WARtw$NGThis email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Good afternoon. Please see the attachment regarding the proposed development of Daybreak. Thank you for your attention. Erica West RE/MAX Sun Properties Cell 480-650-7002 Fax 480-907-2008 iV'{dxmErica `UI)est%fomes. conL Senior Centered WealEstate Search; Momes Now Like andToCfou, me: 11 Daybreak Development to Planning and Zoning Dear Susan and members of Planning and Zoning No matter where we have migrated from, (I'm from Massachusetts), we have all made a conscious choice to live in Fountain Hills. Why? Certainly not for the shopping! A Little History: When developer Robert McCulloch bought the 13,006 acres of the P-Bar Cattle Ranch he envisioned a model community with the world's tallest fountain as its centerpiece. When I arrived in 1984 there were 3000 people living in this unincorporated county island and there were 900 building lots on the market. Miles of roads weren't paved and many didn't exist yet. MCO Properties wasy#or tine development. MCO Realty was responsible for the lot sales. A widespread marketing program lured many buyers from Chicago, and from the cold mid -west states by flying them to Fountain Hills in charter planes. Tourists were enticed to visit the Community to see the Fountain. Why do you suppose all the people bought here? Our competition at the time was Red Mountain Ranch and Ahwatukee. Both were Master Planned Communities with their uniform, little pink houses and variety of amenities, roads and parks. In order to preserve the natural beauty of Fountain Hills, not yet a town ,zoning and building restrictions were put in place MCO appointed a Committee of Architecture whose job it was to examine, in detail; the plans for every house to be built. The home builders were required to adhere strictly to the hillside ordinance, and to abide by the architectural guidelines. They caused a great deal of frustration and sometimes anger among builders, architects and the land owners . But the Committee of ARCHITORTURE as we called them, kept this town as natural as possible, disturbing as little land as possible During my 35 years selling RE in town and more than 2000 lot & home sales I always asked my clients why they chose Fountain Hills and I still ask today. It has helped me to target my marketing to the appropriate group, So who are the people who bought here? THEY ARE YOU! You chose to make this your home. Could it be that you, fike everyone else, were awed by the natural beauty, felt freer and more peaceful in the desert environment on larger lots and with lots of open space? Was it the small town environment? Or maybe you saw investment potentiai? I do not oppose development. Certainly, I have been a part of that development for 35+ years. I oppose this particular development because it brings to Fountain Hills everything we moved here to escape. Daybreak destroys the aesthetics we moved here: for, brings a density of people (who will go down the road to shop) creates a dangerous traffic situation and destroys the curb appeal of Fountain Hills. (It's just plain ugly!) Curb appeal is everyone's first impression. If you've ever sold or bought a house you know that for a fact: If it isn't important why did MCO create the lovely water feature on Palisades and Shea? Why did FIREROCK completely upgrade the entrance to the Firerock Community recently? Look back at the RESORT that was approved; aesthetically pleasing, Building heights were 30 ft. (hillside ordinance), increased size of the Hillside Protection Plan) 450 parking spaces were under rc round, FOR THE LOVE OF FOUNTAIN HILLS please reject this project. FOR THE LOVE OF FOUNTAIN HILLS please be patient and wall for the right deveio meet for this land. It will come] 11 Please, don't let people who have no real interest in our town except to line their own pockets, turn this beautiful land and the gateway to FOUNTAIN HILLS into an "Urban Jungle" . v FOR THE LOVE OF FOUNTAIN HILLS please don't let People who don't live here destroy our home. Submitted by Erica S11lest r �L�Ek�A k 1 U'?Pro V�d Mesa �4 r,26d-z L, Resort Times, June 13, 2007 Bob The proposed $70 million Fountain Hills Resort and Spa project has been given a green light to go forward from the 'Gown Council. The council June 7 approved a minor General Plan amendment, a zoning map amendment and special use permits for accessory uses at the resort such as retail, restaurant, lounge and offices. it also included an amended devel- opment agreement The planned 269-unit resort hotel and conference center will sit on about 23 acres of a 60-acre parcel of land northeast of the in- tersection of Palisades and Shea boulevards. Council members did raise questions about traffic and access to the resort site off Palisades, Councilman Henry Leger not- ed that the developer has agreed to pay for a traffic signal at its en- try. However, Town Engineer Randy Harrel said the signal would need to wait until it can be confirmed it is warranted - after the resort has opened. Councilman Ed ICehe raised concerns that there would be a significant hazard white the town was conducting the traffic study and then waiting until the light is installed. Harrel said the infrastructure for a signal would be installed with construction, which should reduce the installation time. Kehe asked that everything possible be done to get a signal in as soon as possible after opening. Harrel said he would make all the preparations possible, but could not guarantee the signal would meet the required war- rants. The amended development agreement includes cut waivers for grading cuts greater than 10 feet related to development of the site. Most of those cuts are under buildings. There is also a change that in- creases the amount of land pro- tected under a Hillside Protection Easement, The General Plan and zoning amendments deal specifically with the portion of the parcel that is to be developed. Part of the parcel has been zoned R-4 to accommodate multi -family con- dominium units. The new request is to remove that zoning and make the entire site L-3 PUD zon- ing for lodging. The planning unit of develop- ment (PUD) for the project pro- poses variances on such things as lot coverage and driveway spac- ing. The PUD proposes that the driveway separation in the townhouse area of the resort be permitted at five feet, rather than the 20 feet required in the Zoning Ordinance. The other request related to the PUD is to increase the allow- able lot coverage from 25 percent to 29 percent. The proposed special use permits for the project are to al- low several accessory uses for the resort site, including a res- taurant, retail shops, a lounge and offices. Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce CEO Prank Ferrara spoke in support of the plan say- ing the Chamber endorses the project. "I'm asking for support on be- half of the Chamber of Com- merce," Ferrara said. "The first time we saw a plan was nine years ago. They have since taken a good project and turned it into a great project." Bob Hahn, president of the Westr€dge Village HOA, told the commission that the developer has worked very closely with the association to address their con- cerns. The WVHOA had opposed the original proposal brought to the town "We are very pleased," Hahn said. "They have eliminated the negative aspects to our neigh- borhood and very sensitive to our needs." Wendy Riddell, an attorney with the firm of Berry & Damore representing the developer, said the resort will have a $2.9 million benefit to the town, not counting what guests spend while in town. According to Town Manager Tim Pickering, the $70 million re- sort is the second largest eco- nomic development project in Fountain Hills' history, standing only behind the Four Peaks Plaza (Target) shopping center. Mike huffy, project manager for the developer, said construc- tion might begin by the end of the calendar year. Paula Woodward From: Tara Lamar Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 12:49 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Community WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not dick links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear P&Z commission, I am writing you today in support of the Daybreak community. I own 3 properties in Fountain Hills including one on Palomino and feel the esthetics and overall vision of this community fit within our community vision. hope this project is approved and Daybreak can move forward. With gratitude, Tara Lamar Sent from my iPhone Heartbreak A letter from: ❑avid Lajiness DayBreak appartment complex, if constructed, will be a real Heartbreak for Fountain Hills Community! 400 tightly concentrated apartment units could equal 400 to 600 cars. Traffic congestion greatly increased at the intersection of Palisades Blvd and Shea Blvd. especially at morning and evening rush hours. Hugh appartment complex not a pleasant sight for a main entrance to Fountain Hills. The current zoning for a resort complex would certainly be better suited for an entrance to Fountain Hills than a massive apartment complex like the proposed Daybreak. Daybreak equals Heartbreak for Fountain Hills Community. David Lajiness . Hillside Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Sue Kraus Seat: Saturday, September 7, 2019 3:12 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Project. This email originated from Outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am writing in support of this project. I believe we need more housing in town. More residents, more money, rental tax for the town. People want more retail, but fail to understand a company won't locate without the population to support it. Short sighted in my opinion. All the opposition I am seeing on Facebook and Nextdoor all seems to come from people who live in Crestview or Westridge, who seem to believe they own the land and the view. They own neither of course. I'm also personally happy for housing closer to Fry's. My son works there, and doesn't drive (as many others who work there too). They are forced to spend quite of bit of money to get around town. We have hopes he will be able to live close to work, and be independent. Again, I voice my support for more housing. Thank you for your patience, your inbox must be very full! Sue Kraus East Ashbrook Dr pau5a Woodward From: KARL Gaardsmoe Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2019 11:01 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Project This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair and Commissioners, I imagine you have received numerous letters/emails opposing this rental housing complex. I'm writing in support of the development. For one thing, I'm tired of reading all the hysteria being circulated on social media. Today I just read a local realtor comparing this development to the the rising problems in Sedona with short-term rentals. Then there's the one about how the developer is going to cut 30' off the top of the hill and dump it all into the wash killing all the saguaros. Then there's the "council is being bought by developers", taking off the top will create earthquakes, the developers are crooks, etc. Sure there might be quasi -legitimate concerns about increased traffic but would it be much different if this project were a resort? Here's one example: htt s: www.chan e.or fountain -hills -town -council -and- lannin -and-zonin -commission-sto -da break- 1roiect-in-fountain-hills-az-save-the-hillside-protect- wildlife?recruiter=1000927985&utm source=share petition&utm medium=email&utm tarn ai n= sf comb o share initial&utm term=share petition&recruited by id=4606aOdO-cb81-11e9-8641- 6d3180daSdOe&share bandit exp=initial-17578019-en-US&share bandit_ var=vO The project architecture is beautiful - fitting into the environment in terms of style and colors. This will bring additional affordable housing so we can attract more families. This will benefit our schools. I believe most renters will be full-time residents which will help our local business. Also the additional sales -tax revenue on the rentals will provide much needed dollars to our budget (now even more important since the environmental/public safety fee is in doubt). I understand the NIMBY's are concerned about losing their views. For them to argue that a conference resort is a better fit is disingenuous. That type of project is going to impact their views as well. The only difference is that this project is on deck. If, in fact, a conference resort being proposed they would make the same complaints. Good luck with your meeting and deliberations. It's going to be a crazy night Karl Gaardsmoe Elena Dr. Paula Woodward From: Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 12:11 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, I've been reading quite a bit about Daybreak and thought I'd voice my opinion. I live on Palomino Blvd, close to Palisades. The Daybreak community will probably have some impact on me as I travel down Palisades to Shea on a regular basis, and return the same way. I'm sure there has been enough consideration of what the impact will be on traffic in the area Daybreak is being built. I am in support of the project and look forward to the community being built. I believe the benefits will outweigh the consequences for the Town of Fountain Hills. One change that may need to take place is adding a light at Palisades and Palomino to provide more control over traffic. Thank you, Rick Ponzo Fountain Hills Resident (since 2011) Senior Pastor Calvary Chapel Fountain Hills Paula Woodward From: Rich hippner Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:29 AM To: PZC (Commission); Mike Scharnow; Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; rrogers@fh.az.gov; Marissa Moore Cc: Michelle Webb Subject: Daybreak Project This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe DAYBREAK `I Daybreak -its approved, along 3P feet ®de the top of the hill fog° � pie needed landfill`, gs very Gmportann since It wi l @owes~ she project°s vertticao pr ®Ne. My ma1n concern is the dynamite �asfing that wiN surely be needed. Uuke most hove owners, l coo noY� have ea�thquake protection on my ameowns-,'s poUcy so it is lmperat 1 ve $h at D a y b rea'.;� ccmpensa2�es us °'or any damage like cracked ceMngs and Iles cF-ueed by the blasting. Msc, we ah3uld ca"I be warred before each Was U Daybreak must put IS -Ms c ommitmenL, �r writing and " h�s comm.* ment of responsib°llty must be recorded or the Town°s records. iI'M LETTER i�gC EDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT �e�pec�f�ly, Richard HoppneT mww Fountain bills, A-Z 85263 Paula Woodward From: Michael McDonald Sent: Wednesday, Septem er 4W01 4.29 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Support WAPNIP1611 This email originated from outsidp of the organiratinn Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Commissioners, I am writing this email in support of the Daybreak project. As a resident of Fountain Hills I would strongly encourage you to approve the zoning changes and allow this project to move fonvard. This is one of the most controversial issues I can remember and the decision you make will not come easily. I do not envy you. All I can do is offer my opinion and a few words of wisdom. You will always have the naysayers no matter what the project is. In this case you will have a few hundred, or even a thousand People who will loudly voice their objection to this project. But what I am asking is that you look at the greater picture, There are still some twenty -thousand other residents, and small locally owned businesses, in this town that will benefit from this development. People are "screaming" for more businesses and services to come to Fountain Hills. Without the population and presence of growth we will never achieve some of the business and amenities people are asking for. Over The pest few years our country has experienced some of the strongest grown that has not been seen for decades. The Phoenix Valley is one of the fasting growing regions in the country capitalizing on this growth. While our neighboring communities are thriving, Fountain Hills is stagnant and struggling for revenue. This development is needed and I believe the location is appropriate. It will bring the need for more retail shopping along the Shea corridor and provide a customer base for the "tnom and pop" businesses in our downtown area. The financial benefit to the town will also ease the burden on its residents. Please don't let the voices of the minority outweigh the needs of the majority and our town. Thank you, Mike McDonald. Paula Woodward From: Cheri Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 3:39 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Project This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Just wanted to say that my husband and I totally support the Daybreak Project. We need revenue, and an increase in population will bring an increase in business and an increase in sales lax. As it stands now we have multiple empty buildings because we don't have the population to sustain the sinall business owners that are in Fountain Hills, much less larger businesses. People that complain about the project just don't want change. l understand that many have lived here for 30+ years and want the town to remain a small town. But, sometimes change is necessary for the whole .... and we believe that this is one of those times. Thank you, Ron and Cheri Malcolm Paula Woodward From: Tenangels Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:36 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak project WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not dick links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Please don't approve the Daybreak project! Please don't make any zoning accommodations to allow this project to happen. Dave Whitman -e Carmel dr. Fountain Hills, AZ. Paula Woodward From: John Weil Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:17 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Project This email originated from outside of the organization Dn not click links of open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Greetings, This message is to voice my support for the Daybreak project. 1 have lived in Fountain Hills for 6 years and plan on continuing to raise my family here. I am a Realtor with Sonoran Lifestyle and it is my feeling this project will increase our property values. I feel our community will benefit greatly from the population growth, construction revenues, and sales tax revenues the Daybreak project will provide. Kind Regards, John Weil REALTOR Estate Paula Woodward From: Julie Wemmert Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:53 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) ` This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not dick links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Julie Werntnert <' To: PC Z a fh.nz. o Cc: Bcc: Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 09:47:34 -0700 Subject: Daybreak Good morning, I have been living in the wonderful town of Fountain Hills for 8 years. Prior to that it was Mesa where I was born and raised. I have seen much growth in our community as others over the years. Some great and same not so great. Some of the people of Fountain Hills would love for their community to stay the way it is today but when we are true to ourselves we know this cannot happen. We must grow as a comm uni in that the people all want. ty so we are able to get the businesses I have read so many negative opinions and these are coming from people who do not want change. Our town needs a development like this. We need the taxes it will produce. We need the residents for our businesses. With more residents, we get more revenue, we get snore choices of businesses. We cannot stay a very small community and have the shopping/entertainment choices these residents want. When looking at everything. The good most definitely out weighs the bad. For the town, it is a great choice. That area will be developed one way or the other. It is up to you to decide if this is a good choice. I think it is. If you do not take something good that is in front of you then the next project may not be so good. The residents here are going to complain no matter what you do. Think what this project would do for the Frys shopping center and the Target Center. Wow. And the town will make moncy off the revenue. What a difference. Don't pass on son-iething great hoping for something better. We will miss out on $$$$$. Please think logically when you make this decision. <div dir="ltr" class----- Message truncated ----- 480-831-9800 480-831-9292 wkvw.1'ae.cbook-corn,lhi uejjja� Paula Woodward From: Hazel Cunningham Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:00 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Support Daybreak Project WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Just a short note to show our support for the Daybreak project. This project will be good for Fountain Hills. Something is going to be built there, we may as well choose this project which we know is run and supported by people who truly care about Fountain Hills. We don't want our town to become crowded and we do we want the beauty maintained, but to stop this project is not the answer. Please allow this project to move forward. Bill & Hazel Cunningham Paula Woodward From: Peggy Yeargain-Williams Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:22 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. I've been a homeowner in Fountain Hills since 1984, so I have seen many changes here. At first I was alarmed when my spacious neighborhood and wide open views began changing, but over the years I have come to realize that change is inevitable. Views change and traffic increases, but my lifestyle continues to be very good! I am impressed by the plans for Daybreak, and I encourage you to view it in a positive way. I know that a very vocal group is trying to stop it, but I feel sure they will adapt and be quite content once it is established. Thanks for your good work! Peggy Yeargain Sent from my iPad Paula Woodward From: Barry Alexa Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 7.22 AM To; Barry Alexa; Ginn Dicke , Art Tolis7 Mike Scharnow• Alan PgDaWvipeW;&==� Magazine; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; PZC (Commission); arissa Moore Cc: 'Ann Alexa Subject: RE: Daybreak Proposal #E3 This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Resending the below email clue to postponement of the July 27 P&Z meeting until September 9, From: Barry Alexa Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:24 PM To: dicke @fh_az. ov, atolis@fh.az.gov; ; mscharnow@fh.az.gov; arnagazine@fh.az.gov; dspelich@fh.az.gov; dbrown@fh.az.gov; leckrone@fh.az.gov; miller fh.az. ov zc fh. v az.gov Cc: Barry Alexa 'Ann Alexa WO Subject: Daybreak Proposal #3 Dear Fountain Hills Town Council & Zoning and Planning Commission, We would like to express our concerns/comments regarding the Daybreak project: o The General Plan (2010) of Fountain Hills in Chapter 3, Land Use Element, page 34, Goal Five states "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." The surrounding neighborhoods are all low density, high value single family homes. Daybreak is not a compatible neighbor with a potential 400-unit multi -family rental complex that would obliterate the beautiful hillside and take it down to street level. ® The current Zoning for this property is for Lodging, L-3 (General Plan, Chapter 2, page 16 and page 28, Figure 8) not for MFU (Multi -Family Unrestricted) and MFR (Multi -Family Restricted) use. This zoning should not be changed to anything other than low density, single family homes, if it is changed at all, so that it is compatible with the rest of the adjacent land use. Traffic and traffic safety is of utmost importance to all Fountain Hills residents, visitors or commuters who use Shea and/or Palisades Boulevards daily. This is an extremely busy intersection and one of 3 main arteries into the Town of Fountain Hills. There are over 15,390 cars per day on Palisades Blvd and the proposed Daybreak development could generate approximately 2500 trips daily with 148 generated during the AM peak hour and 178 during the PM peak hour alone! The proposed entrances/exits could lead to many traffic accidents and possible deaths due to blind corners. Fountain Hills is renowned for its pristine image and panoramic mountain views and vistas. This is the Gateway to Fountain Hills from the West and will not be the image that we want our town to represent. A rental complex at the entrance to this beautiful town with half million to multi -million dollar homes presently all around it is not cohesive with a `Beverly Hills of Arizona" mentality. The number of Zoning and Ordinance changes (at least 13) to accommodate this development is too many and will likely not be adhered to, like many of the other requested zoning changes from other developments that the Town of Fountain Hills council has approved in the past few years. i.e. Park Place, the apartment building downtown that does not represent Fountain Hills architectural structures. ® There are over 60 vacancies throughout Fountain Hills for rental apartments, condos and/or homes. Do we need additional empty rental apartment complexes at the gateway? o Traffic flow presents safety concerns; traffic flow will increase traffic congestion; we want a `Town Traffic Engineer' to do a traffic study, not a developer traffic study; police presence? o Esthetics; the style should blend in with existing neighborhoods for gateway to Fountain Hills; multi -story buildings do not. Project violates the FH General Plan requirement (Chapter 3, Goal 5), to "preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses". Rental property should not be at entrance of Fountain Hills; if this type of development is favored, keep the density in more favorable areas (i.e. by the fountain, downtown). m The massive amounts of cut and fill contradicts the group working with the topography and slope; if they are using that tactic, why not cut 40' to minimize the impact on surrounding existing houses; if that's an issue, keep it at two stories. Exterior lighting should be a concern; what will happen to the dark sky initiative Hotel vs Daybreak- * Violating OSR and 11 acres of HPE areas by moving entrance / exit roads outside of the 25 acres o Eliminating the traffic light that was for safer transition from hotel to southbound lanes o Increased traffic on Palisades with completion of CopperWynd (+268 rooms) and Adero Canyon (+103 houses). Daybreak would add an additional 400 residences. Waivers o Building height 40' vs. 30' o Major areas of OSR o Cut and fill way beyond ordinances Zoning change vs the General Plan o Apartments not fitting existing surrounding communities o Destruction of the look of Fountain Hills main portal — curb appeal ® What is the timeframe for development: construction and noise for surrounding communities? Please attach this email to the Staff Report". Sincerely, Bar and Ann Alexa �E. Hillside Dr. Westridge Village Paula Woodward From: DT Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 7:29 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: in support of Daybreak apartments This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click kriFs or open attachments unless you have vei ified the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I'm writing to show support of the Daybreak apartments, We've recently moved to FH and really want to see the city grow and flourish, which we can only do by bringing in new residents. New citizens will bring in additional taxes revenue and help bring businesses back to the commercially zoned areas . We fully support it. Sincerely, Wand Angela Trivedi E Acacia Way Paula Woodward From: Andi Bell Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 9:17 AM To: Ginny Dickey; Sherry Leckrone; Dennis Brown; Alan Magazine; Mike 5charnow; David Spelich; Art Tolis; PZC (Commission) Subject: Opinion Letter re: Daybreak Attachments: TIMES Opinion Daybreak.doc This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe TO: Fountain Hills Town Council and Planning & Zoning: Merely a FYI: There are so many mis-informed opinions about rezoning the land at Palisades and Shea Blvd that I wrote the informative Opinion Letter, attached, about the positive aspect of rezoning to multi residential a.k.a. Daybreak. It is to be in The Times newspaper on 8/28/19. Thank -you! And! Bell PN. Northstar Drive oufflain Hills, AZ 85268 Paula Woodward Proms: judy hipper Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 7:48 AM To: Ginny Dickey; eburke@fh.ountain; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; John Wesley; Marissa Moore; PZC (Commission); Michael & Michelle Webb; Judy Hines; Scott Soldat-Vanlenzuela; Elizabeth Burke Subject- Day Break This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have ver€fled the sender and know the content is safe. The developers want very much for the Town of Fountain Hills and the surrounding communities to welcome their proposed Day Break, which will consist of 400 rental units in numerous three- story buildings. To the developers, Mr. Hall and Mr, Ginsberg: Why not offer something to the community and neighbors in your plans to build Day Break. Here are some suggestions: Tree -lined desert landscaped walking paths that are open to the surrounding residents (perhaps you could install one or two drinking fountains), a state of the art fitness center that includes a large heated swimming pool with one or two lap lanes that would be open to surrounding residents on a membership -basis, a designated conservation open area to accommodate the rabbits, javelina, mule deer, bob cats, coyotes, tarantulas, gekos, birds, and snakes. etc that will be displaced from their natural habitat (you could even add a few natural water sources for them), gently replant the many huge old forest suguaros cactus that you will uproot, architecture more in keeping with the surrounding structures rather than the green -brown -gray painted exteriors shown on your presentation postern, and how about some kind of "bridge" . or underground passway so that the wild life could pass from the Day Break acreage and safely get across Palisades, and be able to continue tluu the Summit at Crestview on up into the higher Crestview Hills. This letter needs to be attached to the Staff Report. Judith Hippner The Summit at Crestview Paula Woodward From: Stacie Storey Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 4:49 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak development This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachrneats unies5 you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom it May Concern, 1 am very impressed with Mr. Jeremy Hall and MCO properties proposal and commitment to set aside more than HALF the land purchased for development here in Fountain Hills. Someone will build on this site. Lets support the developer who will maintain habitat, room for wildlife and integrity of the town. I have read the complaints and understand the concerns against this development. We all want to be the last one in. However, bringing more money "to" FH is support for emergency services, local businesses and the city as a whole. 1 request the counsel consider what is in the best interest of the community as a whole and move forward united in this. 1 also request that serious consideration be given to Mr. Hall and his development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Stacie Morgan Fountain Hills, Az DocuSign Envelope ID, 87BD5C33-9237-4637-9B41-2E4668215061 .5pfiPripil e sty 1-1 me o c R E A L T Y Ueher t Realty & Associates Dear Fountain Ifills Plamiirnf Commission And Toren C-'oum-il, We are the prin(Jpal real estate brokt-rs nl"Sonoran Lifestyle Real Estate, MCO Realty and Kelk-her Realty- & A sociates with over SO real estate professionals c•tdIe(-u%J In Fountailt 1"fills- We would like to voice our support fnr the Daybreak project coming beli)tu roll for consideration. Fountain ]fill; need, this project. There• is a sh,,riage (A rt•lltal Ilotlsitlg, Will this site in particular- is well-:uitc.d for it. I'here are thousands of potential resident, passing through Fountain Hill as they cornmute lact«'eeu jabs in north St-oltsdale anc I-Wch'.mnl culllmtinitict< in the east valley whtr,• ltausing is mork. varied and affordabl(,. Thou prnply should he her,% supporting our shops, husineij v,•, .:,hools and our tuu n gcr. ornmem with the rental taxes it will p,rwratc. C?ncr a part of the 1.1hric of die Community, these residents xill be murli more likel)' tea stay in otlr tc vtLn u ben thei.'re rE,ada- for the 1111rc-liaCQ of a h(mile. \Vv 1-11 ---o the project is attractively designed and very sensitive to the onvirimment. Thk r. t-"aC'tl5' the hind of pr-clleci that should %i'Clromt' m!m mArlents 141 Fnlulitaln I fills. I his will K. all imprr:,vemcllt ovt-r- the eurmid'v-planned cimfrrenc:e hotel, which could he negatively impac-tful to nearby neighborhoods. One need look nn furthvt than the struogle, that other c-vont centered hotels laic with dwir nei�lthors to scr that We urge YOU to approve the Daybreak project a: a vital and i rlc-nnit ldfliti(lll tO l ourltain Hills. �Eliiel'l lv, on wittrig President & Desigoated broker SOrloran L fe.st)le Neill Estate �Dvcu5igMCI by: oorss> sK E3t91 1: L I lchcr �ii-ve Vargo President & Design to I Broker MC'O Realty Pr, s-I nt 8, Designated Broker Kelleher Recilty R Asseciares Paula Woodward From: Andi Be! Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:30 PM To: PZC (Commission); John Wesley Subject: Daybreak Project This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. I would appreciate if my very positive opinion about the proposed Daybreak development at Palisades and Shea could please be read and remembered. I am a 37 year long resident of Fountain Hills, a City Planner, and a 33 year long Fountain Hills Associate Real Estate Broker. I believe that the proposed Daybreak project is very positive addition for this Town for both its use of the land and for the high demand of the renting residents. The density and building heights will be less than the already accepted proposed resort. Briefly, the developer has a great deal of experience building in Fountain Hills and I do trust that the development will be done very attractively as the first impression upon entrance to our Town or passing bye it at Shea and Palisades Blvd. Thank -you! Andi Bell / Associate Broker MCO Realty 480.837.0090 From the Findin to the Funding & Beyond O E 1 Paula Woodward from: Cathy Kaegi Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 2:08 PM To: PZC (Commission); Ginny Dickey Subject: STOP Re -Zoning Request This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Dickey and Planning & Zoning Commission: We are newer condo owners in Fountain Hills and a few of the things that attracted us to the area was the not totally visible huge multi -family developments and the beauty of the mountains. The pending Shea & Palisades Gateway re -zoning request will diminish the beauty of Fountain Hills; plus the thought of having to remove part of a mountain is unthinkable! Not to mention the increase in traffic on an already busy Shea Blvd. STOP this request! Keep the toning as is! Daniel and Catherine Kaegi juh 5, 2019 f'C):.lcrcmv Hall and NL-d (,ioshc•rg I RONI: I ounrAll I {ilk (. ;hainhc•r, lioard of IJircc toss RL: Paybrtalc I'rojcct 11:31- ICI-CLIIA' and NciI, '111,111k vt,tl for pl-cscntin- the DaybrcA ruojc,r ditrinp the C:li,irlibcr's `larch l,rtakf i:t and ru the Board of D11-coorS a[ the April 019 111, '[im, WC lllld tic projccr to bC I10101`K'i:il ftJr' 1:,lu 1lain I lilkS Gild Coll%"' (,tlr Aipport for II ovine, ftll'Wal-d. Our in€,- rest lies in ncc follrnt inf; • ( }vcrall hcigh[ and concern fr r edi[1310 mailltaillin vicws. 1 • MiX 11Sl of residcnco for a`_',: restrlE[,'d :Intl Imn-,l'l' R'S1 rlcu. living. Separmc outdoor 5paccs 4clr Ilntll of rc.idcnr'. Adding ro Ow tvail:d,lc allarrntcnl invcnutt-) in I otntLai II l{ills. • ProNinlit) co Shcl Blvd. for o,mmulc•r trafli�. • C:ontrihutioue ro the Isnvtl", tag has'.. PVC hc•li'AC rhr 1:';I)4�Hk of ho[11 dcvclopc•rs Will rxccllCtIE resin[, fOr i"ounr,lill I -fills and r6 iircure rCSid'-1)ts cif d1lprrljVct. Sincc-rck, 2I118-11) l'ooma'in Hills(:hanlhcr BOM'd of Di1VCt0rS ..� 480.8,1 .1654 FOUNTAIN HILLS %"%,W.FotlrltainHill sChambc:r.cum rlrrr,rrllrr, nfr,i„rr+tFrlE' (� IFounrainHillsC,hamhc:r Paula Woodward From: Linda Kavanagh Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 9:15 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Project Daybreak Attachments: Daybreak letter to the P & Z Commissioners July 25, 2019.pdf WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. July 25, 2019 Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission Dear Commissioner Coming up before you is the project, Daybreak, a project that I believe will be good for the town as a whole. It will bring more full-time residents to live here, something that our small business community has been longing for since I moved here twenty-five years ago. They need more people to survive. This is not a new fact. You know it quite well as residents involved in the community like myself. But there will be a lot of opposition at your meeting tonight and subsequently through letters to the editor in the Times later on. I went to the meeting where the developers presented Daybreak for the first time_ Most of those, if not all, who attended were either from Crestview or Westridge Estates. At first there were a lot of legitimate questions concerning traffic, congestion, egress, and general safety for the surrounding homes. Even though those questions were answered adequately, those attending were not satisfied. The meeting then finally got down to what the residents really were objecting to about this project.... their view, an ever present complaint when a property that has lain dormant for so long faces development. One woman finally summed up the true feelings of the group, and I judge that by the amount of applause she got after stating ... I built a million dollar home and I have to look down on that? But what shocked me the most, and saddened me, was what she added .... And what kind of people will live there? As if renters are some kind of abhorrent people who shouldn't be allowed to live in Fountain Hills? Do we not have room in our community for those who can't afford million dollar homes? When the original plan for the resort hotel was shown to the people present as the other side of the coin, something that could be built there, one man summed up to great applause.... We'll hedge that bet. I'm sure there is some tweaking that needs to be done to the project that ensures the safety of the nearby residents as well as the rest of us who will use that road. That comes with any project and needs to be done. But should a project be rejected just because those living nearby don't like it? I've faced that scenario many times as mayor but always tried to keep the big picture in mind. What's best for the whole of our community? I appreciate your time reading my comments and concerns. Good luck at your meeting tonight and thank you for serving our community as commissioners. Respectfully, Linda Kavanagh Paula Woodward From: Alice Reese Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 6:48 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak multi family rental units WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. To the Members of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Committee I am writing to you regarding my concern about the possibility of the building of a 400 unit multi family rental complex at the corner of Palisades and Shea Boulevard in Fountain Hills. This is a very busy intersection and adding this number of units to the vicinity will create an even busier vehicular situation This is also one of only three arteries leading into our town and it is an exceptionally beautiful drive into our city. There are many other areas within the city where an apartment complex might be added without ruining the views for people coming to our city. It is also an area of very expensive single family residences and a rental complex of this size would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. I believe this area is not zoned for multiple rental units and l would urge you to not change the zoning to allow for a big development of this kind in that location. Alice Reese Fountain Hills AZ This letter needs to be attached to the Staff Report Paula Woodward From: Michelle Webb Sent: Tuesday, July 2$ 2019 434 PM To: PZC (Commission) u: Glnny Oickey. Alan Magasina. Mike Sc'harnow Sherry Leckron,, David Spelith, Ilen 64 Brown, i Webb ICE Subjxl: 5:,-1 of Daybreak Attachments P & Z kept Analysis comments.xlsx This email oFwnated from outside of the organization. Do not dick links or ape, attachment, un€— You have verified the sender and know the content is safe Good Afternoon Chairman Dempster and Commissioners I know you have been given a tremendous task of reading through the Daybreak materials along with the other agenda items I noted that the 2nd Submittal was not included in the packet you racelved, which had many comments and changes asked for by the P & Z department to the Developers. This was a very telling Piece of what was asked for and what was given, or not given for that matter, by the developers in the 3rd submittal_ There is an allachment to [his email of an Excel spreadsheet by the P & Z department (a summary per se) of the 2nd Submittal Domments. VERY GOOD & SUCCINCT Below is the Google link (due to it's large volume) to the full 2nd Sobmiitaf with the comments handwritten in it. Just FYI. DAYBREAi, PAD 2ND SUB,pdf DAYBREAK PAD 2ND S11S.pdf And here is a very SUCCINCT comparison of 2nd vs 31 Submittals that I have noted These are the 4 items that they responded to in the 3rd Submittal 1. The developers elimirated the assisted living_ However, that being said, while I was leading the 454 page agenda A seems the assisted living rould potentially be resurrected. On page 221 under Development Plan, Lot18 "Living assistance Is allowed" and on page 247 Lot 1 B "Living asshtance is allowed, but not intended at present' If the developers are given approval, (hey will do whatever they want with that option_ 2 The developers added a walking trail on the East side of the complex. 3 The developers put a small rooftop garden in the middle or the 600' 3-story MFR apartment 4. The developers put a sidewalk from the MFR to the MFU Sadly, they did not do anylhing or comment about all of the other egregious Issues. i 6uilding Hoight and Lergih above General Plan standards 2 Traffic safety issues commented upon by the Town Engineer and an enlmncelexit only Epp feet from Shea on a blind cornor_ 3 Cuts. fills and slope variances that are way too much per Generaf Plan standards 4 Parking numbers that are considerably under General Plan standards 5. The density incorrectly calculated If calculated on 59.79 acres, then it is a Major General Plan amendment not Minor: if calculated on 23 06 acres if Is the highest density of any development In Fountain Hills presently- 17.6 vs 6.7 units per acre 6. Miscalculation of OSRJHPE land The developer claims 801 Open Space However, 59.79 acres - 23. 04 = 36.56 acres 159 79 acres = 61.3 % So how do they get 80%? 7. Potentially killing hundreds of saguaros that won't nrako the re -planting process while infiltinq a culvert With almost 5 acres of HPEIQBR land. Again against General Plan 8 Ciesboying a hillside that buffers sound and adds beauty to our Westefn Gateway to Fountain Hills and the cuts go way below General Plan standards 9 A few (there are many more) of the General Plan oh}ecbves disregarded. a Prowl and Freseive surrounding neighborhuods with slmi{ar adjacent land use b. Continue to prvserve open space and maintain strict guidelines for the cunsarvation of natural resources. o. Areas of envirunmental sonsitivily eocur throughout the Town of Fountain Hills In order to respect the environmentally sensitive nature of all lands within the Town as the Land Use Plan Is implemented, careful consideration should he given to policies that require a more sensitive treatment of the built environment for all land use classifications I hope this helps to make all of this information dsgeshble and helps you to truly make a decision that is'in the best interest of the Town and it's Residents Kind Regards, Michelle Vlehb TRAFFIC. TRIP GENEIIATION COMPARISON FOR TOTAL BU I LE OUT FOR BOTH OFVELOPMENTS TOTAL DAILY TRIPS AM PEAK TOTAL PM PEAK TOTAL 2ORIVLWAYS OAYDREAk 250U vpd l4Rvph I]Evph F.H. CONFERENCE 6 RLSORI 2299vpd 172IDh '82 'Ph No"", , "' i...Iv.F-4" NORTH ENRRANCE NONRESTRICTED NORTH AM PEAK TOTAL NORTH PM PEAK TOTAL MY R RFAk 59 rph ]2 vph F.H. CONFERENLF ARFSnRr 145 vph 154 WI, SOUTH ENTRANCE SOUTH AM FEAKTOTAL SOUTH PM PEAK TOTAL OAYRAEAK (rIO>•feslrKtedl 89 rph 107vph F.H. CONFERENCES RESORT(FL ID Hit a Nj 2]uph 2Y vph G,-M-l", Chapin; [aM Vse Element ..... . ..... .. Ih ....... YI-111-1- -wl . ... . pem A,x+nrrwren fhelp,w:, Inr Pm➢e•[vcvxe•5.+ergxr r➢mmymryaraw+,r.rJFxe.x,+nrw,wn�r!•s Rae aer:•Pe laprr.••ur•ne.s ,tldch wn, inn nr txe nta},Lsno:•slm the firs reset o4n, based uh na eexl.rx•mme'uu, ar well ss Nt aaxPt[d��eN:>pment ngrta+,om,Fx n�n+r wr me nma•proraclrl!lwniux, L j 4 1., 1 1,,,d 1 1, memo! rho N,bl,,k FAa n incarilet y h the W and II ft L-1 11, end the 111,Ig 1� I ru TIIIA A. I h, T, pL .1, 5p— .. ... .... .... 1r, F,ds I p, rl, lhe Ill-"k c b, 1­111M 1. be e4:tv.ai••e-angtlxnr, ­11 Y dhe .....»sAie Iron... . z,a —rd 77 Ile Chaplet xEnw The lleyb—k PAb 0, L,., I h,,,& , 10— When evalua 1 mg, f ,t,,s.ft 'd.— zone d h,, 7 h, u 1,11 bl1l. 1saconzSransano f mll,rg elemen is 1. um prcuruusiy appr oven d.—P—1 -, —, — . h, Rand-14— cntGrla, -ivb,.k is a ",4-1cr, mnrr nrerKa usr. than 0 p ...... ly P,,",,d —P—., 1, 41- 'I"s—dy n documents shot -H — he --d W We ,bk P&Z C--- and TCounul EXISTING PROPOSED 11TgaCNS SCTUAC S Zonerq j_., JI'l ORQp Sth, —1 -an, Al j G "I. , 46 "I Ord d 9D 23 I WD klh R �p lone 2.7 Q 39� 2911 75 161 0[ 5w�ljohi) po'.f �IcKbl low pcwI ct�.71E 0- 36 al.. fi , 5al x 7[ Q ;; Rd 1 1— 7r107 13 1 71 U41 2691 11.65 3 1 29 jco] 46 36 601 Ind q LOI 2 la M o3�l a K 0 46 15 - 339 01 al'. 1- k J- M—Imm UsyhreaN has the d Qayhreak has the : s—.t d to, [.ye—P t f)ayhllaN has IM1e least amonni nIF ..... . "p, ., 13 a Zt, h, 5 g,,,W—U ,L , f units p, w,,d.t430 :k dvb:, k h,, —Fl- f—ty- sdt,. , a, 30 1- �h: vI,­k Ilan 5rd, Y,,d setback t IQ#— =0 ,eak his rhe 1111WI-1 yarn sethaz4 a, to F­ D MI�'',ISCO1".""" PUD h"' 22" :kh:—b., ,,ek Ilan W L.."hd at 30 feet, Daybreak has Lh. greaust amount .1f,11 regwstetl .111 P-1 b`W-19 kmlo --­ reef a Non habitable illhl—LIIIII f—,- —0, m,w-,—b -0 1135 Fe1.1 11 filigN al meafured fl— —1--9 911,h, adt, whichever is lowe• b Or Ih,gh; 11 the abutsmg blid,I&IIII plane, ,h- hpr,zonta..........mustbeat lean egad ro Lha .enrwl height of [ha M1igheu atliau.lt dillJnB h- 40f-t Paula Woodward From: DONALD SCHULTZ < Sent: Wednesday, Jufy 24, 2419 1:40 PM To: boik, mathew; Dennis Brown; dININIIIIIINWempster, susan; Ginny Dickey; PZC (Commission); hansen, erik; hives, Judy; Jones, christopher; Sherry Leckrone; Alan Magazine; Grady Miller; Mike Scharnow; schlossberg, scoff; David Spelich; Art Tofis; webb, michelle; John Wesley Subject: Daybreak 1n�A�{P4iitiv This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Dear Mayor, Council Members and Zoning Commission, Tomorrow is a day on which you must make an important decision rather to approve, or disapprove, a 400 apartment complex at the picturesque entrance to our Town. We are very much against this development, and the traffic nightmare it would cause at an already busy intersection. We urge you to vote "no" on this proposal. Thank you, Don and Marti Schultz The Summitt I Paula Woodward From: Linda Wilk Sera: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 6:22 PM To: PZC (Commission); Marissa Moore; John Wesley; Grady Miller; sleckrone@fh.az.go; Dennis Brown; David Spelich; Alan Magazine; Mike Scharnow; Art Tolis; Ginny Dickey Cc: Linda T, Wilk; Peter Wilk Subject: Daybreak Development....This letter needs to be attached to the Staff Report This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe "This letter needs to be attached to the Staff Report" Dear Commissioners, Town Council, and Planning and Zoning: We have been property owners since 1998! We love this town! For the future of our town, please review, deep in your hearts, the requests the developers are asking for and the waivers which are out of scope of the town's General Plan. Common sense and logic should tell you that this is a bad development proposition for this location. We are not opposed to development but this is pristine property and this is not the best location for this type of development for our town! Please think of the future of our town! Traffic and traffic safety - we live in this area, if you are driving between 3-7, it is amazing. We have been reviewing how people are driving for the last few months and even if you put your directional on in plenty of time prior to your turn, you don't know if the person behind you is going to end up in your backseat. Even with plenty of warning, drivers are not slowing down! I don't understand the driving techniques but you are taking your life in your own hands. The proposed entrances/exits are just accidents waiting to happen. There are no planned traffic controls. Fountain Hills is renowned for its pristine image and panoramic mountain views and vistas. This is the western Gateway to Fountain Hills and should not be the image that we want our town to represent. A rental complex at the entrance to this beautiful town with half million to multi -million dollar homes presently all around it is not cohesive with the General Plan. The General Plan (2010) of Fountain Hills in Chapter 3, Land Use Element, Goal Five states "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." The surrounding neighborhoods are all low density, high value, single family homes. Daybreak is not a compatible neighbor with a 400-unit multi -family rental complex that would obliterate the beautiful hillside and take it down to street level. The current Zoning for this property is for Lodging, L-3 not for Multi -Family Unrestricted and Multi -Family Restricted use_ The number of zoning ordinances, changes and General Plan amendments (at least 13) to accommodate this development is excessive and many more than other development projects within our community. These developers are very familiar with Fountain Hills although they do not live here! The developers ignored the residents wishes and the P&Z departments many comments for amendment to the application submittal. Why are we allowing developers dictate out of scope General Plan requirements? Do we need additional empty apartments and vacancies within the community and make it a bigger ghost town at the entrance as well as the downtown area? Again, we ask you to decline and oppose the development of the Daybreak project! As a community, there is a better way to make Fountain Hills the best place to live! >------------------------- < Linda and Peter Wilk RMRosemont Court ountaln Hills AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Sent: ues ay, Ju y 23, 2019 11:53 AM To: PZC (Commission); Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; John Wesley; mmore@fh.az.gov; Subject: Daybreak Proposal This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Dear Zoning & Planning Commission and Town Council Members, We are against you approving the Daybreak Multi -Family Rental Complex on the NE corner of Shea and Palisades for the following reasons. There are three developments that exit onto Palisades near Shea. They are Crestview, the Summit at Crestview and Westridge Village consisting of almost 200 homes. If Daybreak is allowed there will be over 600 households exiting onto Palisades within one-third of a mile. There are also five communities within one-half mile of Shea. There are already over 15,390 cars per day on Palisades, and the proposed Daybreak entranceslexits could generate approximately 2,500 more cars daily. What are the planned traffic controls? It seems to us this extra excessive traffic may lead to many traffic accidents due to blind corners and no traffic lights. Shea and Palisades is an extremely busy intersection, and a main entrance into the Town of Fountain Hills that is aesthetically beautiful with panoramic mountain views. It is the western gateway to Fountain Hills from Scottsdale, and a rental complex at the entrance to our beautiful town with half a million to multi -million dollar low density homes is not cohesive to the area. The current zoning for this property is for Lodging, L-3, not for Multi -Family Unrestricted or Multi -Family Restricted use. If zoning is to be changed, it should be changed to low density, single family homes compatible with the rest of the adjacent =and use. The General Plan of Fountain Hills in Chapter 3, Goal Five is to "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses. This rental development would be an eyesore for surrounding property owners and Palisades traffic as well. In addition, the developers are asking for many zoning ordinance changes and amendments. They have ignored the P & Z Department's comments and the surrounding residents wishes. Is there really a need for another rental complex in Fountain Hills, and, if so, why is it not being built in an area where other rental units are located? Are the existing rental apartments filled or are there still many vacancies in these existing rentals? We see no need for an additional rental development being built in this upscale, low density area. Thank you for your consideration, and we urge you to turn down this development plan located at Shea and Palisades This letter needs to be attached to the Staff Report Sincerely, David & Kathleen Quinlan Paula Woodward From: Marissa Moore Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 11:13 AM To: Paula Woodward; John Wesley Subject: FW: Daybreak Development - Traffic Safety Concerns - "Please attach this letter to the Staff Report." From: Larry Goldstein Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 7:36 AM To: pzc@fh.gov.org; Ginny Dickey <gdickey@fh.az.gov>; Art Tolis <atolis@fh.az.gov>; Mike Scharnow <mscharnow@fh.az.gov>; Alan Magazine <amagazine@fh.az.gov>; David Spelich <dspelich@fh.az.gov>; Dennis Brown <dbrown@fh.az.gov>; Sherry Leckrone <sleckrone@fh.az.gov>; Grady Miller <gmiller@fh.az.gov>; Marissa Moore <mmoore@fh.az.gov> Subject: Daybreak Development - Traffic Safety Concerns - "Please attach this letter to the Staff Report." This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear P & Z Members, Madam Mayor, and Town Council Members, I am sending this email as a follow-up to my original email on March 8, 2019. In that email l detailed several concerns that I have with the proposed project. One of those concerns is about serious and possibly fatal traffic accidents that will surely result from the main entrance to Daybreak being so close to the Shea & Palisades intersection. Since writing the email I have personally experienced a near collision in this intersection due to the exact circumstances that will occur if the main entrance is put there. Recently, I was coming home from the Fry's Supermarket at 6:00 pm, at the peak of rush hour. As I approached the Palisades intersection I noticed that both left turn (northbound) lanes were almost full of cars waiting for the left green arrow. There was one remaining open spot in the #2 left turn lane so I took it and waited. After 30 seconds or so the left green arrow appeared and in both left turn lane the cars began to move forward. When I entered the intersection the left green arrow was still going. After entering the intersection as I begun to turn the steering wheel to the left all of the cars in both left turn lanes stopped suddenly. So l just sat there in the center of the intersection waiting for at least 7 seconds as the left green arrow continued. About 2 seconds after the left arrow turned yellow the traffic in both northbound Palisades lanes started moving forward very slowly. Knowing that I was stuck out in the middle of the intersection with the westbound Shea through traffic light about to turn green I had to act quickly. As the car in front of me started to move forward so did 1, and got much closer to that car's rear bumper than I should have been. At this point both cars were directly in front of the westbound Shea lanes, and there were no cars waiting at the light to go westbound. Because this intersection sits on a hill, the line of site looking east on Shea is very limited. You cannot see if there are any cars coming up the westbound hill, and when they do they are traveling at high speed (50-65 mph). I was extremely fearful that I was going to get slammed into by a westbound Shea driver, and was doing everything I could to get out of there. I was still out there crawling forward hugging the bumper of the car in front of me when my left turn arrow turned red, and the eastbound and westbound through traffic lights went solid green. All cars continued to move forward turning left very slowly bumper to bumper, and within a second or two my car was almost in front of the westbound right -turn only lane on Shea. There were no cars in that lane turning northbound onto Palisades so l was somewhat safe, but the rear end of my car was still dangerously close to the through traffic lanes. A second later there were multiple westbound Shea cars going very fast within inches of the back of my car, I could not take my eyes off the car in front of me for fear of hitting him from behind, but I also saw in my rear view mirror how close these cars were to me as they raced by_ Once my turn was complete I could see the traffic in the right lane was moving forward slower than the traffic in the center lane, and that the cars in the right lane were merging to the center lane. Since it was rush hour the center lane was also full of cars so this merging process was much slower than usual. When t reached the Valley Vista Drive, which is the entrance to the Summit and the proposed location of the main entrance to Daybreak, I was finally able to see the cause of all this. A vehicle was stopped in the northbound right lane directly across from the main entrance of The Summit. The vehicle had its hazard lights on and the driver was out of the car on the phone, presumably calling for help. The vehicle was sitting in the exact spot that the developers of Daybreak want to put their main entrance. My immediate thought was that if one single stalled car could cause that kind of traffic stoppage, what would it be like having multiple cars slowing down and turning in all directions at the combined Daybreak & Summit main entrances? Even if there is a right turn only lane made for Daybreak and a signal light, the effect on traffic movement will be substantial. To my fellow FH residents who are on this committee, there is simply not enough distance between the Shea & Palisades intersection and the proposed entrance. My experience will be relived over and over again every day by others. If you live here you have probably made the same left turn that I have just described many times. Think for a moment about my experience, and put yourself in the driver's seat. This could happen to you if the entrance to Daybreak is on Palisades Blvd. My personal opinion is that there will be fatalities because gas tanks are usually in the back of vehicles, and when impacted by another vehicle at high speed they can explode. "Please attach this letter to the Staff Report." Respectfully, ,dot a Larry Goldstein, CLU, ChFC, RHU, REBC, CASL Cell From: Larry Goldstein Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 11:33 AM To: 'gdickey@fh.az.gov' <gdickey@fh.az.gov> Cc:'mscharnow@fh.az.gov'<mscharnow@fh.az.gov>;'amagazine@fh.az.gov' <amagazine@fh.az.gov>; 'dspelich@fh.az.gov' <dspelich@fh.az.gov>; 'atolis@fh.az.gov' <atolis@fh.az.aov>; 'dbrown@fh.az.gov' <dbrown@fh.az.gov>;'sleckrone@fh.az.gov' <sleckrone@fh.az,go >;'gmiller@fh.az.gov' <gmiller ,fh.az.gov>; 'rrodgers@fh.az_gov' <rrodgers@th.az.gov>; 'mmoore@fh.az.gov' <mmoore@fh.az.gov> Subject: Daybreak Development Dear P & Z Members, I am a current and long-time resident of Westridge Village. My wife Barbara and I have lived here since 2003, It's a special neighborhood in what we feel is the best part of the metro area to live in, Fountain Hills. am writing regarding the Daybreak project. I attended a meeting on February 25, 2019 that was advertised by the developer as a reception to present development plans for the Daybreak project. What I heard is that the plan was to build a 400-unit multi -family rental complex with a 3-story apartment for 55+ and a 30-bed assisted living facility. I am compelled to state my opinion to the P&Z members that this location is the absolute worst place to put this type of development. The northeast corner of Shea and Palisades is the Gateway to our fine town. When you come up the hill from Scottsdale and approach Palisades that beautiful corner is our town's "point of first impression". The prominent waterfall grabs your attention and the preserve behind it with Four Peaks beyond is perfect. The Daybreak project will destroy the hilltop and wreck the natural beauty of the preserve below it. This will forever diminish the appeal of our western entrance. A rental complex with an assisted living facility as the first few images into the Town of Fountain Hills is not the image that we want our town to represent. Placing this high -density mixed -use apartment & assisted living development right across the street from Firerock, Crestview, Summit and surrounded by single family homes with view lots will look ridiculous and out of place. The surrounding neighborhoods are all low -density, high -value single family homes. Daybreak is not a compatible neighbor with a 400-unit multi -family rental complex with a 3-story apartment for 55+ and a 30-bed assisted living facility. The current Zoning for this property is for Lodging (General Plan, Chapter 2, page 16) not for high density multi -family use. This zoning should not be changed to anything other than low -density single-family homes if it is changed at all so that it is compatible with the rest of the adjacent land use. Further, the increase in the number of cars and traffic caused by the main entrance being so close to Shea will create more problems in ghat is already a very scary (high speed & limited line of sight) intersection oi_Shea _& Palisades. The proposed entrances exits could lead to many traffic accidents and possible deaths due to blind corners and the age of those in the multi -fa iii/a e restricted 55+ apartment. I am also quite concerned with the apparent distortion and mischaracterization of historical data being used by the developer. At the start of the February 25, 2019 presentation the first thing they told us was that since our Homeowners association had over 15 years ago approved a potential convention hotel development plan, that we were somewhat obliged to approve the Daybreak project. The presenters felt that their rentals/assisted living development would be "better than a hotel" and therefore we should be fine with it. To substantiate their position, they presented a letter from 2006 signed by our then board President and inferred that it was the proof that we had approved the hotel in its entirety. This inference is not accurate. While Westridge Village was not happy with the proposed hotel plan, we recognized the reality of tax revenue producing land development and social progress so we were working with the developer and its architect to minimize the impact on Westridge and the surrounding area. Where we left it with them was that the developer was going to place the taller hotel structure down the hill and the single -story condos at the top of the hill. Following that period of negotiation, due to the downturn in the economy and other issues the hotel project was suspended. To be clear, my position is not anti -development. However, I feel very strongly that it must be the right kind of development for this particular location. Daybreak is not it! ""Pie use attach this letter to the Staff Report." Respectfully, .Lr" q%a&Gateuc Larry Goldstein, CLU, ChFC, RHU, REBC, CASL Cell 3 Paula Woodward From: Sharon M Latham Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 6:36 PM To: Ginny Dickey, Art Tolis; Mike 5charnow, Alan Magazine; David Speech; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; PZC (Commission); mrrm000re@fh.az.gov Cc: John Wesley Subject: Ere: Opposition to the Development of Daybreak as Proposed FAWRNIN4G This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not dick links or open attachments unless you have verified esender and know the content is safe On Jul 21, 2019, at 7:30 PM, Sharon M Latham wrote: July 20,2019 To All Members of the Town Council and Planning and Zoning for the Town of Fountain Hills, My husband and I lived in Scottsdale for twelve years before moving to Fountain Hills. I would always love driving up to Fountain Hills to enjoy the beautiful vistas and the hometown ambiance of the town. Eight years ago, after looking for a home for several years, we found our dream home at the Summit at Crestview. Our agent informed us the property directly across from us was for sale and it was zoned for a resort style hotel that would be built on the opposite side of the hill. This is the saute Hillside that Daybreak plans to demolish. Since I am on the east coast for the summer and unable to voice my opinion in person at the July 25th P&Z meeting I am writing to you today. The General Plan states that changing land use designations should be considered thoroughly and a change made only when the proposal is in harmony with the Plan and will provide an equal or better development for the Town. The General Plan states Protect and Preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses. The surrounding neighborhoods are low density, high value, single family homes. Daybreak is not a compatible neighbor with a potential 400 unit multi -family rental complex that would obliterate the beautiful hillside and take it down to street level. Daybreaks request to change land uses to Multi -Family should be developed with exceptional design, enhanced site amenities, extensive landscaped setbacks from collector roadway corridors and controlled access to the arterial roadway corridor. The proposed Daybreak plan offers no design aesthetics at all. It is similar to Park Place on the Avenue of the Fountains. And we all know what an atrocious design disaster that is. Daybreak also plans to Jam the development right smack on Palisades with very little buffer between the road and the buildings. There is approximately 100 feet of buffer on the west side of Palisades. Much more fitting with the Town's General Plan. The developer also misleads us by stating their plan is less dense than the resort plan. That is because they figure the density on the whole parcel not the much smaller buildable land. Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC, which I prefer to relate to as Demolish Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC, proposes many benefits for demolishing the beautiful Hillside at the Western Gateway to what may becorne our not so beautiful town. All of these so called benefits ONLY benefit the developers. Laughingly, they state that another benefit of the significant cut to the property is to MAINTAIN Views for residents to the west. Demolishing the Hillside does nothing to maintain the views. It totally OBLITERATES THEM.!'. Testing for the 30 feet of blasting/excavation of the Hillside needs to be done before this obliteration is approved. Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC seems to be dancing around this issue. Please put this to rest_ The damage to surrounding homes, wildlife, and Palisades itself could be enormous. My husband and I will be flying back home from the east coast for two days just so we can personally attend the Town Council Meeting on August 13th. It's ironic to me that all public meetings pertaining to Daybreak are in the heat of the summer when most residents are elsewhere. We welcome members of the the Town Council and Planning and Zoning to our home to see for yourselves the negative impact Daybreak will have if approved. Please contact me and I will arrange entry at your convenience. Please include this letter to the Staff Report. Thank you for your considerations. Respectfully, Sharon M. Latharn Ma N. Sonora Vista in Hills, AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Grady Miller Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 1 1:20 AM To: Elizabeth Burke; Paula Woodward Subject: Fwd: Daybreak - 'Inappropriate Land -use' *Please attach this letter to the Staff Report* Liz/Paula, Please include the email below in the official file Daybreak file. Thank you for your assistance. Rega rd s, G rady Begin forwarded message: From: Barbara Goldstein < Date: July 18, 2019 at 10:33:22 AM MST To: "gdickey@fh.az.gov" <gdickey@fh.az.gov>, "atolis@fh.az.gov" <atolis@fh.az.gov>, "mscharnow@fh.az.gov" <mscharnow@fh.az.pov>, "amagazine@fh.az.gov" <amagazine @fh.az.gov>, "depelich@fh.az.goov" <depelich@fh.az.gov>, "dbrown@fh,az.gov" <dbrown@fh.az.gov>, "sleckrone@fh.azRav" <sleckroneC5)fh.az.gov>, "pzc@fh_.az &ov.org" <pzc@fh.az.gov_.org>, "mntiflore@fh.ar.gov" <rr woore@fh.az.gov>, "gmiller@fh.az.gov" <gn il1eir@fh.az.gov> Cc: Barbara Goldstein < Subject. Daybreak - 'Inappropriate Land -use' *Please attach this letter to the Staff Report* This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe P & Z Members, Madam Mayor and Town Council Members, My name is Barbara Goldstein and I have been a Fountain Hills resident since 2003. My husband, Larry and I moved to the Westridge Village community located just north of Palisades and Shea from Tatum Ranch because we fell in love with the town. We love the small town charm and the dark skies of Fountain Hills. I am writing to you today in opposition of the Daybreak development, specifically the 311 Proposal. In order for this project to move forward, all the various waivers to the current zoning must get approved including rezoning the parcel. Even though it may appear that the surrounding communities might be against development in general, that is not the general consensus that I have received. In fact, what my neighbors by and large wants is the right kind of development. As a group of leaders please look over all the proposed waivers this developer is requesting and compare it to the Town's vision and the previously approved boutique hotel that was to be built there. There is no comparison. If there are this many waivers, could it be that this project would be better suited for a flat parcel instead of being contingent on multiple waivers to accommodate the type of project they are proposing for this specific site? It seems to me this project is inappropriate for this parcel at Shea and Palisades considering the safety, the natural esthetics as well as the first impression of our beautiful town. The high -density 400 multi -family unit project, Daybreak is out -of -place for the corner of Shea and Palisades for a number of safety reasons. Palisades Blvd does not only slope but it twists and turns providing many blind hazards for the driver and Cyclists who share the road. The road is increasingly challenging between Shea and Vista Drive which is our entrance to Westridge Village. According to the 3`d Proposal, the developer wants to have two entrances on Palisades that also serve as exits allowing cars leaving Daybreak to travel right (northbound) and left (sauthbound) navigating oncoming traffic. There are no plans for a signal light to control the various traffic flows. The south Daybreak entrance would be located directly across from The Summit entrance. This would create 4 different traffic patterns. Rush hour in the mornings and evenings will further complicate the traffic patterns. Are you sure you want to sign off on such a dangerous proposition? A second issue with Daybreak is the inappropriate land use as it relates to esthetics. The bunker -style, bright colorful design does not fit in with the surrounding neighbors: Crest View, Fire Rock, The Summit and Palatial Estates and Westridge Village. When the firehouse was built on Fountain Hills Boulevard, the builder built it with designs to reflect the surrounding architecture. The Daybreak design is more fitting near commerce and not appropriate for this location. Also, for the Daybreak project fit on this parcel of sand, the developers are proposing removing 30 feet off the top of the hill and moving the earth down into the preserve beyond the boarder of this parcel. At least the previously approved boutique hotel had plans to build on and around the existing hill without destroying the hilltop. My fast concern is the inappropriate land use as it relates to the first impression of our beautiful town. The beautiful fountain on the corner of Shea and Palisades is such a gorgeous statement of living in a beautiful town. Is this tragic design the first impression we want at our gateway into Fountain Hills? Please take a moment to consider what the neighborhood of the 4 communities (Westridge Village, the Summit, Crestview and Palatial Estates are saying. We aren't against development, we are against the wrong development. The current zoning is for a boutique hotel, A boutique hotel built into the hill, with a signal light for safety and proper traffic flow can be designed to blend in with the surrounding area. We are ready for a boutique hotel. Please be patient. The right developer with the right plan will come along. Please attach this letter to the Staff Report. Thank you, .0 .rem Barbara Goldstein Fountain Hills, AZ resident 2 Paula Woodward From: Ray Fi kes Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 8:23 PM To- PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak LThis email originated from outside of the organizations. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified sender and know the content is safe My name is Raymond Fikes and I am a homeowner in the Crestview estate development. I've lived in my home now for 14 years. I bought and built in Crestview Estates for its exclusivity and luxury. I feel that the proposed 400 unit apartment development complex, namely Daybreak, will be devastating to my property value. Additionally, I exit from Crestview onto Palisades every morning. I take my life in my hands pulling out into traffic here because the oncoming traffic is coming from the north from not only a blind corner but a depression. The traffic demands that this new complex will put on Palisades Boulevard from the Crestview exit southward to Shea Boulevard is unthinkable and downright dangerous. This letter is in opposition of the Daybreak development being approved, in the strongest possible terms. Please feel free to call me at for further information. All text transcribed verbally by Dragon 13. it:F a`z, G,,J riy f_i -. rI A-C rRl�1ed witr, Et. use of the :individual entity ro whom they recipient you are notified that disclosing, reliance on the contents of this information Jo Virus -free. www.avast.com are confidential and intended solely for th,- are addressed. 1' you are nct the. irsterideci copyinq, distribuLing 01 taking any action in is strictly prohibited. 1 Paula Woodward From: Grady Miller Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 9:59 PM To: Walt Franklin Cc: Paula Woodward; Elizabeth Burke Subject: Re: Palisades development Wait, Thanks for sharing your opinion on the Daybreak zoning case and minor general plan amendment. We include your email in the official file on the matter. Regards, Grady On Jul 17, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Walt Franklin < wrote: EARN;', This email originated from outside of the organization- Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe # Dear Friends, On a brief return trip to town I was shocked to see Zoning Change signs along Palisades in the current Resort Development area. It was extremely difficult for me to imagine my fellow Town and Community conscious activists (you) were still contemplating such a drastic change for the residents of that area within our community. I have always been an advocate of the principle that "you only own what you buy", and I stand by that yet today. At the same time, "what you purchase " in hill and mountainside development areas has a lot more to the equation. When you assess the purchase a wise buyer takes into consideration "WHAT CAN BE BUILT" in the area around his home "UNDER EXISTING ZONING CONDITIONS". Looking: out your imagined windows and seeing a normal home on the hill across the way is entirely different than imagining that hill being entirely ripped apart and replaced with a multi unit, multi story complex. service facilities and parking lots. I'll be honest, the original concept for that development including an upscale life care compliment with garages and a resort atmosphere Molded into the current Fountain Hills Environmental setting had great potential appeal to me. It would fit our valued life style, and appeal to lots of current residents which then would open their homes to new families. Whether or not the proposed development can be successful, you owe it to your constituents to protect their lifestyle to the maximum extent possible. Lets be honest, disregarding the degradation effect on current residents. a mass multi family complex such as this will never pay for itself in F.H. We have no employment to support it and the demand for services will far out strip potential gains in sales tax and cash flow benefits to the city. Do the right thing, stand up for and protect the residents you pledged to serve and protect. Paula Woodward From: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 3:38 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Re: gdickey@fh.az.gov This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know• the content is safe I am emailing you in direct opposition to the proposed rezoning project and the only reason I cannot show up in Red on the 25th is because I am a commercial pilot and gone quite a bit during the month. I live in the summit at crestview which was never fully developed and directly across the street on Palisades. I've been here 8 years now and can tell you first hand just how dangerous this location on Palisades is as the cars come down off of the hill sometimes at blinding speeds and have almost been hit many times turning into my complex. There isn't much beauty left to Fountain Hills due to what I consider to be over development as it is and to take away the beauty of what little is left of the pristine desert is nothing short of irresponsible and uncaring for our beauty and environment. I vote a resounding no to the proposal for rezoning and will not support you if you let this go forward. On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:37 PM <i wrote: Good afternoon, I am emailing you in direct opposition to the proposed rezoning project and the only reason I cannot show up in Red on the 25th is because I am a commercial pilot and gone quite a bit during the month. I live in the summit at crestview which was never fully developed and directly across the street on Palisades. I've been here 8 years now and can tell you first hand just how dangerous this location on Palisades is as the cars come down off of the hill sometimes at blinding speeds and have almost been hit many times turning into my complex. There isn't much beauty left to Fountain Hills due to what I consider to be over development as it is and to take away the beauty of what little is left of the pristine desert is nothing short of irresponsible and uncaring for our beauty and environment. I vote a resounding no to the proposal for rezoning and will not support you if you let this go forward. t Regards, Raymond Ambrosini East Valley Vista Drive Fountain Hills Az, 85268 Paula Woodward From: Dennis Dowling Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 10:00 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: proposed Gateway development on Palisades and Shea WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. am writing to urge a no vote for the proposed Gateway development on the corner of Palisades and Shea. This is a high density rental project that is located at a shot that people enter Fountain Hills. I think this is not the image Fountain Hills wants to project. Please do not approve this development Elaine and Dennis Dowling -Srittlebush lane Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Marissa Moore Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 3:14 PM To: John Wesley Cc: Paula Woodward Subject: Fwd: Proposed Daystar Development Get outlook fur i0S ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Brenda Badenhorst" <� Date: Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:28 PM -0700 Subject: Proposed Daystar Development To: "Marissa Moore" cri�r3x��lru «:flt.ar.usF�> This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. To The Mayor, Vice Mayor, Town Council and Planning & Zoning Committee, Fountain Hills is a unique community that has been able to maintain that small town atmosphere. It is the reason many of us have moved here. As a Dark Sky community, we as residents must question the need for unnecessary development. The Daystar Developers have no personal investment in our community. They are not a local town business or residents of our beautiful town. Developing a 400 multi residential unit complex on the corner of Shea and Palisades only benefits the developer. They are requesting our town waive the million dollar developer fee and change the zoning for this location. There is a substantial difference in developing a resort on this property and building cheap apartments. A resort attracts tourists generating business for our town and not compromise the integrity of our Dark Sky community. While the argument could be said that adding 400 apartments would also generate business for our town, it also generates a substantially larger amount of traffic than a Resort would. In addition it creates the image that we are like any other community in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. As a Town we have prided ourselves on being an unique community. While we are aware that change is inevitable, and realistic that this property will at some point be developed, we are asking that the change stay consistent with who we are as a community. We hope the leadership of our town will seriously weigh the consequences of allowing such a development on one of the two main arteries into Fountain Hills. We ask that you maintain the integrity of Fountain Hills as the beautiful, exclusive Dark Sky community that it is now. Thank You, Abel and Brenda Badenhorst l: Redrock Drive Fountain Hills, AZ Paula Woodward From: Marissa Moore Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 3:11 PM To: John Wesley Cc: Paula Woodward Subject: Fwd: Proposed Apartment Complex at Palisades and Shea Get ( ludo,,, h)l it ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ' Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:10 PM -0700 Subject: Proposed Apartment Complex at Palisades and Shea To: "Marissa Moore" Ili Ali > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Marissa Moore, We have lived in Crestview for 10 years now. We moved here from the northern suburbs of Chicago. When we were looking for a home in the Phoenix area, we could have lived anywhere but selected Fountain Hills because we loved the beauty of the land, the mountains and the views. We loved how spread out all the homes were and the fact that most communities were gated. We are very disappointed to hear that a plan for an apartment complex is actually being proposed in a such a beautiful area on Palisades and Shea. This is no place for an apartment complex among the very exclusive communities that border this area. Aside from changing the look of our beautiful town with this proposed complex, the traffic is also a concern. Trying to exit onto Palisades is very challenging as it is now. Cars are speeding from the hills and curves and visibility is very poor. The most important part being, is what this will do to our property values. It seems many homeowners have difficulty selling their homes and have even considered changing to a Scottsdale zoning instead of Fountain Hills. I think this would really affect our property values in a very negative way. I am also concerned about crime. We have felt that we live in a small town and things are pretty quiet for the most part. I think having 400 apartment rentals which include low income housing would definitely change that feel and our crime rate. Please do not allow this proposed complex to get approved. This is the making for a disaster. Thank you for your consideration, Larr and Beth Cohen . Arista Lane Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 7:36 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Proposed Apartment Complex at Palisades and Shea This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. To the Entire Planning and Zoning Commission, We have lived in Crestview for 10 years now. We moved here from the northern suburbs of Chicago. When we were looking for a home in the Phoenix area, we could have lived anywhere but selected Fountain Hills because we loved the beauty of the land, the mountains and the views. We loved how spread out all the homes were and the fact that most communities were gated. We are very disappointed to hear that a plan for an apartment complex is actually being proposed in a such a beautiful area on Palisades and Shea. This is no place for an apartment complex among the very exclusive communities that border this area. Aside from changing the look of our beautiful town with this proposed complex, the traffic is also a concern. Trying to exit onto Palisades is very challenging as it is now. Cars are speeding from the hills and curves and visibility is very poor. The most important part being, is what this will do to our property values. It seems many homeowners have difficulty selling their homes and have even considered changing to a Scottsdale zoning instead of Fountain Hills. I think this would really affect our property values in a very negative way. I am also concerned about crime. We have felt that we live in a small town and things are pretty quiet for the most part. I think. having 400 apartment rentals which include low income housing would definitely change that feel and our crime rate. Please do not allow this proposed complex to get approved. This is the making for a disaster. Thank you for your consideration, Larry and Beth Cohen �. Arista Lane Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Max & Tiff Starks Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 10:45 PM To: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; PZC (Commission) Cc: Grady Miller; John Wesley; Marissa Moore Subject: Daybreak plan This email originated from Outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe_ Dear elected officials, council people and commissioners, I am writing to share my disapproval of the proposed Daybreak Multi- family complex at the corner of Shea and Palisades, and to urge you not to vote in favor of this project. The main reason I chose to purchase and move here 10 years ago was because of the beautiful scenery, low -density high value homes and the dark sky quiet community it offered. That would be all gone if you decided to move forward with the DAYBREAK PROJECT! Being a resident of Crestview this would be a direct impact to my daily life. How, you might ask? First, and foremost, the moment I would exit my subdivision, there would be a lot more traffic merging on to Palisades for morning commuters with no proposed changes to traffic patterns or entry, and that now becomes a major hazard. Second, Fountain Hills prides itself in a pristine, panoramic view of the mountains and vistas! This would not be so entering from the west going east on Shea. Daybreak does not fit with the surrounding neighborhoods or consistency of housing structures that you see while driving. In fact, in Chapter 3 of the General Plan it states, "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses." I believe adding a multi -story 400+ unit 'rental' complex is inconsistent with the low density, single-family homes and communities that surround this space. A lot of zoning ordinances would have to be changed, and against our wishes, to accommodate this project. About 13 zoning changes would have to change which is far too many in my opinion, and most likely not be adhered to like previous apartment projects, i.e. Park Place. Also, isn't there a 100+ unit apartment complex going up behind the Basha's shopping plaza as well? Why do we need another complex when there are plenty of homes, apartments and condos vacant and for rent in Fountain Hills. In closing, please think long and hard about the look and feel of our town, as well as, the wishes of its residents before snaking this decision. Once you do it can not be undone. Protect our views, values and essence that is the "Fountain in the Hills"! ** Please add this to the Staff Report" Sincerely, Max Starks Crestview Resident 7-11-19 Daybreak Proposal Traffic and traffic safety is of utmost importance to all Fountain Hills residents, visitors or commuters who use Shea and/or Palisades Boulevards daily_ This is an extremely busy intersection and one of 3 main arteries into the Town of Fountain Hills. There are over 15,390 cars per day on Palisades Boulevard and the proposed Daybreak development could generate approximately 2500 more trips daily. The proposed entrances/exits could lead to traffic accidents and possible deaths due to blind corners, especially from traffic accelerating after turning left at Shea onto Palisades. Currently there are 3 developments that exit onto Palisades near Shea — Crestview, the Summit at Crestview and WestridgeAVestridge Village. The 3 have almost 200 homes. If Daybreak is allowed, there will be over 600 households exiting onto Palisades. These 5 exits Will all be within 1113 mile of Shea. There are no planned traffic controls. Fountain Hills is renotiv-ned for its pristine image and panoramic mountain views and vistas. We just spent a lot of money and time to fix and upgrade the fountains at the corner of Shea and Palisades. This will become a total waste of money if people drive into town and see apartments overwhelming the current beautiful view of the fountain, town, and all the mountains you can see. It truly is a wonderful panorama, as should be cherished as such. This would also obscure some of the view from people across the street (off Palisades), who we are sure bought these residences with the views fully in mind. There should not be any 3level buildings here! The General Plan (2010) of Fountain Hills in Chapter 3, Land Use Element, page 34, Goal live states "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." The surrounding neighborhoods are all low density, high value single family homes. Daybreak is not a compatible neighbor with a potential 400-unit multi -family rental complex that would obliterate the beautiful hillside and take it down to street level. The current Zoning for this property is for Lodging, L-3 (General Plan, Chapter 2, page 16 and page 28, Figure 8) not for MFU (Multi -Family Unrestricted) and MFR (Multi -Family Restricted) use. This zoning should not be changed to anything other than low density, single family homes, if it is changed at all, so that it is compatible with the rest of the adjacent land use. The number of Zoning and Ordinance changes (at least 13) to accommodate this development is too many and will likely not be adhered to, like many of the other requested zoning changes from other developments that the "Town of Fountain Hills council has approved in the past few years. i.e. Park Place, the apartment building downto,vn that does not represent Fountain Hills architectural structures Changes from the 2-to 3"' Submittal by the Developers consisted of only 4 things: a walking trail, a sidewalk from NIFR to MFU, a small rooftop garden on the 600' 3-story building and elimination of Assisted living although they kept the same amount of units so even more people could be living there. There are many vacancies throughout Fountain Hills for rental apartments, condos and;or homes. And a new rental community is planned for behind $ashas with 139 units and that would be fine there. We Do Not Need Further Rental Units! We are very troubled by rumor that the developer wants to dump all dirt/rocks removed from ridge into the ravine(s) below. This is ridiculous and potentially very harmful to wildlife (haven't we encroached enough already) and to saguaros. We thought all the ravines were protected, and they should stay that way! If they build there, they should only be allowed to build single family homes (preferably single level), and all dirt/rocks should be hauled away, just as done at Firerock, etc. Sincerely, James and Maria Chase _E Ocotillo Dr Paula Woodward From: Bob Hahn Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 10:11 AM To: PZC (Commission); Alan Magazine; Art Tolis; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Ginny Dickey, - Mike Scharnow; Sherry i-eckrone; Grady Miller; Marissa Moore Cc: 'ROBERT COURTNEY',- Steve Messel; 'Wayne Zielinski'; Subject: Daybreak BOOM and BUST Attachments: 5 Daybreak BOOM and BUST.docx This email originated from outside of the organization Do not clack links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Below is a copy of a letter published in the FH Times on July 3 concerning Daybreak's complete lack of effort to understand the make-up of the ground under their proposed apartment complex at Shea and Palisades. All of the surrounding neighbors are concerned about possible "blasting" on the site as Daybreak attempts to scalp 30 feet off of the hill. While the Daybreak developers stated emphatically at the "community meeting" no blasting would be required, we now know based on the documents they submitted that they have no clue as to whether or not blasting would be used. I hope you hold their feet to the fire on this issue when they come before you in the next two months Daybreak: BOOM and BUST! Daybreak has submitted to the town a rezoning request to construct a 400 unit apartment complex on the corner of Shea and Palisades. Their application included a geotechnical report submitted by Copper State Engineering, dated January 26, 2019, commissioned by Daybreak. The report concluded that a more current analysis should be made of the makeup of the ground under the hill that Daybreak wants to cut 30 feet from. The report itself was simply a paper study that recapped a seismic study made by another firm, Western Technologies, in 1999 (yes 20 years ago) and another backhoe study made in 2005. The maximum depth of those very old studies was to a depth of only 10 feet. Mind you, Copper State Engineering made no tests whatsoever, but strongly urged Daybreak to do so. Daybreak has not done that. At a community meeting Daybreak held in February 2019, when asked if blasting would be required, the Daybreak people categorically stated no blasting would be needed. How could they possibly know that to be the case if they have no idea what the ground makeup is between 10 feet and 30 feet? They don't. Mind you Copper State made no tests because they were not asked to by Daybreak. What if they run into solid rock below 10 feet and they need to blast; and what if that blasting causes structural damage to the houses in the nearby, surrounding neighborhoods? What if it damages Palisades? Regardless of what some people say, you never know what the results of this type of blasting will be, until it goes BOOM! Then it's too late. Bob Hahn Paula Woodward t- From: Phil Parrish Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 7:08 PM To: David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Marissa Moore; John Wesley; PZC (Commission); Ginny Dickey; dspeiich@fh.az.gov; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Marissa Moore; John Wesley; PZC (Commission); Grady Miller Subject: Fwd: Daybreak concerns IWARNINC. This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Fountain Hills Town Council Members, Planning and Zoning Commission & Department and Town Manager. I would like to let you know that noting the 3rd submittal by Daybreak, I still oppose this project. Please include my opposition in the Staff Report, Respectfully, Phil Parrish -------- Forwarded Message Subject: Daybreak concerns Date:Tue, 4 Jun 2019 23:10:25 -0700 From:Phil Parrish To:Ginny Dickey dicke fh_az. ov> atolis c fh_az. ov <atolis c fh.az. ov> Mike Scharnow <mscharnow c6Mh.az.P,ov>, Alan Magazine <amagazine_(o-_) fh.az.gov>, dspelich(cLfh.az.gov <ds elich c fh.az. ov> dbrown fh.az. ov <dbrown c fh.az. ov> sleek rone fh.az. gov <sleckrone c fh.az. ov> Marissa Moore <i-nmoore fh.az.gov>, jwesleygfh.az.gov <jwesley()a,fh.az.P,ov>, pzc(a)fh.az.gov <pzc(c-bifh.az.gov>, Grady Miller <LnnilierL&fh.az.Aov> Fountain Hills Town Council Members, Planning and Zoning Commission & Department and Town Manager I have put off writing this letter in hopes that I wouldn't need to. It appears that you are continuing to consider the Daybreak proposal at the Northeast corner of Palisades and Shea, the main entry to Fountain Hills from the Scottsdale area. I trusted the General Plan of Fountain Hills where it states that you must "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses. " There is nothing more egregious to this neighborhood than this proposal. It seems that Daybreak wants to compare their proposal with a proposal that changed the zoning some 20 years ago. I lived here 20 years ago and at that time many of the neighborhoods that are most affected by this proposal were not even here. Since then those neighborhoods have established themselves and we are fortunate that they have added to the beauty of the entrance to our town. I can not recall at any time where the Town has allowed anyone to scrape off a hilltop to this magnitude. That will destroy the serenity of the Sonoran Desert that the Town was to carefully protect with it's flora, fauna and scenic vistas. This project does not belong in the middle of any single family neighborhood in Fountain Hills, and especially in the entrance to our town. The builders are asking fbr 13 variances, waivers or changes in the General Plan. This is exactly why those are in the General Plan. To allow the Town to keep something like this out of where it doesn't belong. Rental Apartments,(basically 400 units) some 40 ft high and 600 ft long buildings (23 of them) need to be where the zoning permits, not where they are specifically excluded, the Town has made that clear in it's General Plan. Then there is the traffic problem and the dangers that 400 units will cause at the very entrance to our Town. You are suppose to represent the Town where it is mentioned above. The sad part of this is that if it is allowed, it can never be reversed. Please represent your constituents by following what is written that the Town, you, will do and protect the hilltop from being eliminated and preserve our neighborhoods. Please include this letter in the Staff Report. Sincerely, Phil & Marti Parrish Daybreak; BOOM and BUST_! Daybreak has submitted to the town a rezoning request to construct a 400 unit apartment complex on the corner of Shea and Palisades. Their application included a geotechnical report submitted by Copper State Engineering, dated January 26, 2019, commissioned by Daybreak. The report concluded that a more current analysis should be made of the makeup of the ground under the hill that Daybreak wants to cut 30 feet from. The report itself was simply a paper study that recapped a seismic study made by another firm, Western Technologies, in 1999 (yes 20 years ago) and another backhoe study made in 2005. The maximum depth of those very old studies was to a depth of only 10 feet. Mind you, Copper State Engineering made no tests whatsoever, but strongly urged Daybreak to do so. Daybreak has not done that. At a community meeting Daybreak held in February 2019, when asked if blasting would be required, the Daybreak people categorically stated no blasting would be needed. How could they possibly know that to be the case if they have no idea what the ground makeup is between 10 feet and 30 feet? They don't. Mind you Copper State made no tests because they were not asked to by Daybreak. What if they run into solid rock below 10 feet and they need to blast; and what if that blasting causes structural damage to the houses in the nearby, surrounding neighborhoods? What if it damages Palisades? Regardless of what some people say, you never know what the results of this type of blasting will be, until it goes BOOM! Then it's too late. Bob Hahn Paula Woodward From: Barry Alexa Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2019 3:48 AM To: PZC (Commission) Cc: Barry Alexa Subject: FW: Daybreak Proposal 43 This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Dear Fountain Hills Town Council & Zoning and Planning Commission, We would like to express our concerns/comments regarding the Daybreak project: The General Plan (2010) of Fountain Hills in Chapter 3, Land Use Element, page 34, Goal Five states "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." The surrounding neighborhoods are all low density, high value single family homes. Daybreak is not a compatible neighbor with a potential 400-unit multi -family rental complex that would obliterate the beautiful hillside and take it down to street level. • The current Zoning for this property is for Lodging, L-3 (General Plan, Chapter 2, page 16 and page 28, Figure 8) not for MFU (Multi -Family Unrestricted) and MFR (Multi -Family Restricted) use. This zoning should not be changed to anything other than low density, single family homes, if it is changed at all, so that it is compatible with the rest of the adjacent land use. Traffic and traffic safety is of utmost importance to all Fountain Hills residents, visitors or commuters who use Shea and/or Palisades Boulevards daily. This is an extremely busy intersection and one of 3 main arteries into the Town of Fountain Hills. There are over 15,390 cars per day on Palisades Blvd and the proposed Daybreak development could generate approximately 2500 trips daily with 148 generated during the AM peak hour and 178 during the PM peak hour alone! The proposed entrances/exits could lead to many traffic accidents and possible deaths due to blind corners. Fountain Hills is renowned for its pristine image and panoramic mountain views and vistas. This is the Gateway to Fountain Hills from the West and will not be the image that we want our town to represent. A rental complex at the entrance to this beautiful town with half million to multi -million dollar homes presently all around it is not cohesive with a `Beverly Hills of Arizona" mentality. • The number of Zoning and Ordinance changes (at least 13) to accommodate this development is too many and will likely not be adhered to, like many of the other requested zoning changes from other developments that the Town of Fountain Hills council has approved in the past few years. i.e. Park Place, the apartment building downtown that does not represent Fountain Hills architectural structures. There are over 60 vacancies throughout Fountain Hills for rental apartments, condos and/or homes. Do we need additional empty rental apartment complexes at the gateway? • Traffic flow presents safety concerns; traffic flow will increase traffic congestion; we want a `Town Traffic Engineer' to do a traffic study, not a developer traffic study; police presence? • Esthetics; the style should blend in with existing neighborhoods for gateway to Fountain Hills; multi -story buildings do not. • Project violates the FH General Plan requirement (Chapter 3, Goal 5), to "preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses". • Rental property should not be at entrance of Fountain Hills; if this type of development is favored, keep the density in more favorable areas (i.e. by the fountain, downtown). • The massive amounts of cut and fill contradicts the group working with the topography and slope; if they are using that tactic, why not cut 40' to minimize the impact on surrounding existing houses; if that's an issue, keep it at two stories. • Exterior lighting should be a concern; what will happen to the dark sky initiative • Hotel vs Daybreak: o Violating OSR and 11 acres of HPE areas by moving entrance 1 exit roads outside of the 25 acres o Eliminating the traffic light that was for safer transition from hotel to southbound lanes o Increased traffic on Palisades with completion of CopperWynd (+268 rooms) and Adero Canyon (+103 houses). Daybreak would add an additional 400 residences. Waivers o Building height 40' vs. 30' o Major areas of OSR o Cut and fill way beyond ordinances • Zoning change vs the General Plan o Apartments not fitting existing surrounding communities o Destruction of the look of Fountain Hills main portal — curb appeal • What is the timeframe for development: construction and noise for surrounding communities? Please attach this email to the Staff Report". Sincerely, Barry and Ann Alexa E. Hillside Dr, Westridge Village Paula Woodward From: Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 1019 AM To: Paula Woodward Subject: please enclose with packet for next PZ meeting. This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to you today on behalf of the residents of Crestview to express our concerns regarding the Daybreak proposed apartment complex. We have several concerns, but our most urgent concern is the impact on traffic. Currently there are 3 HOA's that exit onto Palisades within 1/3 mile of Shea — two of those HOA's entrances are directly across from each other.. Those developments contain over 200 homesites. In that 1/3 mile there are curves, hills and blind spots. It is difficult at best under current circumstances to exit — especially since traffic is well over the legal speed limit and Palisades is a truck route. Daybreak development with their 400 new families — by their own numbers — would add over 2,500 trips each day; and since their southern driveway exit is only 700' from Shea Boulevard, the danger and bottleneck issues are obviously severe. We cannot imagine the dangerous and treacherous driving conditions if Daybreak is approved and we have over 600 households exiting onto Palisades within 1/3 mile of Shea, the main road that allows us to exit Fountain Hills. Please consider the lives and safety of our residents and deny this project. If you wish to experience the current situation, please contact me or Michelle Webb and we will be glad to arrange a "tour" of current exits of the 3 subdivisions with 1/3 mile of Shea. Carol Kelso Vice -President, Crestview HOA I Paula Woodward From: Linda Goddard Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 6:24 AM To; Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; John Wesley; Marissa Moore; PZC (Commission) Subject: Please attach to staff report. WARNING This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. am writing to lodge my objections to the proposed development at the corner of Shea & Palisades. 1. Currently there are 3 developments that exit onto Palisades near Shea -- Crestview, the Summit at Crestview and Westridge. The 3 have almost 200 homes and are still growing. If Daybreak is allowed, there will be over 600 households exiting onto Palisades. These 5 exits will all be within 1/3 mile of Shea. There are no planned traffic controls. According to traffic studies, there are currently 15,390 car trips per day on Palisades Boulevard. the proposed Daybreak development will add 2500 trips daily — almost 18,000 cars will pass our entrance daily. Our Palisades exit is difficult and dangerous now. We have to deal with curves and blind spots that impair our ability to see incoming cars — many of which are speeding. An additional 400 households will certainly make our Palisades exit even more dangerous. The proposed development is inconsistent with Fountain Hills General Plan which mandates that the town must "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." The current surrounding neighborhoods (Crestview, the Summit of Crestview, Westridge, Palatial Estates, Firerock and Eagle Ridge) are all low density, high value single family homes. Daybreak will be a 400- unit multi -family rental complex that would obliterate the beautiful hillside and take it down to street level. The development of rental apartments is clearly not consistent with the adjacent housing developments all of which are single family, high end homes. Placing a huge, medium priced rental apartment complex near us will certainly change our area and lower our property values. I respectfully request that you vote NO on this development. Linda Goddard Arista Lane Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:23 AM To: Paula Woodward Subject: I didn't see that this had gone, so am resending Can you advise that it was received. Nancy Plencner WARNINU This email originated from outside of the organization, Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe PAULA: PLEASE MAKE CERTAIN THIS LETTER IS PLACED IN EACH COMMISSIONER'S PACKET Dear FH Planning and Zoning Commissioners: With this letter I would like to be on the record as opposing the multifamily Apartment project called Daybreak proposed for the corner of Shea and Palisades Drive in Fountain Hills. This large tract of land was initially platted for a luxury resort/hotel. Today the developers of this 49 acre rolling desert parcel are proposing something entirely removed from that initial platting. They are seeking waivers, massive land disturbance and ridicules density in what today is primarily a high end, luxury home, gated community area of Fountain Hills, and one of the most beautiful gateways into our Town. MCO, the developer seeking these changes has presented a third (3) version of the development that if anything is less attractive and non conforming than earlier submissions. Recommendations from Town staff are also being ignored by this developer. Their box like garage buildings on the Palisade Perimeters appear to be small airplane hangers, or something one would expect to see in an industrial park. Further the multi story apartments sit on flat ground looming over what had been arroyos and gullies effectively forming view barriers. The 400 units are to be studio to three bedroom units, with rents in the $1500 per month range. The average rent in the Phoenix area is $1,200 so these so called luxury apartments, so named by the developer, are certainly not that and before long would most likely be occupied by Section 8 housing renters. In order to accomplish the Daybreak vision, over 50 feet deep natural arroyos need to be in filled, by bladeing rolling desert hillsides into a flat surface upon which the triple story units will sit in all their architectural ugliness. Further, the only egress into the 1 project will be two drives dumping hundreds of cars onto Palisades and clogging up the intersection of Palisades and Shea. The project is not gated allowing any one off the street to drive in, park, cause mischief and make a quick escape. The density of Daybreak is immense, three bedroom units could have as many as six or more individuals in them, two bedroom units 4 or more. Each of those occupants could have a personal car resulting in multiple vehicles competing for parking which would have to be accommodated in the front of each complex ... not to mention the massive traffic burden in and out of Daybreak. 400 apartments could result in hundreds if not thousands of individuals and cars, Apartments have no place on this parcel, or for that matter in FH which already has plenty of rental spaces sitting empty. As we can now clearly see with the green monster apartments on The Avenue of the Fountains the promise of that massive apartment development has so far only brought lots and lots of empty buildings along with increasing reports of crimes such as break ins and burglaries. Just remember these Green Monsters were also labeled as "Luxury Apartments" and I have been in them and can tell you there is not much luxuriousness to them. FH is a luxury brand, with million dollar homes, condos and the heralded mansions of Firerock. Why in the world at the feet of the entrance to Firerock would FH want to dumb down their brand with ugly lower priced housing? Our Mayor says it is to attract young families to move here and fill up our schools. If that is the case, what is the matter with building more single family higher priced homes that would attract higher income families to move to Fountain Hills? The only thing Daybreak will attract are transient renters who will pay no taxes, will likely leave each morning and return at night and not shop or invest in our Town. At least Condos would be a step up from what is proposed, look at the gorgeous condos built in the front part of Firerock, with all the upgrades they are selling at over a million each. Do not be misled by MCO, the luxury resort hotel as initially platted would throw off substantially more tax revenue than these apartments while providing the community with a beautiful destination that when well designed, and conforms with the land, would blend in with the existing neighborhoods. The Valley is full of gorgeous resorts that sit seamlessly alongside multi million dollar homes. Visitors to such a resort are more likely than not to purchase existing FH homes while most certainly apartment dwellers as Daybreak proposes will never be in the market for a FH home. This down branding and the accompanying diminished value to our properties is not necessary. Daybreak is only the misguided and financially driven scheme of a local developer who believes they have an "in" with the local politicians to approve this fiasco. Commissioners, please pull the plug on this inappropriate project. Vote No on Daybreak. Nancy Plencner, East Cavern Drive, Fountain Hills, Arizona N Paula Woodward From: Karen ZUBERT Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 4:43 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Letter Regarding Daybreak Development Attachments: Ltr to FH re Daybreak Develop ment2.pdf.docx vv;'0! rm NG This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. I have attached a letter outlining my concerns regarding the Daybreak Development. I hope you you will include these concerns in the decision in allowing this development to move forward. Karen Zubert Westridge Village Resident TO: Fountain Hills Town Zoning and Planning Commission Fountain Hills Town Council & Town Manager RE: Daybreak Development Proposal FROM. Karen Zubert, Westridge Village Resident I would like to express my dissatisfaction to both the Fountain Hills City Zoning and Planning Commission as well as the Fountain Hills Town Council regarding the proposed Daybreak development for 400 Studio, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom rental apartment units submitted to the town for approval in order to change the zoning the for this piece of property. I have several objections to this development. 1. I am concerned about the increase in traffic along Palisades Blvd this project would generate. We were told by the developers a study was done regarding this concern and, other than turn lanes into the complex, nothing extra would be needed to accommodate the increased traffic created by this development. The study states there would be an additional 2,500 vehicle trips added to Palisades Blvd which would represent 400-600 vehicles with onsite parking in the development for about half of that number. What you may be not be aware of, is that the turning out of Vista Dr onto Palisades Blvd from the east or west is very difficult. The site -line along Palisades Blvd just prior to the intersection at Vista Dr has a large dip in the road on the north side and has a marked curve coming from the south making it difficult to see traffic approaching in either direction. If one needs to cross the medium it makes it a bit of a game of "chicken", especially during high traffic times. Another major concern is vehicles traveling west on Shea Blvd and turning north onto Palisades Blvd during peak traffic time could very likely end up backing up vehicles into the intersection of Shea Blvd and Palisades Blvd while waiting to turn into the Daybreak development (even with a turn lane provided). Vehicles driving 50 mph east on Shea Blvd heading toward the stoplight, while cresting the steep hill just before the stoplight, may be looking to see if the light is green, but not notice vehicles stacked up in the intersection. This could cause a very serious situation, possibly even death. 2. At the meeting with the developers, I asked what the parcel they were donating to the town in a "land trust" would be used for. They said once it is given to the town, they would have no control over it and the town could do whatever they wanted with it. My concern is that the town could very well sell this land to more developers, again change the zoning designation, and who knows what --build a strip mall/gas station/convenience store or even more apartment buildings, again against the wishes of the neighborhoods surrounding this land. 3. At the meeting with the developers, it was specifically asked if it would be necessary to blast the 30 foot hill between the new development and Westridge Village which could possibly cause damage to homes in the area. We were told that there had been a study and no blasting would be necessary. While reading the application from the developer a letter from Copper State Engineering dated Jan 26, 2019 was included addressing this issue. From information I have received this letter is based on actual studies done in 1998 and 2005 and both studies were limited to a 10 foot depth versus the 30 foot depth submitted by the developer. I do not see a study determining what be encountered drilling down 30 feet and, in fact that is so stated in the letter. Based on this, the town should not allow the developer to strip the hill down 30 feet without further investigation and assurances that no damage would occur to surrounding homes. I also want to address the issue that this development would boost businesses in our community. From my own experience I believe residents of these apartments working in surrounding cities (Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, etc.) would continue to do their shopping after work in those cities along the way home rather than driving 2-3 miles past their home in order to shop in Fountain Hills. I have lived in Fountain Hills for about seven years and chose this town for the community atmosphere knowing that I may have to travel to other areas to provide some of my needs. I was willing to do this because I wanted the feel of a small community without high density housing and traffic that this kind of development would be. I understand when the town was first built the codes did not allow for buildings over 2 stories and there would be no construction around the fountain. Obviously, the building codes were changed to allow this to happen as a 3-story apartment building was built which many residents consider inconsistent with the rest of the town and not within the scope of the original zoning plan the founders enacted. I hate to think that a decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council allowing this development will have the same lasting negative effective for the surrounding neighborhoods and the town as a whole. I hope you can look at the needs of the permanent homeowner's wishes versus short-term rental housing and make a decision based on the safety and sanity of your current residents. Paula Woodward From: Grady Miller Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 5:50 PM To* Lucy Roth Cc: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolls; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; John Wesley; Marissa Moore; Elizabeth Burke; Paula Woodward Subject: Re: Hillside at Palisades and Shea Dear Ms. Roth, Thank you for taking the tinge to express your concerns about the proposed multi family housing development. We'll include this email as part of the public record opposing this project. Thank you again for reaching out to the Mayor and Council. Regards, Grady Miller Town Manager Town of Fountain Hills r 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Nips AZ 85268 i Direct: 480-816-5 t 07 Fax: 480-837-3145 On .fun 21, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Lucy Roth clucy�;rotlt(rL?yatioo.corri: wrote: t rF,pNira[a This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Dear Sir or Madam, It has brought to my attention that the hill located at Palisade and Shea is in danger to be eliminated. There is a plan to bring down the hill and develop 400 rental units. I strongly oppose to touch/change/eliminate a natural and beautiful hill including all the plants and animals that currently flourish in that location. Fountain Hills is renowned for its pristine image and panoramsc mountain views and vistas. Taking down a natural hill to develop a rental complex at the entrance to this beautiful town goes against the general plan of Fountain Hills that reads "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses" There are many vacancies throughout Fountain Hills for rental apartments, condos and/or homes_ Do we really need another rental apartment complex? Traffic and traffic safety are of utmost importance to all Fountain Hills residents, visitors or commuters who use Shea and/or Palisades Boulevards daily. This is an extremely busy intersection and one of the main arteries into the Town of Fountain Hills. The proposed entrances/exits could lead to many traffic accidents and possible deaths due to blind corners. Please attach this letter to the Staff Report. Sincerely. Lucy Roth Paula Woodward From: Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 12:07 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Letter to P and Z members This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. Please attach this letter to the Planning and Zoning Committee packet of the next meeting. Thanks so very much. Honorable members of the Planning and Zoning Committee: I am writing to you today on behalf of the residents of Crestview to express our concerns regarding the Daybreak proposed apartment complex. We have several concerns, but our most urgent concern is the impact on traffic. Currently there are 3 HOA's that exit onto Palisades within 1/3 mile of Shea -- two of those HOA's entrances are directly across from each other.. Those developments contain over 200 homesites. In that 1/3 mile there are curves, hills and blind spots. It is difficult at best under current circumstances to exit — especially since traffic is well over the legal speed limit and Palisades is a truck route. Daybreak development with their 400 new families — by their own numbers — would add over 2,500 trips each day; and since their southern driveway exit is only 700' from Shea Boulevard, the danger and bottleneck issues are obviously severe. We cannot imagine the dangerous and treacherous driving conditions if Daybreak is approved and we have over 600 households exiting onto Palisades within 1/3 mile of Shea, the main road that allows us to exit Fountain Hills. Please consider the lives and safety of our residents and deny this project. If you wish to experience the current situation, please let me or Michelle Webb know and we will be glad to arrange a "tour" of current exits of the 3 subdivisions with 1/3 mile of Shea. Carol Kelso Vice -President, Crestview HOA Paula Woodward From: Alan Rousseau Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 9:03 AM To: Ginny Dickey;Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Sherry teckrone; Grady Miller, John Wesley; Marissa Moore; PZC (Commission) FW: Proposed Daybreak Development Subject: tivAkt',WiL- This email ongmated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Fountain Hills Town officials, council and planners, I am resubmitting my objections to the proposed Daybreak development because I understand that the developers made few changes in their 3`d application other than removing the assisted living building ( and adding more rental units). I would also like to amend my concerns by noting that the project would result in five, not four, entrances too close together. I failed to include the one for Westridge Village, As requested in my previous email please attach this email to the staff report. Respectfully, Alan Rousseau N Skyline Drive From: Alan Rousseau Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 11:42 AM To:'gdickey@fh.az.gov' <gdickey@fh.az.gov>; 'atolis@fh.az.gov' <atolis@fh.az.gov>;'mscharnow@fh.az.gov' <mscharnow@fh.az.gov>; 'amagazine@fh.az.gov' <amagazine@fh.az.gov>; 'dspelich@fh.az.gov' <dspelich @fh.az.gov>;'dbrown@fh.az.gov' <dbrown@fh.az.gov>; sleckrone@fh.az.gov' <sleckrone@fh.az.gov>;'gmiller@fh.az.gov' <gmiller@fh.az.gov>; rrodgers@fh.az.gov' <rrodgers@fh.az.gov>; mmoore@fh.az.gov' <mmoore@fh.az.gov>;'pzc@fh.az.gov' <pzc@fh.az.gov> Subject: Proposed Daybreak Development To Fountain Hills Town officials, council and planners, My wife and I are residents at the Summit at Crestview where we built our dream home in 2007. We have recently become aware of the proposed Daybreak development on the corner of Shea and Palisades. We and the many neighbors I have talked to share a multitude of concerns about this project. First of all, the construction of rental units, three story buildings and an assisted living facility at the entrance to Fountain Hills appears contrary to the towns goals, to preserve open spaces and maintain strict guidelines for the conservation of natural resources and, more importantly, to protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses, as stated in the General Plan. Nothing could be more incompatible than the proposed project surrounded by multiple upscale single-family residential areas including the Summit at Crestview, Westridge Village, the Palatial Estates, Firerock and Crestview. What an unsightly first impression for newcomers as they approach our town from the west. Secondly, and contrary to statements by the developer, what reasonable person would believe that the proposed project with all the additional vehicles would not greatly exacerbate an already congested and potentially dangerous traffic situation at the corner of Shea and Palisades? Having four entrances, two for Daybreak with its 400 additional units and one each for the Crestview and the Summit, so close makes no sense at all. Lastly, we all have concerns about erosion of our property values. When my wife and I purchased our lot at the Summit we paid a $200K premium for our views. Again, no reasonable person can argue that replacing the view of expansive unspoiled Sonoran Desert with three story buildings and high density housing would not degrade the value of our properties. One of the developers in a letter to the town stated that a recent Harvard study showed that low-income residences did not harm the property values of adjacent developments. In fact, low income projects actually added value to the communities. if you actually read this document, I believe you will conclude that the developer's claim is at best disingenuous and at worst a deliberate attempt to deceive the town planners. Nowhere in this study is there a situation like we have here in Fountain Hills where it is being proposed to construct rental units, three story buildings and an assisted living center that would replace a scenic, unspoiled expanse of Sonoran Desert right in the middle of multiple existing upscale single family developments. I sincerely hope that you will take these concerns into consideration before going forward with the proposed Daybreak project. Please attach this email to the staff report. Respectfully, Alan Rousseau N Skyline Drive Paula Woodward From: DONALD 5CHULTZ Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:25 AM Sent: PZC (Commission) To: Fwd: daybreak development Subject: L:,ARNING This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Subject: daybreak development Dear Fountain Hills Council and Commission Members, We appreciate all your time and work governing the wonderful town of Fountain Hills. Some decisions which you must make, are small, and some are large enough to effect many residents. The decision to allow the Daybreak Development at the corner of Shea and Palisades, would be a traffic nightmare for that busy intersection. Additionally, it would give a first impression to those arriving at said corner, that this is your basic "urban sprawl" type of town. PLEASE think about this important decision, with it's finality, very carefully. Thank you for all you do! Marti and Don Schultz N. Skyline Dr.Fountain Hills Paula Woodward From: Linda Bauerle Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 11:37 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: opposition to Daybreak - Violation to Town General Plan This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Dear Planning and Zoning Committee, i am writing to express my continued opposition to the proposed Daybreak construction/destruction. Daybreak promises the renters will be made up of Professionals looking to spend money in our community. They provided documentation showing the influx of revenue to our businesses and city government from the taxable "addition" of these Pro essionalsl Here's a small but poignant article from September 2017 of the AZ Republic. It discusses the rental applicants in Scottsdale and other surrounding communities. I'm specifically fixated on the Scottsdale example: "About one out of three people trying to rent an apartment in Scottsdale are told they can't move in." "Metro Phoenix's high -end suburb leads the nation for the highest rate of rental applications rejected by apartment owners, according to a new national survey from Yardi's RENTCafe." "Slightly more than 29 percent of people trying to rent in Scottsdale are turned down..." "RENTCafe's research found the average annual income of the renter approved in Scottsdale is about $64,000. The average income of someone turned down was $48,000." The fop reason apartment owners give for selecting renter applications across the U.S. is late credit-card,, car or other big mon h1V paymints." It is a far reach for Daybreak to insist "Professionals" will be applying based on this article. If our town needs additional apartments, build them where an average income of $64,000 is a better neighborhood match. At a minimum, we need to adhere to our town goals, principals and especially our GENERAL PLAN as agreed to by previous councils. We voted for our council and trust they will continue to make solid decisions. Kindly include my letter with all emai) and correspondence which is delivered to the Commission and Council. Sincerely Linda Bauerle Paula Woodward From: Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:50 PM To: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Alan Magazine; Mike Scharnow; David Spelich; John Wesley; Grady Miller; PZC (Commission) Subject: I oppose the planned construction across the street from our community WARNING: This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Enough is enough and it's time to go no further with this. That beautiful piece of desert will be forever gone should this happen. The investors care nothing about Fountain Hills and have no vested interest in it like the residents do. Say no. Thank you, Captain Ray Ambrosini American Airlines t Paula Woodward From: Grady Miller Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 1:46 PM To: John Wesley; Marissa Moore; Paula Woodward; Elizabeth Burke Subject: FW: Daybreak Project (Proposed) I would greatly appreciate you including the email below from Mr. Barr in your file for future agenda packet going before P & Z and the Town Council, Thank you. Regards, Grady Grady Miller Town Manager Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Direct: 480-816-5107 Fax. 480-837- 3145 We -;Actor 4 Deoon1 Z&r rg From: Chris Barr <CB@quantum-cap.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 1:34 PM To: Grady Miller <gmiller@fh.az.gov> Subject: Daybreak Project (Proposed) This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe Goodafternoon Mr. Miller: My group owns 27 Iots within the Summit at Crestview community. I wanted to pass along our strong opposition to the proposed multifamily project to the east of us. This proposal is vastly different, both in scope and in impact, than the currently planned and anticipated Hotel project. We are certain that this project, if it moves forward, will negatively impact land and home values within the Summit at Crestview. The Town of Fountain Hills would be much better served moving forward with the original proposed Hotel at some point in time in the future. We would hope that the Town will come to the judgment that the long term prospects of this current proposal will be harmful for the surrounding communities. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Chris Chris Barr Principal QI art_ttinz Caital, Lj,t; 4455 R Camelback Rd; Suite C-240 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Office 602.385.0597 Cell 602.750.0332 Fax 602.385.1524 Paula Woodward To: RE: Subject: Daybreak Proposal From: GCZingsheim Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 11:58 AM To: PZC (Commission) <PZC@fh.az.gov> Subject: Daybreak Proposal This email originated from outside of the organization Do not click links or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. on 25 March 20191 sent an email message to the P&Z Committee with comments regarding the proposed "Daybreak" project at the intersection of Palisades and Shea Blvds. I have since taken the trouble to review the 109 page proposal — which I am certain few residents of Fountain Hills have done — and I am more convinced than earlier that this development would negatively impact the character and lifestyle of FH. The developer appears to have deliberately ignored the recommendations (requirements?) requested by the town and the P&Z C. I question why this development is needed. To my knowledge there is no apparent public demand for more apartments, multi -family housing and assisted living facilities, especially at the prominent location proposed. Again, please stand firm with town ordinances and deny in full the entire Daybreak plan. It reeks of a money grab that will benefit no one but the owners/developers of the property. Surely a less sensitive location can be found that won't negatively impact the entire community. I wish you the best for fortitude in your decisions. Regards, G.A. Zingsheim Paula Woodward From: Phil Parrish Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 1 1:10 PM To: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown, - Sherry Leckrone; Marissa Moore; John Wesley; PZC (Commission); Grady Miller Subject: Daybreak concerns Fountain Hills Town Council Members, Planning and Zoning Commission & Department and Town Manager I have put off writing this letter in hopes that I wouldn't need to. It appears that you are continuing to consider the Daybreak proposal at the Northeast corner of Palisades and Shea, the main entry to Fountain Hills from the Scottsdale area. I trusted the General Plan of Fountain Hills where it states that you must "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." There is nothing more egregious to this neighborhood than this proposal. It seems that Daybreak wants to compare their proposal with a proposal that changed the zoning some 20 years ago. I lived here 20 years ago and at that time many of the neighborhoods that are most affected by this proposal were not even here. Since then those neighborhoods have established themselves and we are fortunate that they have added to the beauty of the entrance to our town. I can not recall at any time where the Town has allowed anyone to scrape off a hilltop to this magnitude. That will destroy the serenity of the Sonoran Desert that the Town was to carefully protect with it's flora, fauna and scenic vistas. This project does not belong in the middle of any single family neighborhood in Fountain Hills, and especially in the entrance to our town. The builders are asking for 13 variances, waivers or changes in the General Plan. This is exactly why those are in the General Plan. To allow the Town to keep something like this out of where it doesn't belong. Rental Apartinents,(basically 400 units) some 40 ft high and 600 ft long buildings (23 of them) need to be where the zoning permits, not where they are specifically excluded, the Town has made that clear in it's General Plan. Then there is the traffic problem and the dangers that 400 units will cause at the very entrance to our Town, You are suppose to represent the Town where it is mentioned above. The sad part of this is that if it is allowed, it can never be reversed. Please represent your constituents by following what is written that the Town, you, will do and protect the hilltop from being eliminated and preserve our neighborhoods. Please include this letter in the Staff Report, Sincerely, Phil & Marti Parrish Paula Woodward From: Jonas Levine Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 3:42 PM To; Marissa Moore; John Wesley; Grady Miller; Sherry Leckrone; Dennis Brown; David Spelich; Alan Magazine; Mike Scharnow; Art Tolis, gdicke@fh.az.gov; PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak "This letter needs to be attached to the Staff Report" Please don't approve a zoning change to accommodate Daybreak...we do not want this to be the first thing visitors and residents see as they enter our beautiful town_ Find another area. There are a number of legitimate reasons why this is not a good idea, which I'm sure you've all heard before ... but as another resident writing another letter opposing this project, here are some of those points: -Goal 5 on page 34 of the General Plan(2010) states that we are to "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." -The current Zoning for this property is for Lodging, L-3 (General Plan, Chapter 2, page 16 and page 28, Figure 8) not for MFU (Multi -Family Unrestricted) and MFR (Multi -Family Restricted) use. This zoning should not be changed to anything other than low density, single family homes if it is changed at all so that it is compatible with the rest of the adjacent land use. -There are over 15,390 cars per day on Palisades Boulevard and the proposed Daybreak development could generate approximately 2500 trips daily with 148 generated during the AM peak hour and 178 during the PM peak hour alone! The proposed entrancestexits could lead to many traffic accidents and possible deaths due to blind corners and the age of those in the Multi -Family age restricted apartment complex. -The number of Zoning and Ordinance changes (at least 13) to accommodate this development is too many and will likely not be adhered to, like many of the other requested zoning changes from other developments that the Town of Fountain Hills council has approved in the past few years. i.e_ Park Place, the apartment building downtown that does not represent Fountain Hills architectural structures. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Jonas Levine Marissa Moore From: Chris Barr Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 1:46 PM To; Marissa Moore Subject: Daybreak Project Good afternoon Marissa: My group owns 27 lots within the Summit at Crestview. I wanted to pass along our strong opposition to the proposed multifamily project to the east of us. This proposal is vastly different, both in scope and in impact, than the currently planned and anticipated Hotel project. We are certain that this project, if it moves forward, will negatively impact land and home values within the Summit at Crestview. The Town of Fountain Hills would be much better served moving forward with the original proposed Hotel at some point in time in the future. We would hope that the Town will come to the judgment that the long term prospects of this current proposal will be harmful for the surrounding communities. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Chris Chris Barr Principal Otiant-ana Capital, 3_,LC 4455 F. Came]bach Rd; Suite C-240 Phoenix, A7_. 850l8 Office 602.395.0597 Cc)] 602.750,0332 Fax 602.395.1524 Paula Woodward From: Michelle Webb Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 11;23 PM To: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Marissa Moore; John Wesley; PZC (Commission); Grady Miller Subject: Daybreak Concerns Dear Fountain Hills Town Council Members, Planning and Zoning Commission & Department and Town Manager, First of all, thank you for your dedicated service. It can be a thankless job but I have come to recognize how much each and every one of you put into this job and your position. have patiently waited to write you to see what the Daybreak PAD 3rd Submittal would bring. Well sadly, it brought nothing of change for the building heights, length, parking amount, style of buildings, or traffic safety. However, density changed. It went even higher with the 3'd submittal- from 22 buildings to 23. This is a blatant disregard to the planning and zoning departments' requests and to the residents whom the developers told would be better off with this rental complex than a proposed hotel. My Concerns with Daybreak: 1. First and foremost, it does not follow many of the goals of the General Plan of Fountain Hills. Please read carefully the changes requested in PAD Application #2 and the Planning and Zoning Summary Sheet. Ms. Moore has done an excellent job determining what the variances, changes and misrepresentation was in the 211 Submittal. Sadly, the 3rd submittal addressed few of these concerns. 2, The danger of the proposed entrance/exits for this community could endanger lives and possibly cause fatalities in the way Palisades is designed. There is a blind corner at Valley Vista that is bad enough now to cross with 2 lanes of traffic. With this development there would be cars trying to cross 3 lanes on a blind corner along with cars entering from across the street. It will create even more traffic on a extremely busy street and intersection and there will be many more cars with Adero Canyon and the Copperwyn expansion on Palisades. 3. Rezoning this property could change the complete feel of Fountain Hills for all those entering this beautiful town and for those living here on a daily basis. It could be built somewhere else so as to not obstruct the magnificent views and aesthetics of the Town that would be sacrificed with buildings that don't even blend into the environment. 4. The Economic Impact over 10 years that the developers are showing are very flawed numbers and there are no references to this data and are very misleading. They have tried to tell us, and you, that this complex will bring in a lot of money for the town. If FULLY occupied, the rental taxes will only bring in approximately $115,000 per year. Remember they have eliminated the bigger moneymaker - the Assisted Living. Their quotes on consumer spending and employment taxes are overinflated as well. Particularly when the renters will be going to Scottsdale for their jobs, to eat and shop since the developers told us "it would be so convenient to Scottsdale for people to work and shop there" 5. The Rental data that the developers are stating are also very skewed and not the true facts of the rental market. Particularly pertaining to Fountain Hills. You can't compare housing in 2006 with 2016. Anyone could qualify for a mortgage in 2006 and those who lost their homes needed to rent; however, this is not the case in Fountain Hills versus Phoenix where the data came from. And the data is not up to date. They used HUD data from 2016. What are the latest numbers? Also do we really need more rentals? We have close to 150 available rentals in Fountain Hills right now, with many being reasonably priced. And there is still availability at Ridgeview and Park Place. Not to mention the potential to have 2 more rental buildings built on the empty graded lots downtown. So do we really need more? If so, they can build it in Adero Canyon in the planned zoned Multi family acreage that is large enough to encompass their complex. 6. The General Plan of Fountain Hills states that we must "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." I cannot think of anything less compatible in an area with low density, single-family homes than a 600' 3 story apartment building with 22 other buildings around it sitting in the middle of these neighborhoods. The General Plan also states that in Multi -Family zoning "its use should be very limited". So let's stick with the areas already planned for Multi -family zoning and build Daybreak there if we really need more rentals. 7. People who live in Fountain Hills do not see the need for this type of housing on Shea and Palisades and this is reflected in the Petition Against Daybreak and the multitude of letters you all have received. 8. The Town of Fountain Hills Land Use Analysis and Statistical Report at it's Introduction on page 1 states, "With unparalleled scenic views of the surrounding rugged mountains, and the serenity of the Sonoran Desert, the Town carefully protects the native flora, fauna and scenic vistas. It is not unusual to see bobcats, javelina, jackrabbits or coyotes wandering the fringes of the community. Quail and roadrunners thrive as well in the washes and among the natural vegetation." We will lose that if they build there and that is one of the most unique features of Fountain Hills. We have amazing wildlife that still live in the city surround. What a shame it would be to lose more of that at our entrance to our town. Again, the General Plan states this similarly on page 100 of the Environmental Preservation Plan. 9. The developers don't even live here as I am sure you are aware. They live in Paradise Valley where they cannot do this, per their General Plan, and would never live across from it. Is Fountain Hills not good enough for them to live in but it is to build here? They tout it will only help our property values per their Harvard study. This study was written 12 years ago and at the height of the recession. Again, when looked at closely, this study is not representative of Fountain Hills. 10. Lastly, as stated in #1, there are 13 variances, waivers or changes in the General Plan that they are asking for. The worst of them is the Height and the Length of a 3-story (40' high and 600' long) apartment building. That is 2 football fields long and will be an even bigger mistake than Park Place downtown that no one likes since it does not fit with the aesthetics of the Town. Now we will have 23 buildings that look like Park Place at the western Gateway to our Community. This is no way to introduce our visitors, future buyers or anyone else to Fountain Hills. Many people notice the beautiful fountain on the corner of Shea and Palisades and then turn the corner onto Palisades and are welcomed by Four Peaks or even the Fountain downtown going off. Well no more. They will see a large overbearing complex that does not match the surrounding neighborhoods. More like Army barracks as some people have said. Is that what we want our Welcome to Fountain Hills to look like? I would like you to know that I moved here a year ago and did my due diligence to find out what the vacant land across from our property was zoned. At that time, Bob Rodgers showed me the plans of the hotel and the zoning of t_-3. He mentioned that 2 or 3 plans had been applied for but nothing had been built and nothing looked to be in the near future. If I had any inkling that a rental complex with 3 story buildings would be built there I would NEVER have put a bid on my home. Instead of tens of 1000's of square feet of empty business buildings we will have a beautiful piece of land desecrated to accommodate a rental complex that may never be full and destroy one of the last beautiful pieces of untouched hillsides in Fountain Hills. Most importantly, once they build, we cannot change it back. It comes at an extremely high price. So many of our beautiful mountains throughout Arizona have been built upon and we will never get that back. Let's work together to find what is BEST for that land. A responsible developer would not ignore the requests and concerns of the planning and zoning department and the residents of Fountain Hills. I implore you to VOTE NO on this project at Shea and Palisades. Please include this letter in the Staff Report, Kind Regards, Michelle Webb 3 Marissa Moore From: Bob Hahn Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 7:23 PM To: Marissa Moore; Randy Harrel Cc: 'ROBERT COURTNEY` 'Stephen Messel' Subject: Daybreak Revision 43 Attachments: Issues With Revision # 3.docx; Engineering Evaluation of the Geological Make.docx; Traffic congestion.diagram,pdf Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I have attached several items that I think you and Randy really need to take a look at in your current evaluation of Daybreak's latest "plan". These are points we intend to bring to the Planning Commission if they are not resolved by you and Randy prior to that meeting. I also want to give you a heads up on the traffic issue, namely the "chaos zone" that will be created by the southern exit from Daybreak's plan 1. Palisades y Extremely unsafe proposed location of southern entrance 1 left and right exit to Daybreak. (hotel plan much safer) Y "Traffic analysis" conducted by CivTech is deeply flawed due largely to the direction given to them by the developer and the town of Fountain Hills: a) CivTech was told the sites accesses would both be located at existing openings in the median. b) CivTech was told that the town's "primary concern" is whether or not left and right hand turn lanes approaching the site driveways are warranted, and if there was need for a traffic signal at either. Should„ not the town's "primary concern" have been what the safest site accesses would be, where they should be located, and how they should be controlled? ➢ The site selection for both the north and south entrance and exit was based on using up the 30 feet materials scalped from the hill in order to save off -site disposal costs, not safety for our citizens I hope this is helpful to you and Randy Bob Hahn Issues With Revision #3 1. Sloppy, cut and paste job, some charts and pictures out of date (one still shows assisted living facility), several sheets repetitive. 2. Disregarded if not ignored issues noted by P&Z and engineering personnel: a. Building height: Application calls for 40 feet, staff will only support to 30 feet as in all other districts in FH. b. Building length of Senior Apartments: Application calls for 600 feet, by ordinance the max res. building length is 200 feet. c. Garage setback: Application calls for 4', town ordinance is 6' d. Cuts: Applications calls for up to 37 feet, town ordinance limit is 10 feet e. Fills: Application calls for up to 57 feet, town ordinance is 10 feet f. Unrestrained cut slope: Application calls for 1.5:1, ordinance is 3:1 g. Unrestrained fill slope: Application calls for 2:1, ordinance is 3.1 h. Unrestrained cut and fill height: Application calls for 30' - 57', ordinance is 4' - 6' L Parking was an issue on # 2, but omitted entirely in # 3??? Daybreak was 145 spaces under j. Project disturbs 11.37 acres of land under HPE, should be none En ineerin Evaluation of the Geolo kcal Make-u,2 of the Site Daybreaks RA.D application, revision 3, dated May 15, 2019 includes a geological evaluation of the site by Cooper State Engineering (CSE) which is based totally on "a eotechnical inves!Lqafion report for the site prepared by Western Technologies, Inc.(WTI), dated August 19 2005. Included in the 2005 WTI report were eight new test pits (dug by a backhoe) and a summary of seven refractive seismic lines run in 1399." While the report states the fold equipment used for the refractive seismic lines were "oriented to depths of 10 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface", only 3 of the 7 appear to have gone beyond 9 feet. All 3 of those showed either "very dense cemented soil or very dense (heavily cemented) soil - or rock. In closing the report, CSE states: 1. "Based on our review of the provided information, CSE believes that cut slopes at the site can be considered stable for the upper 10 feet of cuts in the investigated p2rtlions of this site. In the more cemented areas below a depth of 10 feet steeper cut slopes at the site may be shown to be stable with additional site geotechnical investigative work", 2. "Fill slopes constructed with on -site materials would be considered stable as long as they were placed, compacted and tested to requirements of engineering fill, placed over horizontally benched and stable foundation materials and maintained in a relatively dry condition free of significant erosion after construction" 3. "Additional site investigation worts would be necessary to provide more precise recommendations for permanent cut and fill slopes at this site." By the way, the definition of Caliche is "a sedimentary rock, a hardened natural cement of calcium carbonate that binds other materials , such as gravel, sand, clay and silt." 6 NORTIAr t V-- �l I SHQ� 8LvD t. y^y ate,,.' Paula Woodward From: Gary Omell Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2019 4:O6 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Proposal Members of the Town Council and Planning & Zoning Commission: As a member of a P & Z Committee for over 20 years in a suburb of St Louis (City of Town & Country), I'm writing you today to express my opinions and concerns on the Multi -Family Rental Complex on the NE corner of Shea and Palisades. This general plan announced by the developer is not in compliance with the city's Comprehensive Land -Use Plan in many ways. It's not compatible with the neighborhood, nor does it protect and preserve the character of the existing houses. This undoubtedly will effect adjacent land values adversely. This negative impact will ultimately effect the entire community. The current zoning is L3 (Lodging) and not MFU or MFR. Traffic studies show a major effect on existing traffic flow, which will effect safety and welfare. This is one of the main entries into our fair city and it's not the image that reflects our character or essence. The fact that it will require at least 13 variances to proceed is a red flag to any responsible P & Z commission. You have been appointed to serve this community as a trusted representative of the citizens of Fountain Hills. Your duty is to serve the best interests of our community. The majority of this city is opposed to this development. You must stand against those who do not serve the best interests of our city. Your integrity is at stake. Vote down this proposal! Yours truly, Gary H.Omell M.D. E. Mustang Dr Fountain Hills, Az Please attach this letter to Staff Report Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Marissa Moore From: steve conrad Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:40 AM To: gdicke@fh.az.gov; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; John Wesley; Marissa Moore Subject: Daybreak Follow Up Flag: Fol#ow up Flag Status: Flagged To Fountain Hills Town officials, council and planners, My wife and I moved to Fountain Hills 20 years ago and currently reside at Eagle Mountain. The greatest attraction that brought us to this area was the unspoiled beauty of the surrounding Sonoran Desert with homes tastefully situated in the hills. We have recently become aware of the proposed Daybreak development on the corner of Shea and Palisades. We were shocked to learn that the Town is actually considering allowing a multi -family rental complex with up to 400 units including an assisted living center and three-story buildings to be built on this beautiful site. With a little research we found that the Town General Plan specifically states "protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." Daybreak is clearly not a compatible land use and would obliterate the beautiful hillside and take it down to street level. We have also learned that the developers need at least 13 zoning and ordinance changes to accommodate this development, not the least of which is a rezoning for multifamily unrestricted and multi -family restricted use. Common sense would say that it would be an easy decision for the Town Planners to reject this proposal, but we are concerned about what money can do to common sense. That is why we are adding our plea to stop this development process, thereby preserving the beauty and the character of our town, the things that brought so many of us here in the first place. Please attach this letter to the Staff Report. Respectfully, I Steven Conrad Paula Woodward From: Bob Hahn Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 9:47 AM To: Alan Magazine; Art Tolis; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Ginny Dickey; Mike Scharnow; Sherry ! eckrone Cc: PZC (Commission); John Wesley Subject: Mission Creep Artirle I was encouraged by my neighbors to forward my letter to the editor of the FH Times of a couple of weeks ago in the ervent that you didn't see it in the paper. Since I have lived here in FH for some 20 years now, I do have an historical perspective on this project which may be helpful to you. Best regards Bob Hahn Mission Creep Mission Creep is when a simple plan evolves and grows far beyond the original intent, It's typically a result of unforeseen events that cause the mission to change. This continues on as other events, usually caused by prior unforeseen events, result in further changes, until the original mission is no longer recognizable. Viet Nam is the classic example, where US involvement went from providing limited assistance to the South Vietnamese in 1957 with 200 US advisors, to 575,000 US combat troops fighting a major land war in Asia. The result 20 years later, 55,000 Americans killed and hundreds of thousands wounded, physically and mentally. That's mission creep! We have our own mission creep going on right here in Fountain Hills. It's that beautiful parcel of hills, ravines, Saguaros, at the corner of Palisades and Shea. In the1990's this parcel was zoned as residential. After a few years, the zoning was changed to accommodate a small boutique Inn on only 15 acres of the parcel. Mission creep just started. The new normal became a small Inn. Then it was rezoned to a much large hotel on 25 acres. That then morphed into a convention hotel with scores of condo's surrounding it , then it evolved into a hotel with multi -family residences. Now, Daybreak wants it rezoned to build 270 apartments in 15 separate buildings, a 3 story, 40 foot high, 600 foot long senior living dormitory with 100 rooms and finally, a 30 bed assisted living facility. Talk about mission creep! The people of Fountain Hills need to tell the Planning Commission and the Town Council, "NO WAY. Enough is enough." Stop this foolishness now, before we end up with this huge eyesore forever damaging our town's reputation for spectacular, breathe taking views. Bob Hahn I Paula Woodward From: judy hippner Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 11:59 AM To: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; John Wesley; Marissa Moore; PZC (Commission), Michelle Webb; Judy hippner Subject: Fw: Fountain Hills Subject: This letter concerns the proposed development of Day Break rental units at the corner of Shea and Palisades. We bought our house in the Summit at Crestview a few months ago. It had been a rental property from the very moment it was built. Here is what we found when we bought the property. Here is the legacy the renters left us: Broken 48 inch Dacor refrigerator that could not be repaired. Burned candles in the fireplace, melting wax all over the ceramic logs. Broken kitchen cabinet door Broken door locks Nails hammered for no reason all over the external stucco Crushed marble tiles in the shower and hall Broken faucets Never changed the air filters Never picked a weed Damaged pool pump Melted cook top knobs Wrecked lighting fixtures Damaged telephone jacks all over the house Badly stained carpet Renter lost all remotes, including a $600 pool remote After the last renter vacated the property, the rental agent threw all her personal belongings, even her food, into the garages, where they remained for a long period of time. At one point, the rental agent, a licensed real estate broker, had three men come over to pick thru the garbage and buy whatever they wanted. The actual owner lived in California and was never present for any of the purchase procedures. It took three men, four truckloads, and three days to clear out the garages. We found a dead rat in there and quite a bit of mouse droppings, exposing nearby residents to germs and rodent infestation. This house was for sale for quite a long time before we bought it at close to a million dollars. . Please be aware that the usual goal of the developers is to fill all their units with any kind of renter, with incentives and discounts. At any price. So the property can be sold at a profit. FYI: To this day we receive notices from collection agencies for monies owed by the last renter. Among her personal belongings were collection agency letters , at least one hundred of them, dating back six years, presumably while she was living here. i THIS WHAT YOU WANT FOR THE ENTRANCE TO FOUNTAIN HILLS? ,Judith Hippner Daybreak Bullet Points Daybreak is a proposed Multi -Family Rental Complex on the NE corner of Shea and Palisades The General Plan (2010) of Fountain Hills in Chapter 3, Land Use Element, page 34, Goal Five states "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." The surrounding neighborhoods are all low density, high value single family homes. Daybreak is not a compatible neighbor with a potential 400-unit multi -family rental complex that would obliterate the beautiful hillside and take it down to street level. The current Zoning for this property is for Lodging, L-3 (General Plan, Chapter 2, page 16 and page 28, Figure 8) not for MFU (Multi -Family Unrestricted) and MFR (Multi -Family Restricted) use. This zoning should not be changed to anything other than low density, single family homes if it is changed at all so that it is compatible with the rest of the adjacent land use. Traffic and traffic safety is of utmost importance to all Fountain Hills residents, visitors or commuters who use Shea and/or Palisades Boulevards daily. This is an extremely busy intersection and one of 3 main arteries into the Town of Fountain Hills. There are over 15,390 cars per day on Palisades Boulevard and the proposed Daybreak development could generate approximately 2500 trips daily with 148 generated during the AM peak hour and 178 during the PM peak hour alone! The proposed entrances/exits could lead to many traffic accidents and possible deaths due to blind corners and the age of those in the Multi -Family age restricted apartment complex, Fountain Hills is renowned for its pristine image and panoramic mountain views and vistas. This is the Gateway to Fountain Hills from the West and will not be the image that we want our town to represent. A rental complex at the entrance to this beautiful town with half million to multi -million dollar homes presently all around it is not cohesive with a "Beverly Hills of Arizona" mentality, per Vice Mayor Art Tolis. The number of Zoning and Ordinance changes (at least 13) to accommodate this development is too many and will likely not be adhered to, like many of the other requested zoning changes from other developments that the Town of Fountain Hills council has approved in the past few years. i.e. Park Place, the apartment building downtown that does not represent Fountain Hills architectural structures There are over 60 vacancies throughout Fountain Hills for rental apartments, condos and/or homes. We Don't Need Another Rental Apartment complex. This letter needs to be attached to the Staff Report. Dave and Arlene Caldwell E. La Montana Dr. Fountain Hills, AZ. 85268 Paula Woodward From: Grady Miller Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 2:38 PM To: Elizabeth Burke; Paula Woodward Cc: John Wesley; Marissa Moore; Ginny Dickey Subject: Fwd-. Daybreak Fountain Hills Attachments: Welbourn Summit letter.docx; ATT00001.htm Paula and Liz, Please add the letter from Mr. Welbourne to the official Daybreak public comment file. Thank you for your assistance. Regards, Grady Begin forwarded message: Front: Bruce Welbourn Date: April 19, 2019 at 2:31:20 PM MST To: "pzc ,az.gov" <pzcRaz.gov>, "),,dicke(cyfh.az.gov" < =d�_if i.az.g2v>, "atolis C fh.az, tQv" <atolis cfl�.azgov>, "tnscharnow c fI az-6'ov" <mscharnow c fll.az. ov>, "amagazine c fli.az.goy" <arnagazine c fli.az.gov>, "dspelieh a fli.az. ov" <dspelieh cr fh.az.gov>, "dbrown c flaz. ov" <dbro.wn c fh.az. =ov>, "sieckrone fll.az.gov" <sleckrone u,f -az.gov>, "giniller fli_ az. ov" <giniller c #h.az. ov>, "rrpdt ers c f11_ .az.b, v" <UgLers r fllfl az.gov>, "lninoore�2cf7l.az,g( v" <inmoore c fh.az. mov> Subject: Daybreak Fountain Hills Reply -To: Bruce Welbourn Dear FH Council Members, Please see my attached letter re the subject proposal. Thanks you for your attention to this crucial matter Best regards, Bruce Welbourn Paula Woodward From: Bruce Welbourn Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 3:51 PM To: PZC (Commission); gdicke@fh.az.gov Subject: Fw: Daybreak Fountain Hills Attachments: Welbourn Summit letter,docx Bruce Welbourn 602.373.1905 ----- Forwarded Message --- From. Bruce Welbourn To: pzc@az.gov <pzc@az.gov>; gdicke@fh.az.gov <gdicke@fh.az.gov>; atolis@fh.az.gov <atolis@fh.az.gov>; mscharnow@fh.az.gov <mscharnow@fh.az.gov>; amagazine@fh.az.gov <amagazine@fh.az.gov>; dspelich@fh.az.gov <dspelich@fh.az.gov>; dbrown@fh.az.gov <dbrown @fh.az.gov>; sleckrone@fh.az.gov <sleckrone@fh.az.gov>,- gmiller@fh.az.gov <gmiller@fh.az.gov>; rrodgers@fh.az.gov <rrodgers@fh.az.gov>; mmoore@fh.az.gov <mmoore@fh.az.gov> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019, 02:31:20 PM MST Subject: Daybreak Fountain Hills Dear FH Council Members, Please see my attached letter re the subject proposal. Thanks you for your attention to this crucial matter Best regards, Bruce Welbourn Dear Fountain Hills Town Council Members, I appreciate the work and responsibility you undertake in an attempt to keep Fountain Hills the type of community that lured me and my family two and a half years ago to move the four miles from 12-8ch Street (Sabino Estates) in Scottsdale to the hills of Fountain Hills. I use the line often "I moved from a great house with a good view to a good house with a great view!" and that is no exaggeration. To this end we have a great deal of concern about the proposed Daybreak development. I understand that this development proposal is currently under consideration by the council and we are truly concerned that this development is not consistent with the Fountain Hills Planning Documents. Having lived in Scottsdale for over fifteen years I understand the need for revenue to maintain and grow the community while taking the views of the residents very seriously. We asked the builder of our current home specifically about the beautiful land across the street from our location which we consider the front door to Fountain Hills and he said it was designated for a high end resort but had been under consideration for over twenty years. That was an acceptable risk as a high end resort would not damage surrounding home. values. Had we been told that it would be an assisted living facility and a multi- level apartment complex that would block our view of the fountain from our back yard we would not be Fountain Hills residents today. Clearly, we feel the Daybreak development seems at odds with the cities' planning documents. The fact that we are adjacent to a very busy road that results in an overview of numerous accidents per year at the corner of Palisades and Shea only makes us wonder what will happen when additional high -density living accommodations are added to the mix. A high end resort development would not create similar large volumes of traffic (as it is self-contained) during the already busy rush hours and would minimize the associated noise pollution. Having attended the developers meeting I noticed that even though they plan to keep a portion of the land undeveloped they plan to develop the most visible piece of the property, the hilltop. This design seems to mar the first impression anyone would have of our lovely city with multi -level apartments, and offensive free standing garages, with little buffer off of North Palisades The natural beauty of the desert will be destroyed. Everything surrounding the Daybreak development is completely different than the proposed design. These neighborhoods are comprised of high end single family dwellings that would be adversely affected by a high density, multi -family development. My family is confident that the Fountain Hills city Council will protect their citizens from this misapplication of this beautiful land. I was very disappointed that the density calculation for this project, performed and discussed by the developer, uses the total square footage of the land in question, not the usable/buildable square footage. This makes the density appear to be much less than it actually is. We are also sure that this development would have a deleterious effect on the wildlife, native vegetation, natural washes/water runoff and usage as well as natural sound attenuation effects on neighboring communities. I am sure that the council will take all of these details into account when making their momentous decision. My family is also sensitive to the other developments coming online currently at Adero Cyn and the Marriott expansion at Copperwynd. This will increase the already heavy traffic load past our house and increase the danger of Ingress/egress to the Summit at Crestview community. Lastly, at their introduction meeting the developers claimed that their design was preliminary but I would have imagined in that case that it would be minimally offensive while the project was still up in the air. The design slid not reflect that level of sensibility but presented as a low end option with little thought. if given approval I can't imagine this will improve at all. In my humble opinion, the Daybreak development has not been designed and proposed in a manner that is sensitive to the environment or its surroundings. 1 appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and concerns about this potential project. I have attempted to speak generally as a homeowner in Fountain Hills but personally this development would be devastating from a view and financial standpoint. I am confident that the council will make the best decision for the citizens of Fountain Hills and I would be happy to answer any questions that you have of me. Please attach my correspondence to the staff report. Sincerely, Bruce H. Welbourn Pauia Woodward From: Grady Miller Seat: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:37 PM To: Elizabeth Burke; Paula Woodward; Ginny Dickey Subject: Fwd: DAYBREAK Project Paula/Liz, Please add this to the public record oil this topic. Thank you_ Regards, Grady Begin forwarded message: From: Peter Donzelli Date: April 9, 2019 at 8:58:43 AM MST To: udicke"ffl.az.P_ov, atolls Omfh.az.Rov. znscharnowAfh.az.gov, amagazine(rbfh,a7..gov dsbelichQfh.az.t,ov, dbrown a fh.az.gov,__sleckrone(iifh.az.P,ov, gmillerQfh.az.gov, rrod gers c fli.az. Tov rnmoore fh.az. ov Subject: DAYBREAK Project WOUld appreciate this email being attached to the Staff Report" To Whom It May Concern: We have been full-time residents of Fountain Hills for 22 years and have always enjoyed the beauty of its surroundings, the people and community feeling. We are against the DAYBREAK concept as being meaningful and needed for Fountain Hills. There are too many examples available that prove the addition of this complex to our community will result in additional space being vacant, poor traffic control and an absolute eyesorefor those entering Fountain Hills. We urge you to vote against such approval for this project. 1 Thanks for your concern and follow-thru. Linda and Peter Donzelli N Longfeather Peter J DO)I ,elli (0) 480.816.1747 Please excuse the .spelling ..I may have responded by using ny phone. Marissa Moore From: Ginny Dickey Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 4:04 PM To: Judy Mac Cc: Grady Miller, Marissa Moore; Elizabeth Burke Subject: RE: Shea and Palisades Development Hi, I appreciate your input. We will include this in the information for the project, and consider your concerns should the proposal come before Council. Thank you, Ginny Ginny Dickey Mayor tNIN,40, Town of Fountain Hills o� �$ p: (480) 816--5101 s a: 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 w: www.fh.az.gov e: gdtckey@fh,az.gov_ Follow us on: 0130 -----Original Message ----- From: Judy Mac Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 2:26 PM To: Ginny Dickey <gdickey@fh.az.gov> Subject: Shea and Palisades Development Please be advised that as a resident of Eagle Mountain I am opposed to the proposed 400+ apartment development near my home. Traffic on Palisades is very heavy presently and the road to Shea has obstructed views. Any ingress or egress at the proposed site would constitute a traffic hazard and could be dangerous. Thank you. Richard Berk East Miramonte Way Fountain Hills, AZ 85268. Marissa Moore From: Don Schultz Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 10:52 AM To: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; Bob Rodgers; Marissa Moore: PZC (Commission) Cc: Don Schultz Subject: Daybreak development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged The proposed development plan of "Daybreak" states that it is a low density community. When you use only 30 acres of a 60 acre parcel, it reverts back to a high density complex. This does not "protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land use." Does the Town of Fountain Hills want to "spoil the gateway" to this unique and outstanding community? A stranger told us to drive East on Shea, and North on Palisades Boulevard to see Fountain Hills. We still remember the impression we had of the fountain, the sign, and the desert vista as we made a left turn. As residents of Summit, making a left turn onto Palisades, while facing head-on left turns from Daybreak would be a dangerous daily occurrence. Don and Marti Schultz Sent from my iPad E Paula Woodward From: Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 10:36 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Development Proposal To: Zoning and Planning Commission • Chairman Susan Dempster • Vice -Chairman Erik Hansen • Commissioner Mathew Boik • Commissioner N'Marie Crumbie • Commissioner Peter Gray • Commissioner Christopher Jones • Commissioner Scott Schlossberg From: Irvin P. Brock III, M.D. Re: Daybreak Development Proposal Date: 3/26/18 Dear Fountain Hills Zoning and Planning Commission, First let me take this opportunity to thank the commission for their service to this community. Fountain Hills is a wonderful place to live and it's to the Zoning and Planning Commission's oversight that we owe a debt of gratitude. The Fountain Hills Planning Document is a reflection of the commission's (and other's) thoughtful oversight. It's in this context I share my concerns with regards to the Daybreak development. Specifically, I ask the commission to consider whether this development truly consistent with the Fountain Hills Planning Document? I'm sensitive to the growth pressures Fountain Hills is experiencing and aware of the limitations in available real estate to address those pressures. I'm also sensitive to the need for economic vitality: but it must be cohesive, balanced, flexible and guided by the planning document. Stated another way: I'm not opposed to development but ask whether the Daybreak development proposal is appropriate for this site. Does this development conserve and preserve the natural heritage and visual beauty of the surrounding desert? Fountain Hills was recently selected as one of the top 25 cities in the greater Phoenix valley to live in and was selected as an international Dark Sky Community. Is this the first impression (of a large hill, now irreversibly altered, with multi level apartments, and warehouse appearing, free standing, car garages, with little buffer off of the southern segment of North Palisades) we want visitors to have as they approach Fountain Hills from the South? In my opinion, this proposed development damages the majesty of the entrance to Fountain Hills. Does this development protect adjacent neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land use? How is an assisted living facility and multiple family units compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods? How does the Daybreak project "protect" adjacent neighborhoods? The surrounding neighborhoods are ALL single family homes. In my opinion, Daybreak is inconsistent with adjacent neighborhoods and rather than protect these 1 neighborhoods it places them at increased risk through their high density and associated increased traffic congestion. It is also important to point out that the density calculation for this project, performed by the developer, uses the total square footage of the land in question, not the usable/buildable square footage. This makes the density to appear much less than it actually is. Is this development being accomplished in a "highly sensitive" manner relative to existing land forms, wash areas, vegetation and other environmental constraints? The development plan currently calls for the significant destruction of a large natural hill that is very close to the Shea and North Palisades intersection. This hill, in addition to its natural beauty, serves as a natural sound barrier from traffic noise to adjacent neighborhoods. Traffic congestion and its associated noise are not inconsequential in this area. Currently there are 15,390 cars per day that travel on Palisades Boulevard and the Daybreak development is projected to add 2,500 additional cars per day. This projection does not include the increase in traffic associated with the expansion of the CopperWynd resort and the new housing development of Adero Canyon. Ingress and egress from the Summit (directly across North Palisades to the proposed entrance to Daybreak) at Crestview is already precarious due to the limited visibility of oncoming traffic headed South towards Shea. Finally, if you have driven on North Palisades, you will attest to the lack of compliance with the posted speed limit. In my opinion, Daybreak is not being built in a highly sensitive manner. It is my opinion, this development is far from being highly sensitive to the existing forms. In conclusion, thanks for allowing me this opportunity to share my concerns and opinions. I'd like to recommend visiting the proposed site and adjacent neighborhoods, guided by some ofthe homeowners, to get a better appreciation of our concerns. In addition, I would be happy to discuss thisfurther at the commission's convenience. Please attach this to the staff report. Respectfully, Irvin "Pete" Brock III, M.D. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 N Paula Woodward From: Sent: To: Subject: Planning Commissioners Bob Hahn Wednesday, March 27, 2019 1:28 PM PZC (Commission) Proposed Daybreak Project Why is it that developers like Daybreak think it is okay to submit a development plan to the town that is in direct violation of countless ordinances and regulations? Why would they not just submit a plan that is in compliance from the outset? Could it be because they believe the town is so desperate for grow and revenue that it will roll over and grant anything just to get development regardless? Or, could it be that the process the town uses is flawed; is too iterative and open to negotiation. They know you will move on certain items, the process encourages it, indeed, it welcomes it. Respectfully and thankful for your service to the town, Bob Hahn Paula Woodward From: Grady Miller Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:40 AM To: Elizabeth Burke; Paula Woodward Cc: Ginny Dickey Subject: FW: Daybreak Development Attachments: FH CC Daybreak docx Please include the attached in the public record on the Daybreak matter. Thank you. Grady Grady Miller Town Manager Town of Fountain Hills 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Direct: 480-816-5107 Fax; 480-837-3145 The Height of Desert Living -----Original Message ----- From: CARROLL Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9.34 AM To. Ginny Dickey <gdickey@fh.az.gov>; Art Tolis <atolis@fh.az.gov>; Grady Miller<gmiller@fh.az.gov>; Marissa Moore <mmoore@fh.az.gov>; PZC (Commission) <PZC@fh.az.gov> Subject: Daybreak Development The attached letter expresses our concerns with the proposed Daybreak development on Shea and Palisades. We ask that you please include this letter in the next staff report to the council. Thank you. Carroll & Eileen Anderson To: Fountain Hills Town Council Members As proud homeowners and 11-year residents of the great town of Fountain Hills, we are urgently asking that you deny approval of the proposed Daybreak development. This development is ill advised for multiple reasons and would negatively impact the town of Fountain Hills and the residents who are in the direct vicinity of the project. As you know, this proposed location is at the heart of the western gateway to Fountain Hills. We all take tremendous pride in the spectacular mountain and vista views when approaching the city on Shea - Whenever we tell our friends from the Midwest that we live in Fountain Hills, they immediately associate the town by these views when they've passed through the area. There is no question that 2-3 story rental apartments will detract from those views and redefine visitors' perceptions of Fountain Hills. Not to mention the traffic. We honestly cannot comprehend a traffic study supporting this project based on the fact that the intersection of Shea and Palisades is already at peak capacity. We should know — we overlook it every day and attempt to navigate our way in and out of our development's entrance through an endless stream of incoming traffic. It is unfathomable to think of potentially another 600 parking spaces that could significantly increase the traffic in an already congested area. When we purchased our lot in 2008, we paid an additional $100,000 for the view. Each and every visitor who enters our house, whether friends, acquaintances or repairmen, immediately comment on the spectacular view. If this project moves forward, property values in the vicinity will decrease dramatically, which could impact the city's tax base significantly. We appreciate the efforts in helping local businesses survive the seasonal fluctuations that Fountain Hills experiences. However, building assisted living or rental apartments in one of the most aesthetic locations in all of Maricopa County is not a solution. You can be assured that we will do all that we can to prevent this from moving forward and sincerely hope that you have the foresight to understand our position for the sake of the residents you represent. Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully yours, Carroll and Eileen Anderson Mountain Vista Ct. Paula Woodward Frorn: Suzie Downs Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 10:08 AM To: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Speech; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; Robert 'Bob' Rodgers; Marissa Moore; PZC (Commission), - Pete Downs Cc. PLEASE ATTACH TO THE STAFF REPORT - PROPOSED DAYBREAK PROJECT Subject: To our civic leaders, I am writing in regards to the proposed rezoning and Daybreak development at the corner of E. Shea Blvd, and N. Palisades Blvd. First I want to say thank you for your service to the community. I can relate. I was involved in city government for 25 years. You examine data, review community input and eventually make decisions affecting the future landscape of your community, no easy task. The sustainability of a community depends on its citizen's involvement, infrastructure and economic development. These basics are the cornerstone to the development of any community. The cornerstone of the Fountain Hills Community lies at the intersection of East Shea Blvd., and N. Palisades Blvd. This natural billboard, a gateway to the community is being slated for a high density, high traffic apartment and assisted living complex. We know this to be the gateway to the community because the intersection of Shea and Palisades plays host to 2,080 vehicles per hour at 6.40 am and peaks at 3,260 vehicles per hour by 9:00am. (I have video or maybe we could do a long breakfast) The current zoning is for a planned resort, which is nestled into the existing topography of the site. We see this as an aesthetic compliment to the existing lay of the land, producing a much lower traffic count as well. The Daybreak plan however, involves bulldozing and excavating 30 feet off the top of the hill along Palisades, and replacing it with 40 feet of concrete. Turn the corner, head north on Palisades and welcome to fountain hump and 4 stories of concrete. Selfishly this request for rezoning would take the surrounding million dollar views of a community and narrow them down to $1500 views (referring to the monthly apartment rent) in a very tight geographical complex of high density, multi -story structures, and high resident turnover. Is this the best use of land, and is this the character of a growing community? In the General Plan (2010) of Fountain Hills, Chapter 3, Land Use Element, page 34, Goal Five states "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." When you consider the collateral damage to the aesthetic value, worsening traffic safety, and the loss of a community's identity, it is clear that a rezoning of the "Gateway To Fountain Hills" is not conducive to the goals of Fountain Hills General Plan and thus, not warranted. Again, thank you for your service to this great community, The natural beauty preserved by decisions of council is what brought us here. J hope your decision on the rezoning issue will keep us here. Best Regards, Pete Downs Mountain Vista Ct. Fountain Hills AZ 85268 Marissa Moore From: judy hippner Sent: Monday, March 2S, 2019 2:28 PM To. Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry teckrone; Robert 'Bob' Rodgers; Marissa Moore; PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak.... Please vote "NO" Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged The General Plan (2010) of Fountain Hills in Chapter 3, Land Use Element, page 34, Goal Five states "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land users." We moved to Fountain Hills two months ago, attracted by the views and vistas. I recently told a friend where I had moved, and the response was ,"Isn't that primarily a condo community?" We must keep a healthy balance of single family residences, as well as apartments and condos and assisted living. Developers like the ones who are proposing Daybreak usually build these projects, rent them out at any cost, then sell them and move on. They are entitled to their profits, but not on the backs of all the other people living in Fountain Hills. Secondly, after attending these meetings, it was disclosed that the high school population has gone from 800 to 500 in the past few years. This is not good, You cant field a viable competitive sports program with so few potential athletes. So many extra curricular activities depend on enough students, as do many other educational programs and outside activities. Daybreak proposes assisted living and small rental apartments. It will not attract families with school age children. Our future is our youth. We already have enough assisted living units. Let us concentrate on our future. Let the developers build if they must, but keep the zoning to single family homes. And please, look carefully at the developers plans to blast off the top of the ridge and level it in order to build. Mother Earth doesn't like intruders like that and you never know what you are going to unleash when you start messing with the topography in that aggressive manner. THIS LETTER NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT Judith Hippner N. Mountain Vista Ct. Fountain Hills, A7 85268 Paula Woodward From: Grady Miller Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 11:04 AM To: Elizabeth Burke; Paula Woodward Cc: Ginny Dickey Subject: FW: PLEASE ATTACH TO THE STAFF REPORT - PROPOSED DAYBREAK PROJECT Another document to include in the public record on Daybreak. Thanks again..... Grady Grady Miller Town Manager Town of Fountain Hills qo 16705 6. Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Direct: 480-816-5107 Fax: 480-837-3145 74e qecg4it a(, Dweif awucg From: Suzie Downs Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 10:08 AM To: Ginny Dickey <gdickey@fh.az.gov>; Mike Scharnow <mscharnow@fh.az.gov>; Alan Magazine <amagazine@fh.az.gov>David Spelich <dspelich@fh.az.gov>; Dennis Brown <dbrown@fh.az.gov>;Sherry Leckrone <sleckrone@fh.az.gov>; Grady Miller <gmiller@fh.az.gov>; Robert 'Bob' Rodgers <rrodgers@fh.az.gov>; Marissa Moore <mmoore@fh.az.gov>; PZC (Commission) <PZC@fh.az.gov>; Cc: Pete Downs Subject: PLEASE ATTACH TO THE STAFF REPORT - PROPOSED DAYBREAK PROJECT To our civic leaders, I am writing in regards to the proposed rezoning and Daybreak development at the corner of E. Shea Blvd, and N. Palisades Blvd. First I want to say thank you for your service to the community. 1 can relate. 1 was involved in city government for 25 years. You examine data, review community input and eventually make decisions affecting the future landscape of your community, no easy task. The sustainability of a community depends on its citizen's involvement, infrastructure and economic development. These basics are the cornerstone to the development of any community. The cornerstone of the Fountain Hills Community lies at the intersection of East Shea Blvd., and N. Palisades Blvd. This natural billboard, a gateway to the community is being slated for a high density, high traffic apartment and assisted living complex. We know this to be the gateway to the community because the intersection of Shea and Palisades plays host to 2,080 vehicles per hour at 6:40 am and peaks at 3,260 vehicles per hour by 9:00am. (I have video or maybe we could do a long breakfast) The current zoning is for a planned resort, which is nestled into the existing topography of the site. We see this as an aesthetic compliment to the existing lay of the land, producing a much lower traffic count as well. The Daybreak plan however, involves bulldozing and excavating 30 feet off the top of the hill along Palisades, and replacing it with 40 feet of concrete. Turn the corner, head north on Palisades and welcome to fountain hump and 4 stories of concrete. Selfishly this request for rezoning would take the surrounding million dollar views of a community and narrow them down to $1500 views (referring to the monthly apartment rent) in a very tight geographical complex of high density, multi -story structures, and high resident turnover. Is this the best use of land, and is this the character of a growing community? In the General Plan (2010) of Fountain Hills, Chapter 3, Land Use Element, page 34, Goal Five states "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses." When you consider the collateral damage to the aesthetic value, worsening traffic safety, and the loss of a community's identity, it is clear that a rezoning of the "Gateway To Fountain Hills" is not conducive to the goals of Fountain Hills General Plan and thus, not warranted. Again, thank you for your service to this great community. The natural beauty preserved by decisions of council is what brought us here. I hope your decision on the rezoning issue will keep us here. Best Regards, Pete Downs Mountain Vista Ct. Fountain Hills AZ 85268 Paula Woodward From: Bob Hah Tuesday, March 26, Sent: 2019 2:55 PM PZC (Commission) To: Daybreak Project Subject: High importance: Planning Commissioners Before too long, the Daybreak project will be coming your way. It is a deeply flawed, "my way or the highway" proposal that violates more ordinances and sections of the General Plan than you can imagine, like a 600 foot long building, 40 feet high, 11 acres of HPE being abandoned, large sections of OSR being eliminated, 4 foot driveways, cuts 30 feet deep and fills of almost 60 feet, 1/3 less parking spaces than required, and very unsafe exit and entrance designs on the busiest road feeding into Fountain Hills. This is just to name a few. This project, as currently proposed, needs to be rejected, sending the developers back to the drawing board to make it right. Bob Hahn Paula Woodward From: Larry Ellingson Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 8:01 AM To: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Dennis S. Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; Robert 'Bob' Rodgers; Marissa Moore; PZC (Commission) Cc: Michelle Webb Subject: Daybreak / PLEASE ATTACH THIS EMAIL LETTER TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE COUNCIL As a concerned resident of the Summit at Crestview I would like you to consider the following points before voting to approve the recent proposals as I cannot imagine the traffic congestion going forward with this development. When we moved to Fountain Hills in 2001 we were infori-led of the proposed Resort and single family housing to be developed on this corner and now it looks a bit different. Daybreak is a proposed 400-unit Multi -Family Rental Complex with an Assisted Living Facility on the NE corner of Shea and Palisades * The General Plan (2010) of Fountain Hills in Chapter 3, Land Use Element, page 34, Goal Five states "Protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incoinpatible adjacent land uses." The surrounding neighborhoods are all low density, high value single family homes. Daybreak is not a compatible neighbor with a 400-unit multi -family rental complex with a 3-story apartment for 55+ and a 30-bed assisted living facility. • The current Toning for this property is for Lodging, L-3 (General Plan, Chapter 2, page 16 and page 28, Figure 8) not for M FU (Multi - Family Unrestricted) and MFR (Multi -Family Restricted) use. This zoning should not be changed to anything other than low density, single family homes if it is changed at all so that it is compatible with the rest of the adjacent land use, • Traffic and traffic safety is of utmost importance to all Fountain Hills residents, visitors or commuters who use Shea and/or Palisades Boulevards daily. This is an extremely busy intersection and one of 3 main arteries into the Town of Fountain Hills. There are over 15,390 cars per day on Palisades Boulevard and the proposed Daybreak development could generate approximately 2500 trips daily with 148 generated during the AM peak hour and 178 during the PM peak hour alone! The proposed entrances/exits could lead to many traffic accidents and possible deaths due to blind corners and the age of those in the Multi -Family age restricted (55+) apartment. • Fountain Hills is renowned for its pristine image and panoramic mountain views and vistas. This is the Gateway to Fountain Hills from the West and will not be the image that we want our town to represent. A rental complex with an assisted living facility as the first few images into the Town of Fountain Hills is not cohesive with a "Beverly Hills of Arizona" mentality, per Vice Mayor Art Tolis. • The number of Zoning and Ordinance changes (at least 13) to accommodate this development is too many and will likely not be adhered to, like many of the other requested zoning changes from other developments that the Town of Fountain Hills council has approved in the past few years. ix. the apartment building downtown that does not represent what Fountain Hills is all about. And where is Bart Shea no+v'?? • The occupancy in the existing Assisted Living facilities is approximately 70%. There are over 60 vacancies throughout Fountain Hills for rental apartments, condos and/or homes. We don't need another Assisted Living facility or a 400-unit Apartment complex. o Larry Ellingson "First Know yourself Plan for tomorrow, today Balance career and family See with an open mind Listen more often than I speak Remember the people involve Learn from mistakes Smile, think positive and maintain a sense of humor "Live, learn, love and leave a legacy" Paula Woodward From: Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 11:19 AM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Proposal The Planning and Zoning Commission is, or shortly will be, charged with considering the "Daybreak" proposal. This is a singularly bad idea as it is planned. Aside from the aesthetic damage to the currently attractive main entrance to the town of Fountain Hills, there are also serious ramifications to potential problems with congestion, road use and damage, safety as well as other considerations. The construction of several apartment buildings at this location is simply not in the best interests of the residents of Fountain Hills. If apartments designed for use as proposed are desired (by whom?), please advise the developer to find another location. Because of the extensive nature of the proposed development, and its long-term effect on the character and culture of Fountain Hills, it should be shelved as soon as possible. Such a major deviation from FH traditional standards should probably be put before the voters and not left to a small group of officials. There will likely be great pressure from the developer and other interested/involved parties to have the P&ZC grant multiple variations in codes and existing standards. Please stand fast and adhere to what is surely best for the community at large. The Daybreak proposal is a misnomer — this could result in a nightmare for Fountain Hills as we know it. Best wishes as you consider the benefits and negatives of the proposal. Please see it as a really bad idea for our future. Respectfully, G.A. Zingsheim Paula Woodward From: SHARON LATHAM Saturday, March 23, Sent: 2019 12:49 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Fwd: Proposed Daybreak Project Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: SHARON LATHAM Date. March 22, 2019 at 9:06.41 PM MST To • azeRfli.az.gov Subject: Fwd: Proposed Daybreak Project Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: SHARON LATHAM Date: March 22, 2019 at 8:56:35 PM MST To: t,dickeyC(ufh.az.�,ov, atolis t fh.az.gov, mscharnow(c-fh.az.eov ama azine c fh.az. >ov dsl2elich c fh.az. ov dbrown c fli.az. =ov sleckrone cc,fh.az.gov, gmillerA i.az.gov, rrodQers r-,fll.az.i!ov. mm000re c fh.az. ov Subject: Proposed Daybreak Project Ladies and Gentlemen of the Town Council, If the proposed Daybreak project comes to fruition as planned, it will be a sad day for our town and lower the value of not only our homes at the Summit at Crestview, Westridge Village and Crestview but also the first impression of the quality of the whole town. My husband and I moved here from Scottsdale eight years ago. We were drawn to the town because of the beautiful Iandscapes, the extraordinary views, the impressive developments and the home town friendliness of the people. We were informed when we bought our home that the land across from us was for sale and would be developed. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine the town would approve such a hideous eye sore as Daybreak proposes. The beautiful hill on Palisades which would make a nice sound barrier from road noise is planned to be leveled. Why not keep the hill for aesthetic purposes and develop behind the hill? Their plan is to densely cram the apartments, nursing home, and garages right up to Palisades with very little buffer from the road. The proposed colors for the buildings is red and yellow. Why not paint the structures in desert tones? The mixed usage of this property does not fit in with the surrounding properties. There are so many compromises that could and should be addressed. Entering the Summit at Crestview from Shea is already hazardous during the daylight hours because the line of sight is extremely poor. With the added traffic from Daybreak that hazard with increase immensely. Enclosed are photos taken from my back deck. Our home is directly across from the proposed project. As you can see we have at least one hundred feet of buffer from the road on the west side. Their project will level this gorgeous hillside and have virtually no buffer. Please consider my concerns and the concerns of our communities at the Gateway to Fountain Hills. I have heard that the Council is not interested in the loss of our views nor the devaluation of our properties. I kindly ask you how you would feel if this was approved for your back yard? Respectfully, Sharon M Latham N Sonora Vista Ct. 17i'Fi�'JY .�. R 4- ;ilr" .�i y - i� Sent from my Whone 4 Marissa Moore From: Ginny Dickey Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 5:44 PM To: Grady Miller; Marissa Moore Cc: RED Daybreak Proposal Subject: Hi, I appreciate your input and we will take your comments under consideration should this proposal come before Council. Thank you, Ginny Ginny Dickey Mayor Town of Fountain Hills p: (480) 816-5101 a: 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 w: www.fh.az.eov e: gdickey@fh.az.rov Follow us on: RIC3® From: GCZingsheim Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 11:58 AM To: Ginny Dickey <gdickey@fh.az.gov> Cc: Art Tolis <atolis@fh.az.gov>; Mike Scharnow <mscharnow@fh.az.gov>; Alan Magazine <amagazine@fh,az.gov>; David Spelich <dspelich@fh.az.gov>; Dennis Brown <dbrown@fh.az.gov>; Sherry Leckrone <sleckrone@fh.az.gov> Subject: Daybreak Proposal have recently become aware of the proposed "Daybreak" project to be implemented at the intersection of Shea and Palisades blvds. After checking into the details of the project I believe it is a singularly bad idea reminiscent of gondolas on the lake, a beachfront lagoon,and a 16 screen cineplex in the town center. All of which died a deserved quick death. Hopefully, the same will occur with the ill-considered multi -apartment proposal — although this project would have a far more debilitating impact on the future quality of life in Fountain Hills. The destruction of the aesthetics at the primary entrance to the town is only the most obvious of the negatives that would result from enactment of the plan. More serious are the congestion, safety, road damage and life quality impacts this project as proposed would have on all Fountain Hills residents. The idea should die in the crib. We recently elected a new mayor and town council. This is an excellent time for them to stand up to excessive development pressure to change planning and zoning regulations, and there will undoubtedly be many and continuing efforts to impose changes favorable to the developers. Stand for the interests of the residents and don't cave. Please. One only has to look at the abominable result of too many compromises in the garish and cheesy apartments that now desecrate the Avenue of the Fountains. Time to earn your spurs and encourage the P&Z Commission to serve the best interests of the whole community. Thank you. Respectfully, G.A. Zingsheim Paula Woodward From: fmlatham Sunday, March 17, 2019 Sent: 5:19 PM Marissa Moore To: PZC (Commission) Cc: Proposed Daybreak Development Subject: Ladies and gentlemen of the town council I am writing you with some points to consider regarding referenced development as presently planned. There are several violations to the General Plan for Fountain Hills regarding land use compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods ( multi storied apartments vs. single family homes), densities of development (actual 16 units per acre in the MVR and MFU zones), preservation of open space(particularly along Palisades Boulevard),protect natural open space (the plan indicates that the hill on the east side of Palisades is to be leveled to street grade and parking lots and apartments are to be adjacent to the right- of- way of Palisades with very little buffer). Certainly that is not compatible with the west side of the Boulevard which has over 100 feet of natural buffer/open space. That approach is not in balance at all with the western "gateway" to Fountain Hillsthat residences and visitors use to reach downtown and the Great Fair events that take place. There are so many comments about the approach to beautiful Fountain Hills via Palisades Boulevard; why ruin the view? was in the business of land development and design for 37 years and can not understand why the plan wants to remove a natural buffer and traffic noise deflector ( the hill). Why not "tuck" the proposed development on the east side of the hill and provide a more quiet living experience and even better views of Red Mountain, Four Peaks and the valley? There would remain plenty of open space to the east. The original plan indicated that was the approach for the hotel and condos. Then of course the traffic issue is a concern. The southern intersection from the development will be an accident ready to happen. I read the traffic engineer's report and the justification warrant to not install a traffic light at the proposed intersection as the volume of traffic from the side street will be low. But the sight distance is already a challenge to turn into The Summit at Crestview because the crown /profile of Palisades as it turns to the east toward Shea is view deterrent. Please consider these points and thank you for representing the Town of Fountain Hills. Yours Truly, F.M. Latham III N . Sonora Vista Fountain Hills, AZ, 85268 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Paula Woodward From: Alan Rousseau Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:42 AM To: Ginny Dickey; Art Tolis; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; Robert 'Bob' Rodgers; Marissa Moore; PZC (Commission) Proposed Daybreak Development Subject: To fountain Hills Town officials, council and planners My wife and I are residents at the Summit at Crestview where we built our dream home in 2007. We have recently become aware of the proposed Daybreak development on the corner of Shea and Palisades. We and the many neighbors I have talked to share a multitude of concerns about this project. First of all, the construction of rental units, three story buildings and an assisted living facility at the entrance to Fountain Hills appears contrary to the towns goals, to preserve open spaces and maintain strict guidelines for the conservation of natural resources and, more importantly, to protect and preserve existing neighborhoods from incompatible adjacent land uses, as stated in the General Plan. Nothing could be more incompatible than the proposed project surrounded by multiple upscale single-family residential areas including the Summit at Crestview, Westridge Village, the Palatial Estates, Firerock and Crestview. What an unsightly first impression for newcomers as they approach our town from the west. Secondly, and contrary to statements by the developer, what reasonable person would believe that the proposed project with all the additional vehicles would not greatly exacerbate an already congested and potentially dangerous traffic situation at the corner of Shea and Palisades? Having four entrances, two for Daybreak with its 400 additional units and one each for the Crestview and the Summit, so close makes no sense at all. Lastly, we all have concerns about erosion of our property values. When my wife and I purchased our lot at the Summit we paid a $200K premium for our views. Again, no reasonable person can argue that replacing the view of expansive unspoiled Sonoran Desert with three story buildings and high density housing would not degrade the value of our properties. One of the developers in a letter to the town stated that a recent Harvard study showed that low-income residences did not harm the property values of adjacent developments. In fact, low income projects actually added value to the communities. If you actually read this document, I believe you will conclude that the developer's claim is at best disingenuous and at worst a deliberate attempt to deceive the town planners. Nowhere in this study is there a situation like we have here in Fountain Hills where it is being proposed to construct rental units, three story buildings and an assisted living center that would replace a scenic, unspoiled expanse of Sonoran Desert right in the middle of multiple existing upscale single family developments. I sincerely hope that you will take these concerns into consideration before going forward with the proposed Daybreak project. Please attach this email to the staff report Respectfully, Alan Rousseau N Skyline Drive Paula Woodward From: Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 6:19 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Daybreak Please also forward to mayor - thank you My name is Paul Studer a owner in Westridge Village. I have attended two meeting. Listed below is my thoughts I intended to communicate to any one you my suggest. As a home owner in Westridge Village 1 will the first to express my appreciation for open natural landscape surrounding our community. At the same time I must acknowledge that I have no right to stop an owner from making improvement on his or her property. As long as the are in line with approved planning zoning rules or other such requirements. Many years ago the property was approved for a hotel. Which would more then likely had staggered traffic with people arrival and departure. More than likely some groups arriving in vans. Which would offer some reduction on the projected traffic. Yet as I recall based on traffic studies at the time a signal was required to allow proper safe entrance and egress from hotel. Which brings me to my main concern this new project requires a change to the zoning of the property. The traffic to and from area more than likely will increase greatly during the morning and afternoon commute times. Yet we were advised we were advised special entrance or crossing requirements were required. As I think about the added traffic, I ask my self when the safety requirements change. I am concerned for all the families living in Westridge Village and those in the planned community. There were other concerns, I assumed as said the builder's the drawings were preliminary and was open to suggestion. Which puts my main concern proper and SAFE entrance and crossin of one of the main entrance and exit to Fountain Hill. Paul Studer Marissa Moore From: Paula Woodward Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 2:57 PM To: Marissa Moore; Robert 'Bob' Rodgers Subject: Fw: Opposition to Daybreak Project Attachments: Daybreak Project docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Judy Hines Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 5:45:27 PM To: PZC (Commission) Subject: Opposition to Daybreak Project Dear Cotnmisioners Dempster, Hansen, Roik, Crutnbie, Janes, Schlossberg and Gray, Please see my letter attached. Thank you. Judy alines Dear Commissioner, N. Mountain Vista Court Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 March 8, 2019 Re: Proposed Daybreak PLQjLu I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Daybreak project at Shea and Palisades Boulevards. In my opinion, the proposed development is much too dense in structure and in population for that parcel of land. The rental units, apartment complexes and assisted living facilities are inferior in value and incompatible with surrounding homes, and all those homeowners will be gravely affected by this project. The volume of traffic generated from the proposed development, as well as the hazardous entrance and exit immediately after turning onto Palisades Boulevard, is a major concern and not one to be taken lightly. With an elderly population from the assisted living facility venturing onto a very busy Palisades Boulevard, there will be lives lost. You only have one opportunity to make a First Impression and this will NOT be the first impression we want to present to someone driving into Fountain Hills from Scottsdale to shop, to enjoy our views or to consider buying property. If Daybreak comes to fruition, the introduction we present of Fountain Hills will be a crowded, congested eyesore. As a Fountain Hills homeowner for the past 21 years, I've taken great pride in the beauty of our town. This is true for all my neighbors. Please don't allow businessmen who don't even live in our town to take that away from us. I request thatyou include my letter in the staff report to the council. Sincerely, Judith Hines Marissa Moore From: Larry Goldstein Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 11:33 AM To: Ginny Dickey Cc: Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; Art Toes; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Grady Miller; Robert 'Bob' Rodgers; Marissa Moore Subject: Daybreak Development Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mayor Dickey, I am a current and long-time resident of Westridge Village. My wife Barbara and I have lived here since 2003. It's a special neighborhood in what we feel is the best part of the metro area to live in, Fountain Hills. I am writing regarding the Daybreak project. I attended a meeting on February 25, 2019 that was advertised by the developer as a reception to present development plans for the Daybreak project. What I heard is that the plan was to build 400 rental units and a 30-bed assisted living facility. I am compelled to state my opinion Mayor Dickey that this location is the absolute worst place to put this type of development. The northeast corner of Shea and Palisades is the western entrance to our fine town. When you come up the hill from Scottsdale and approach palisades that beautiful corner is our town's "point of first impression". The prominent waterfall grabs your attention and the preserve behind it with Four Peaks beyond is perfect. The Daybreak project will destroy the hilltop and wreck the natural beauty of the preserve below it. This will forever diminish the appeal of our western entrance. Placing this high -density apartment/assisted living development right across the street from Firerock, Crestview, Summit and surrounded by single family homes with view lots will look ridiculous and reduce property values. Further, the increase in the number of cars and traffic caused by the main entrance being so close to Shea will create more problems in what is already a very scary (high speed & limited line of sight) intersection at Shea & Palisades. I am also quite concerned with the apparent distortion and mischaracterization of historical data being used by the developer. At the start of the February 25, 2019 presentation the first thing they told us was that since our Homeowners association had over 15 years ago approved a potential convention hotel development plan, that we were somewhat obliged to approve the Daybreak project. The presenters felt that their rentals/assisted living development would be "better than a hotel" and therefore we should be fine with it. To substantiate their position, they presented a letter from 2006 signed by our then board President and inferred that it was the proof that we had approved the hotel in its entirety. This inference is not accurate. While Westridge Village was not happy with the proposed hotel plan, we recognized the reality of tax revenue producing land development and social progress so we were working with the developer and its architect to minimize the impact on Westridge and the surrounding area. Where we left it with them was that the developer was going to place the taller hotel structure down the hill and the single -story condos at the top of the hill. Following that period of negotiation, due to the downturn in the economy and other issues the hotel project was suspended. To be clear, my position is not anti -development. However, I feel very strongly that it must be the right kind of development for this particular location. Daybreak is not it, Respectfully, -L'a�ruy ��a£c�tQrss Larry Goldstein, CLU, ChFC, RHU, REBC, CASL Cell Marissa Moore From: Maggie Iverson Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 12.47 PM To. Ginny Dickey; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; David Spelich; Art Tolis; Art Tolis; Dennis Brown; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone; Robert 'Bob' Rodgers; Marissa Moore; Paul Gilbert; Jeanette Williams Subject: Daybreak Neighborhood Subject. Day Break Development March 5, 2019 To Whom It May Concern: Our family moved to Fountain Hills nearly two years ago. After my wife developed health conditions we decided to buy a home with our daughter and son in law. For over a year we looked for the perfect home for all of us to live comfortably and safely reside. We were fortunate to find Westridge Village. We felt this development offered us the perfect location, in a quiet desert oasis that is in a low congestion area of the city. We found a warns welcoming environment in this established community and that brings me to the purpose of my email. am concerned about the proposed Daybreak Development to be located at Shea and Palisades with 400 hundred rental units. Earlier this week, we attended a meeting with the developers and many other homeowners whose property will be effected by this rental project. Based on what was presented, we were upset to learn that the impact on surrounding homes will be dramatic and negative, destruction of the desert landscape and the desert wildlife will that be irreversible. While that in itself is unfortunate and disappointing, perhaps more importantly is the impact to the Fountain Hills Community, The very first entrance to our beloved Community will be marred by hundreds of multistory rental apartments. A substantial change the from the beautiful desert mountain and small valley covered with healthy saguaro's and majestic views of Fountain Hills that greet us as we drive up Palisades. The foreseeable impact to our home and those surrounding homes the development of hundreds of rental apartments is depressing. Having an additional 700 to 900 people residing in this small area is untenable. The congestion and noise will be horrible along with, per the builder, nearly yearly turnover in the rental apartments creating more congestion with apartment shoppers and moving trucks going in and out of the community at all hours of the day and night. It doesn't sound like a conducive fit to our community nor our neighbors. There is no doubt that home values in the surrounding area will plummet and since we have been in our home less than two years, if we feel forced to sell due to the changes, selling will create a substantial loss. This may mean we will have to consider renting out our beautiful home, which may be what other home owners are considering. This would result in not only a 400 rental apartment development, but also a once established community potentially turning into a transient neighborhood with the present homeowners leaving Fountain Hills. This would be a terrible loss to the Community There is no doubt that if the rental apartment project goes forward the construction phase will be devastating to all of us in the area surrounding the rental apartment construction area. We will be inundated with noise from the site 40 to 60 hours a week for possibly two years. The traffic increase will be not only make the traffic noise louder butalso theroad will be more dangerous due to the increased traffic. This is a non-commercial residential area of low density high value homes, the rental apartments won't enhanceour neighborhood. Apparently, there are already numerous rental vacancies throughout the city. Do we really need 730 new apartments in a city where you rarely see single family homes go up? Finally, the developers are describing this as a' low density development' based on 6 units per acre, but in truth it's three times the density because they are only using 23 acre's of the 60 acre plot for 400 units. Thank you for taking the time read this email and 1 hope you understand our heartfelt concerns, We are anguishing over this proposal and would appreciate your support in preventing the change in zoning and allowing this project to move forward, Sincerely, Bennis ]. Iverson Maggie L. Iverson Westridge Village E. Hillside Drive Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Marissa Moore From: ROBERT COURTNEY Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 8:50 AM To: Ginny Dickey; Mike Scharnow; Alan Magazine; David Spelich; David Spelich; Art Tolis; Art Tolis; Dennis Brown; Dennis Brown; Sherry Leckrone Grady Miller; Robert 'Bob' Cc: Rodgers; Marissa Moore; Bob Hahn Subject: Development of NE corner Shea & Palisades Boulevards Dear Mayor Dickey and Town Council I am the current President of the Westridge Village Homeowners' Association ("Westridge Village"). We are a community of 87 single family homes located off Palisades Boulevard just to the north of the proposed rental and assisted living development named "Daybreak." The real estate in question is located on the NE corner of the intersection of Shea and Palisades Boulevards. I am writing, in part, to respond to a mischaracterization that runs through the February 26'h email to you and other Fountain Hills government officials from Mr. Jeremy Hall, one of the rental developers. Mr. Hall's email purportedly reports on what happened at a public "Open House" held on the evening of Monday, February 25. Hall's email characterizes the position of Westridge Village and other neighbors who attended the February 25" meeting as follows: there should never be development on the property in question. At one point he refers to a "tactic" that he asserts residents would follow to ensure there is never development. To be clear, the osition of Westridge Village is NOT anti -development, as suggested by Mr. Hall's February 26`h email. (I also would refer you to the email to you sent March 311 from Mr. Robert Hahn, a former Westridge Village President. Mr. Hahn corrected the historical distortion put forth by Mr. Hall in his February 26th email about an attempted hotel development in the mid-2000s.) The February 25`h meeting was styled by the rental developers as: ....[A] reception to present development plans for 60 acres at the northeast corner of E. Shea Boulevard and Palisades Boulevard in Fountain Hills. An application to down zone the property from a large commercial conference hotel to a residential multifamily community has been submitted to the Town of Fountain Hills. When people showed up at the February 25th public reception they heard for the first time that the "plan" was to build 400 rental units, including a 30-bed assisted living facility! You can imagine that people were emotional to learn that a commercial project was being dumped into the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes; all of this on location that has been considered by many to be the western Gateway to Fountain Hills! Based on emotional statements made by surprised Fountain Hills' residents regarding a project that has obviously been under development in stealth -anode for months, Mr. Hall attempts to create a storyline that neighbors will push blindly for no development. This is baseless and false! In the coming days residents of Fountain Hills, including neighboring residential communities, wild express themselves on the many things wrong with this particular rental development plan. But that does not mean citizens are unaware of realities. Some type of development may be inevitable. Just not this rental plan. I look forward to discussing with you and other Fountain Hills officials why this Daybreak rental development should be rejected by the Town. After this particular rental plan is rejected, Westridge Village is prepared to work cooperatively with the Town and with responsible developers to find a positive use for this real estate which will enhance Fountain Hills and the surrounding neighborhoods; just as Westridge Village worked in the mid-2000s with the architect and developers who were trying to build a resort hotel on this site. Respectfully, Robert E. Courtney President Westridge Village Homeowners' Association z Paula Woodward From: Marissa Moore Sent- Monday, March 4, 2019 10:03 AM To: Paula Woodward Subject: FW: Daybreak Rental and Assisted Living Apartment Meeting Summary Attachments: Hotel Letter April 2005.pdf From: Bob Hahn Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 11:40 AM To: Alan Magazine <amagazine@fh.az.gov>; Art Tolis <atolis@fh.az.gov>; David Spelich <dspelich@fh.az.gov>; Dennis Brown <dbrown@fh.az.gov>; Ginny Dickey <gdickey@fh.az.gov>; Mike Scharnow <mscharnow@fh.az.gov>; Sherry Leckrone <sleckrone@fh.az.gov> Cc: Bob Courtney; Grady Miller <gmiller@fh.az.gov>; Marissa Moore <mmoore@fh.az.gov>; Robert 'Bob' Rodgers<rrodgers@fh.az.gov>; Christopher Jones <cjones@fh.az.gov>; Erik Hansen <ehansen@fh.az.gov>; Mathew Boik <mboik@fh.az.gov>; N'Marie Crumble <ncrumble@fh.az.gov>; Peter Gray <pgray@fh.az.gov>; Scott Schlossberg <sschlossberg@fh.az.gov>; Susan Dempster <sdempster@fh.az.gov> Subject: Daybreak Rental and Assisted Living Apartment Meeting Summary Dear Mayor and Town Council My name is Robert Hahn, I am the former President of Westridge Village's HOA ("Westridge), and along with my wife Liz, have been residents of Fountain Hills since early 1999. From 2005 to 2008, 1 served as president of Westridge. I am writing regarding what I view as misleading and incorrect statements recently made to you and other Fountain Hills officials by the developers of the so-called "Daybreak" rental development at the NE corner of Shea and Palisades Boulevards. From 2005 to 2008, 1 served as president of Westridge, during which time, Sierra Ventures bought the property on the northeast corner of Palisades and Shea Blvd for the purpose of developing the site into a convention hotel and condos. At that time the property was zoned for hotel development. While Westridge was not happy with this proposed plan, we recognized reality and worked with the developer and its architect to minimize the impact on Westridge and the surrounding area, In April of 2005, Westridge board of directors sent a letter to Dana Burkhart of the Planning & Zoning Department of the Town of Fountain Hills supporting Sierra Ventures' rezoning request to convert the property from a combined L-31 R-4 designation, to an L-3 only designation, which had the effect of allowing them to place the hotel structure down the hill (away from Palisades) and place the single story condos at the top of the hill. According to Mr. Robert Rodgers of P&Z, with whom I met a few days ago, this was basically a "flip flop" from what the prior owner before Sierra Ventures had it zoned to. By the way, a second, identical letter was sent to P&Z in February 2006; the year gap was partially the result of cooperative meetings between Westridge and the Sierra Ventures' architect to make changes that were neighborhood friendly; a process, not followed by the Daybreak rental developers. In a February 26, 2019 e-mail to you, rental developer Jeremy Hall reviewed his take of the neighborhood reception held on February 25, 2019 with people from some of the neighborhoods that would be directly impacted by his Daybreak project. In that e-mail, Mr. Hall states in item 4 that "the Westridge Village HOA wrote a letter in support of the development in 2006." If you read the attached April 2005 letter from Westridge to P&Z, you will see it clearly states that Westridge Village §y22orted the rezonig_q requested by Sierra Ventures, and nothing more. Mr. Hall's statement in his e-mail to you clearly implies that Westridge Village supported the entire project 1 development, which couldn't be further from the truth. None of the residents wanted this "in their backyard". I just wanted to set the record straight at the outset of this process, so that Mr. Hall doesn't keep harping on something that is just not the case, and never was Respectfully Robert B Hahn E Redrock Drive April 19, 2005 Mr. Dana Burkhart E. Palisades Blvd. P.O. Box 17958 Fountain Hills, AZ 85269 Re. Rezoning Of Convention Hotel Property It is the understanding of the Westridge Village Board of Directors that Sierra Ventures, current owner of the referenced property, will be requesting a zoning change for the property in question on or about May 01, 2005 We understand that the most recent zoning change approved by P&Z for that property was L-3 for approximately 13 acres and R4 for approximately 10 acres. Sierra Ventures will petition P&Z to change that to L-3 for all 23 acres, which basically brings it back to what it was prior to the latest change. If all of the above is true and accurate the Board of Directors of Westridge Village, which abuts the referenced property, fully supports the rezoning request being made by Sierra Ventures and urges P&Z approval. This support is strictly based on the assumption that other than related covenants previously agreed to relative to future use of adjacent lands and hillside protection will remain unchanged. S- erely, Robert B. Hahn President, Westridge Village HOA Cc. Mike Duffy TOWN 0: FLINN?, Hit, APR 2 �� - Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 -� � Marissa Moore From: Robert 'Bob' Rodgers Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:50 PM To: Marissa Moore Subject: Fwd: Daybreak development project will be discussed at HOA meeting FYI For the file. Bob Begin forwarded message: From: Ginny Dickey <gdickev@fh.az.gov> Date: February 13, 2019 at 12:47:00 PM MST To: Robert 'Bob' Rodgers <rrodg,ers(@fh.az.gov> Cc: Grady Miller <�miller@fh.az.gov> Subject: FW: Daybreak development project will be discussed at HOA meeting Here's the email I mentioned... only person who has contacted me so far, thanks. From., Ginny Dickey Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:45 PM To:'Susan Fallon' Subject: RE: Daybreak development project will be discussed at HOA meeting Hi, Susan. I will forward to our Development Department. There is much discussion to come and your points will help give us some direction. Thank you, Ginny From: Susan Fallon Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:24 AM To: Ginny Dickey Subject: Re: Daybreak development project will be discussed at HOA meeting Thanks very much Ginny. I'm aware of the deveopers meeting and will be attending. I'm currently working with Bob Courtney, Westridge Village HOA board president, on gathering intel and info. He picked up about 20 pages of the filed plan from the town earlier this week. ( On a positive note, he said the woman who he dealt with in the Planning and Zoning office could not have been nicer or more accommodating.) The HOA will have their annual meeting tonight, where I'm sure we'll be able to better assess the reaction of Westridge Village residents. I'll share some thoughts with you here. From a personal perspective, the development is a hit to our home value, as our property backs to the specified area. Our initial reaction, as is typical, I think, was panic and disappointment. However, we have now talked ourselves down off the cliff and are attempting to take a reasoned approach. I'm certainly not laboring under the misperception that we can simply halt development through protest. Someone is bound to develop that land at some point. Instead, if the development makes it through Planning and Zoning and is approved by the town, I'm hoping we'll find ways to work with the developer on modifications that could benefit our community. That said, here are my initial thoughts/concerns regarding the plan as currently presented. Please take these as my thoughts only - not that of the Westridge Village HQA. Also, I recognize that some of the below points may be answered or at least addressed in the more formal plan to be presented on the 25th. I'm not looking to bury you in info, but to share perspectives/ideas that may help you as you assess the development plans. • The plan presumes 400 new families will move into the 23-acre plot - far too many units/residents in my view to be justified on a number of levels, including: • Impact on Town: The developer will, of course, say that this is a wonderful idea that will bring significant new business/revenue to the town. We've heard this before. Where exactly will these 400 new families work? There's certainly not enough commerce in town to support that number of new residents. I doubt that the majority wish to commute to Scottsdale to work. Conversely, if they are looking primarily to attract snowbirds and retirees, that flies in the face of the long-range plan to attract more young families to town, does it not? • Speaking of the town plan, most FH residents are well aware of what a travesty the former Mayor and her henchpersons managed to commit with the development of those ugly apartment buildings on Avenue of the Fountains. My understanding is that their height alone contravenes the Town Plan. Does the Town Plan matter anymore and if so, could you advise where I could obtain a copy so that I can begin comparing development plan versus town plan? • Construction: I am personally very concerned about potential need for blasting as well as excavating if this development goes through and will be following carefully what they have to say on this point. • Traffic: Developer is suggesting ingress/egress from Palisades Boulevard only - not Palisades and Shea. This will place an immense burden on traffic flow, particularly as the developers are presumably saying they have no plans to suggest a stoplight, • Noise - The condos across from us (I believe called The Summit) already experience significant noise wafting up from traffic on Palisades. I cannot image what this will do. • Zoning: The plan includes two lots - one with 270 condos/apartments in 13 buildings and the second a 55-plus only section with 130 units in 5 buildings, 30 units of which will be set aside for those who need assisted living. Is the second section still considered 'residential' zoning if staff will be required to help with assisted living residents? z • The open desert area between the new development and the nearest home in our complex is stated in the plan to be a mere '400 feet' - that's a very modest separation, to put it mildly, and could have a greater -than -average downward impact on the value of existing single-family homes here in Westridge Village. • Shaving down the existing hill from 1993 to 1963 square feet to accommodate a three story building is, to many of us, a travesty, and I'm wondering if it contravenes any existing environmental laws. I urge the town not to grant such a waiver. The finished structures will still be 40 feet above ground level and will then eliminate any view we have, apart from the view of another building. That's all I have at this point, Ginny. Hope all is well. Cheers, Susan On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:05 PM Ginny Dickey wrote Hi, Susan, The developer is holding a reception for the neighbors on Monday, February 25th from 4:30 — 7 PM at the Community Center. That would be the best way for you to see all the plans and how they could affect your area. The Town has not taken any position yet and expect to see the proposal at a meeting in the latter part of the spring likely, but not positive, Let me know your thoughts after you see the materials. Thanks, Ginny From: Ginny Dickey Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:50 PM To: Susan Fallon Subject: RE: Daybreak development project will be discussed at HOA meeting Hi, I am meeting with developer next week and will know more about the plans then. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. Hope all is well. I'm looking forward to the weekend, it's been really busy the last several days! Take care, Ginny From: Susan Fallon Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 6:56 PM To: Ginny Russo Dickey Subject: Fwd. Daybreak development project will be discussed at HOA meeting Hey Ginny, could you please advise the town's position on this? From our perspective as residents of Westridge Village, this is disastrous news. From: Dawn Zielinski Date: February 7, 2019 at 1:13:43 PM MST To: Zielinski Dawn Subject: Daybreak development project will be discussed at HOA meeting This project will be discussed at the meeting. Please come if you can. 3 The current project is a multi- family condo apartment complex. Although the entire parcel @ 60 acres, building would only be on 23.04 acres; the rest of land would be left as desert, etc. The plan results in 2 separately plotted lots within the property. The first (Lot 1 A) would allow up to 270 units of garden apartments (I - 2-, and 3- bedroom apartment) — the application said these would be housed in 13 buildings. The second lot (Lot 1 B) would be age - restricted (55 and older) and would consist of 5 buildings. These would include approximately 30 units for adults with specialized needs requiring assisted living. Part of the plan that requires the zoning approval would be to lower the crest of the current hill from 1993 feet to 1963 feet. The tallest building would be 40 feet above the finished grade. The timeline or "phasing" plan sets 2019 into 2020 for planning & design. Their plan would call for prep work to begin in 2020 — with the first construction starting in 2021 -- this would be the restricted age buildings. Our Hoa presi 4 dent will talk mor abou what infor mati on he has. Plea se com e it you can Thanks Dawn Zieiin5ki ORDINANCE NO. 19-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, AMENDING THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICT MAP FOR APPROXIMATELY 59.79 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PALISADES BOULEVARD AND SHEA BOULEVARD AS SHOWN IN CASE NO. Z2018-10, FROM L-3 P.U.D. AND OSR TO DAYBREAK PAD RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills (the "Town Council") desires to amend the Town of Fountain Hills Official Zoning District Map (the "Zoning Map") pursuant to ARiz. REV. STAT. § 9-462.04, to change the zoning description for a 59.79 acre parcel of real property from L-3 P.U.D. and OSR to Daybreak PAD (the "Zoning District Map Amendment"); and WHEREAS, the Zoning District Map Amendment proposed by this ordinance is consistent with the Fountain Hills General Plan 2010 as amended; and WHEREAS, all due and proper notices of public hearings on the Zoning District Map Amendment held before the Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission") and the Town Council were given in the time, form, substance and manner provided by ARiz. REV. STAT. § 9-462.04; and WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing on September 12, 2019 on the Zoning District Map Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held an additional public hearing regarding the Zoning District Map Amendment on October 1, 2019. ENACTMENTS: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: SECTION 1. The recitals above are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The 59.79 acre parcel of real property generally located at the northeast corner of Palisades Boulevard and Shea Boulevard as shown in case no. Z2018-10, as more particularly described and depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby rezoned from L-3 P.U.D. OSR to Daybreak PAD, subject to the following requirements, under which the applicant shall: ORDINANCE 19-03 PAGE 2 a. Ensure compliance with the Daybreak Development Plan approved with this P.A.D except as modified below. b. Ensure compliance with the Town's adopted codes, requirements, standards and regulations, except as specifically stated in the Daybreak PAD Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference and as modified below. C. Amend the Development Plan and submit for review and acceptance by the Development Services Director prior to submission of a building permit revised Development Plan documents which comply with the following: Cause all buildings to be set back at least 25' from the property line or the height of the building, whichever is greater. Buildings A and B do not currently meet this requirement. ii. Provide greater connectivity from the trail around the MFU area into apartment area. iii. Provide a pedestrian connection from Building Q to the amenity area. iv. Improve pedestrian connectivity from the northern apartment buildings (A, B, C, D, E, & G) to the amenity area. V. Upgrade the design and amenities to meet the General Plan requirement for exceptional design and enhanced amenities. vi. Provide extensive landscaping along Palisades Boulevard that exceeds the minimum requirements set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance. vii. Remove all reference to assisted living from the PAD narrative. viii. Provide a traffic control solution, either a roundabout or traffic signal, at the intersection of Palisades Boulevard and Valley Vista Drive as approved by the Town Engineer. SECTION 3. If any provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, such provision or portion hereof shall be deemed separate, distinct and independent of all other provisions and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. ORDINANCE 19-03 PAGE 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, this 1st day of October, 2019. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Ginny Dickey, Mayor REVIEWED BY: ATTESTED TO: Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney ORDINANCE 19-03 PAGE 4 OFFICIAL S U P PLEM E NTA RY ZO N I N G MAP ANIENDI N G TH E TOWN OF F OU NTAIN H ILLS ZO N I NG MAP i 1r }A, DAYB RfAK PAD I �v I• TfLXLT n ti � MY �LV� _ _%mot HP TRACF9 CASE: Z1�1-70 ACREAGE: 68,9 REQUEST: REZONE FROM L 3 P.U.D. AND OSR TO DAYBREAK PAD ORDINANCE: ORDI M3 Meeting Date: 10/01/2019 Agenda Type: Regular Agenda ITEM 8. A. iv. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT Meeting Type: Town Council Regular Meeting Submitting Department: Development Services Prepared by: John Wesley, Development Services Director Staff Contact Information: John Wesley, Development Services Director Request to Town Council Regular Meeting (Agenda Language): CONSIDERATION OF Resolution 2019-52 approving a Development Agreement associated with the Daybreak P.A.D. rezoning located at the northeast corner of Palisades and Shea Boulevards. Staff Summary (Background) Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC has submitted to the Town a request for rezoning and development of property at the northeast corner of Palisades and Shea Boulevards. The rezoning would allow for development of a 400 unit apartment complex on approximately 60 acres. The development will include an area restricted to apartments for those who are 55+, an area for unrestricted apartments, and a large open space area. The applicant has requested Town approval of a Development Agreement to address and reinforce several provisions of the P.A.D. Section 2 of the development agreement establishes a term of 10 years. For the development agreement to continue in force, the property would need to begin vertical construction beyond grading within the 10 years. Section 5 of the development agreement establishes the provisions of the agreement. These include: • Section 5.1 states the sole purpose of the development agreement is to provide for deviations from the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. • Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 establishing the vesting of the zoning. • Section 5.3.1 sets 400 as the maximum number of dwelling units. • Section 5.4 lists the requested deviations from the Subdivision Ordinance which includes allowances to not provide handrails on the top of certain retaining walls, cuts and fills in excess of 10', and steep grades on cuts and fills. • Section 5.5 establishes the zoning standards to be as approved in the P.A.D. • Section 5.6 address miscellaneous engineering matter. Section 6 of the development agreement addresses miscellaneous other obligations of both parties. In particular, Section 6.1 obligates the developer to a minimum of 33 acres of non -disturbance area that will be protected by a Hillside Protection Easement. Section 7 of the development agreement establishes obligations of the developer. Section 7.2 states the developer has 180 development agreements to complete acquisition of the property. If that is not accomplished by the developer or an affiliate, the development agreement shall automatically terminate. The developer is obligated to all public improvements (Sec. 7.3), to provide a performance bond (Sec. 7.5), and to provide shuttle service for 55+ portion of the development (Sec. 7.9). Staff is in support of all elements contained in the development agreement. Related Ordinance, Policy or Guiding Principle N/A Risk Analysis The proposed development agreement does not obligate the Town to any actions beyond normal processing and inspection activities associated with development activity. The development agreement reinforces the same standards that will be approved as part of the P.A.D. zoning. Staff does not see any risk with approval of the development agreement. Recommendation(s) by Board(s) or Commission(s) N/A Staff Recommendation(s) The development agreement reinforces the development standards provided for in the associated Daybreak P.A.D. rezoning application. If that rezoning request is approved, staff would recommend approval of the development agreement. If Council does not approve the rezoning request, the development agreement becomes unnecessary and should be denied. SUGGESTED MOTION MOVE to ADOPT/DENY Resolution 2019-52. Attachments Res 2019-52 Exh. A - Development Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Development Services Director (Originator) John Wesley Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson Town Manager Grady E. Miller Form Started By: John Wesley Final Approval Date: 09/24/2019 Date 09/18/2019 12:42 PM 09/24/2019 09:11 AM 09/24/2019 10:19 AM Started On: 09/18/2019 11:41 AM RESOLUTION NO. 2019-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN AND HILLTOP VISTA PROPERTIES, LLC ENACTMENTS: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS as follows: SECTION 1. The Development Agreement between the Town of Fountain Hills and Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC is hereby approved in substantially the form and substance attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein reference. SECTION 2. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents take all steps necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the Mayor and Council of the Town of Fountain Hills, this first day of October, 2019. FOR THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS Ginny Dickey, Mayor REVIEWED BY: Grady E. Miller, Town Manager ATTESTED TO: Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AND HILLTOP VISTA PROPERTIES, LLC This Development Agreement ("Agreement") dated , 2019, ("Effective Date") is between the Town of Fountain Hills, Arizona, an Arizona municipal corporation (the "Town") and Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company (the "Developer"), together, the "Parties." RECITALS A. Developer has entered into a real estate purchase contract for the purchase of approximately 59.8 acres of real property located in Fountain Hills, Arizona, more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated into this Agreement (the "Property"). B. Developer intends that the Property be developed for multi -family and related uses, including a portion for age -restricted multi -family units (the "Project"), according to the Site Plan that is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B (the "Site Plan") and the "Daybreak PAD" attached hereto as Exhibit C (the "PAD"), both of which are incorporated into this Agreement. C. The Town desires that the Property be developed and has determined that encouraging the development of the Property pursuant to this Agreement will result in significant planning, economic and other public purpose benefits to the Town and its residents by, among other things (i) the construction of public improvements, (ii) development of the Property in a manner consistent with the Town's General Plan, (iii) an increase in sales tax revenues to the Town arising from or relating to the development of the Property and (iv) the creation of new jobs and otherwise enhancing the economic welfare of the residents of the Town. D. The Parties understand and acknowledge that the ultimate development of the Project on the Property is a project of such magnitude that the Developer requires assurances from the Town that the Project will be developed as contemplated by this Agreement. Developer intends to complete the acquisition of the Property and thereafter it is intended that the Project will be developed on the Property subject to and in accordance with the Site Plan and the PAD. The Parties further understand and acknowledge that the Town seeks assurances from the Developer that the Developer will complete certain Public Improvements necessary for the development of the Property in accordance with the Site Plan and the PAD. E. The Parties understand and acknowledge that this Agreement is a "Development Agreement" within the meaning of and entered into pursuant to the terms of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 9-500.05, in order to facilitate the proper development of the Property by providing for, among other things (i) conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for the Property by the Town and (ii) other matters related to the development of the Property. The terms of this Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Property as more fully described in this Agreement, subject to the Closing Contingency, as defined in Section 7.2. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the promises contained in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the Parties hereby acknowledge, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The introduction and recitals are true and correct and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. 2. Term. The Developer, its successors and assigns, shall have the right to implement development on the Property in accordance with this Agreement for a period of 10 years from the Effective Date. If development of at least one phase of the Project is not commenced within this 10 year period, this Agreement shall automatically terminate as to the Property without the necessity of any notice, agreement or recording by or between the Parties (the "Term"); provided, however, that provisions of this Agreement that specifically survive the termination of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, subject only to the termination provisions herein specifically related thereto. For purposes of this Section 2, although grading of the Property may occur seperately on one or both of the phases of the Project at any time, "development" shall mean the commencement of vertical construction beyond grading and foundation work for which a construction permit is issued. 3. PAD Rezoning. The PAD, which is attached as an exhibit to the Town Council's approved ordinance that adopts the PAD rezoning, including all stipulations, alterations and conditions included as part of its approval is referred to herein as the "PAD Rezoning Ordinance." The Parties agree and understand that all items submitted in the PAD application, and any letters, comments and other materials explaining or discussing that application and PAD Application brochure are of no force and effect, and that Developer and Town shall look solely to Town's regulations, the PAD Rezoning Ordinance, and this Agreement with respect to the zoning regulations for the Property. To the extent any conflict arises as between the PAD Rezoning Ordinance, this Agreement, and the Town's regulations, the PAD Rezoning Ordinance shall control first, then this Development Agreement, and then the Town's regulations, in that order of precedence. 4. Amendment to Plat. The Property has been previously platted by the Fountain Hills Resort Final Plat, recorded in the Maricopa County Recorder's Office, Book 597 of Maps, Page 42 (the "Current Plat"), which includes certain restrictions, dedications, easements and other matters shown on the Current Plat. Pursuant to the Town of Fountain Hills Subdivision Ordinance, Article 2, § 2.07.A for Minor Plats, the owner of the Property shall process a Minor Replat prior to securing a building permit. The Town agrees to process the Minor Plat Amendment creating the new lots. 5. Matters Relating to Development of the Property. 5.1 Plan of Development. The PAD, the Daybreak Final Plat and this Agreement collectively constitute a "Plan of Development" which includes modifications to the PA Town of Fountain Hills Subdivision Ordinance (the "Subdivision Ordinance") and Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance"). It is the intent of the Parties that the Project be constructed in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance as amended by the terms of this Agreement (the "Zoning"). This Agreement is limited in scope in that its sole purpose is to allow for the limited set of modifications to the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance set forth herein. 5.2 Zoning. Concurrent with the execution and approval of this Agreement, the Town has approved the PAD Rezoning Ordinance and the PAD. 5.2.1 Timing of Vesting. The Zoning in the Property is hereby vested subject to the satisfaction of the Closing Contingency. 5.2.2 Vesting Defined. "Vested" means that for a period of 10 years after the Effective Date, the Town shall not, without Developer's (or its successor's) written consent, (i) change the Zoning, or (ii) amend a zoning classification or (iii) take any other action in a manner that would apply to the Property, where any such change, amendment, or action would reduce the density, permitted uses, or development standards provided for hereunder or otherwise in effect as of the date hereof. 5.3 Density. 5.3.1 Maximum Number of Units. Pursuant to the PAD, Developer shall be permitted to develop, and the Town shall approve for development, a final plat and site plans for development of the Property for the number of multi -family units requested by Developer, provided there shall be no more than 400 multi -family units within the Property. 5.4 Subdivision Standards. The Town's Subdivision Ordinance establishes the standards for location and installation of infrastructure within the Property (the "Subdivision Standards"). The Parties agree that certain variations from the Subdivision Standards are appropriate for development within the Property. Accordingly, the Parties hereby agree to the following variations from the Subdivision Standards: 5.4.1 Retaining. The Town hereby approves retaining walls with a height of (a) six feet for cut slopes, without handrails and (b) eight feet for fill slopes, without handrails, unless (i) a sidewalk or pathway is within five feet of a retaining wall or (ii) a site roadway or parking area curb is either within ten feet of a retaining wall or is within 20' of Palisades Boulevard, in which events a handrail shall be required. 5.4.2 Cuts and Fills. The prohibition in Subsection 5.03(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance against cuts in excess of 10 feet in height is hereby waived. The Parties agree that the cut and fill standards shall be modified as provided in the PAD. 5.4.3 Mountain Cut Standards. The Town has concurrently herewith approved the PAD which, where permissible in the reasonable judgment of Developer's independent soils engineer, provides for exposed cut slopes equal to one and one-half foot horizontal for every one foot vertical (1.5:1) (the "Mountain Cut Standards"). Grading standards shall follow the standards approved on the PAD. Notwithstanding the foregoing, un-retained 3 slopes may be up to 2:1 for fill slopes. Un-retained slopes may exceed 10 feet for cut slopes so long as the natural material is stable as determined by Developer's independent geotechnical engineer and Town Engineer. The Town agrees that the Subdivision Standards shall be further modified in conjunction with its approval of the final plat to allow development of the Property in accordance with the Mountain Cut Standards. 5.4.4 Sanitary Sewer. The sanitary sewer system for the Property will be designed to the specifications of the Fountain Hills Sanitary District and subject to approval by the Fountain Hills Sanitary District and review by the Town. 5.4.5 Water. The water systems for the Property shall be designed to specifications established by EPCOR and subject to approval by EPCOR and review by the Town. The Town shall have final approval relating to fire flow design, which shall conform to standard Fountain Hills code practices. 5.5 Zoning Standards. The standards for land use within the Property shall be as provided in the PAD (the "Zoning Standards"), which Zoning Standards are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. 5.6 Miscellaneous Enaineerina Matters. The Town hereby approves (i) roadways, parking areas and driveways using CMP pipe to carry street flows; (ii) warranty curb replacement at five-foot intervals; (iii) roadways, parking areas and driveways with drop manholes, and (iv) other minor variations from Town policy, as set forth in this Agreement (the "Miscellaneous Matters"). Facilities for the collection of water shall be designed so as to retain safely and adequately the maximum expected storm water runoff volume equal to the difference between the predevelopment condition and the post development condition for a 100-year storm event. Detention basins shall be sized for specific drainage requirements for the Property. Detention basins need not be oversized, and no land area will be required to be set aside for additional uses. 6. Additional Obligations of the Parties. 6.1 Land Disturbance. Notwithstanding permitted disturbance according to a slope analysis per Article 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Developer agrees to increase acreage set aside for non -disturbance from 19 acres to 33 acres, which shall be within the hillside protection easement, as shown on the Daybreak Final Plat, and remain in its natural state. 6.2 Moratorium. The Town may not enact any moratorium, ordinance, resolution or other land -use rule or regulation or limitation on the rate, timing or sequencing of the development of the Property not in effect as of the date hereof, for a period of 10 years. 6.3 Utilities. Developer acknowledges that the Town, at the date of execution of this Agreement, provides no municipal utility services (except trash collection); has no control over the provision of services by other entities; and makes no representation with respect to the availability of such services provided by other entities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town agrees that in the event it provides municipal utility services in the future, the Town (i) shall make such services available to the Property on the same terms of availability as are applicable 2 to other similar real property served by the Town, (ii) shall continue to provide such services as reasonably required in connection with development and use of the Property, and (iii) shall not adopt policies and procedures with respect to the provision of such services which would delay development of the Property. 7 Developer's Obligations. Developer shall perform all of its duties as set forth in this Section 7.1 Zoning Adherence and Performance. Developer agrees that the development of the Project shall be in accordance with the PAD. 7.2 Closing Contingency. Developer agrees to use reasonable efforts to complete the acquisition of the Property (close escrow and confirm ownership) for development of the Project not later than 180 days after the Effective Date. The effectiveness of this Agreement is expressly conditioned upon Developer or an affiliate or assignee of Developer acquiring fee title to the Property (the "Closing Contingency"). If Developer or an affiliate or assignee of Developer does not acquire such fee title on or before 180 days after the Effective Date, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate. 7.3 Public Improvements. Developer shall design and construct all public improvements associated with the Project for street, sidewalk, traffic mitigation measures, and landscaping improvements to Palisades Boulevard as set forth in Exhibit C and as described in Exhibit "D" ("Public Improvements"). Upon completion and acceptance by the Town, Developer shall dedicate all such Public Improvements to the Town. 7.4 Phased Development. The Town acknowledges that Developer plans to develop the Property in up to two phases generally set forth on Exhibit "E" to this Agreement. 7.5 Performance Bond. The Developer, at its expense, shall provide the Town, with a performance bond in such form as reasonably required by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer in an amount equal to the estimated hard costs of the Public Improvements to ensure that the installation of Public Improvements necessary for development of the Property will be completed (the "Public Improvements Assurances"). The performance bond for any Public Improvements shall be required at the time permits are issued for the first phase of the Project. 7.6 Third Party Review and Inspection. If expedited review of any plans is requested by Developer, upon receipt of such a request, the Town shall discuss the request with Developer and Town staff to determine who the Town will retain as its outside consultant to complete the expedited review. Once the Parties reasonably agree on (i) the applicable time frame for review, (ii) the applicable outside consultant, and (iii) the consultant's total fees, Developer will be responsible to promptly pay the Town's actual cost related to outsourcing as such costs are billed to the Town. The Town shall complete the review process as outlined above in a timely manner. 7.7 Dedication and Acceptance. Upon completion by Developer of any Public Improvements, the Developer shall promptly (A) notify the Town in writing of the presumptive completion of such Public Improvements and (B) dedicate to the Town, at no cost to the Town, 5 such Public Improvements free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and in accordance with Town standards applicable to such dedication and acceptance. So long as such Public Improvements are constructed in accordance with Town standards, as verified by the inspection of the completed Public Improvements by the Town Engineer, all punch list items have been completed, and the Public Improvements are free of any liens and encumbrances, the Town shall accept the Public Improvements. The Town shall notify the Developer, in writing, of the Town's acceptance of the Public Improvements within 30 days after notification and shall then promptly release the applicable Performance Bond. Subject to the warranty in Section 7.8, after acceptance of any Public Improvements, the Town shall maintain, repair and operate such Public Improvements at its own cost, which obligation shall survive any termination of this Agreement. Developer, at no cost to Town, shall dedicate, convey or obtain, as applicable all rights -of -way, rights of entry, easements and/or other use rights, wherever located, as useful or necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Public Improvements as required by the Town. 7.8 Warranty. Developer or its assignee shall give to the Town a one-year warranty for all Public Improvements, which warranty shall begin on the date that the Town accepts the Public Improvements as provided in Section 6.7. Any material deficiencies in material or workmanship identified by Town staff during the one-year warranty period shall be brought to the attention of the Developer or its assignee that provided the warranty, which shall promptly remedy or cause to be remedied such deficiencies to the reasonable satisfaction of the Town Engineer. Continuing material deficiencies in a particular portion of the Public Improvements shall be sufficient grounds for the Town to require (A) an extension of the warranty as to that portion only for an additional 90 day period and (B) the proper repair of or the removal and reinstallation of, that portion of the Public Improvements that is subject to such continuing deficiencies. Regardless of whether the applicable warranty period has expired, the Developer agrees to repair any damage to the Public Improvements caused by Developer's construction activities on the Property. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the Town or Developer from seeking recourse against any third party for damage to the Public Improvements caused by such third party, but Developer's seeking such recourse shall not be cause for Developer to delay remediating any deficiencies. 7.9 Shuttle Service. Shuttle Service shall be provided for the age restricted portion of the Project. 7.10 Payment of Charges. Developer shall pay to the Town all applicable and lawful charges prior to the issuance of a construction permit, for platting, site plan, rezoning, permit, development, building inspection, and plan review fees imposed by the Town as of the Effective Date. 8 Cooperation and Alternative Dispute Resolution. 8.1 Representatives. To further the commitment of the Parties to cooperate in the implementation of this Agreement, upon the request of Developer or the Town, the Town and Developer shall each designate and appoint a representative to act respectively on behalf of the Town and its various departments and Developer, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law. The initial representative for the Town shall be the Town Attorney, and the initial representative for Developer shall be Jeremy Hall or other party as identified by 2 Developer from time to time. The representatives shall be available at all reasonable times to discuss and review the performance of the Parties to this Agreement and shall cooperate in order to facilitate any third -parry action needed to complete the actions contemplated by this Agreement. 8.2 Impasse Procedure. If an impasse or dispute arises out of or relates to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, including without limitation the submittal, its interpretation or intent, or processing and approval of the final plat, the Parties agree to first try in good faith to settle the dispute by negotiation. In the event of any such negotiation, the Parties shall personally meet in an effort to resolve such dispute within 20 days of written request to do so by either the Town or Developer. 8.3 Default Cure. Upon a failure or unreasonable delay by any Party to perform or otherwise act in accordance with any term or provision of this Agreement, and failure of the procedures set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 above, the other Party may give written notice of default specifying the nature of the failure or delay and the manner in which it may be satisfactorily cured, if possible. In the event such failure or delay is not cured within 30 days after notice of nonperformance is given by the non -defaulting Party, such Party will be in default. In the event of such default, the non -defaulting Party may seek as its remedy, either the damages reasonably related to the breach or specific performance. If the nature of the defaulting Party's nonperformance is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within 30 days, then the defaulting Party will have such additional periods of time as may be reasonably necessary under the circumstances, provided the defaulting Party promptly (i) provides written notice to the non - defaulting Party and (ii) commences to cure its nonperformance and thereafter diligently continues to completion the cure of its nonperformance. In no event shall any such cure period exceed 90 days. 9 General. 9.1 Notices and Requests. Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if. (A) delivered to the Party at the addresses set forth below; (B) deposited in the U.S. Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, to the address set forth below; or (C) to a recognized and reputable overnight delivery service, to the address set forth below: If to Town: Town of Fountain Hills 16705 East Avenue of the Fountains Fountain Hills, Arizona 85268 Attn: Grady Miller, Town Manager With a copy to: Pierce Coleman PLLC 4711 East Falcon Drive, Suite 111 Mesa, Arizona 85215 Attn: Aaron D. Arnson, Town Attorney 7 If to Developer: Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC c/o Jeremy Hall 14550 N. Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard Scottsdale, AZ 85260 jgh@phxinterests.com With a copy to: David V. Suson, Esq. 109 Cherrywood Bellaire, TX 77401 or at such other address, and to the attention of such other person or officer, as any Party may designate in writing by notice duly given pursuant to this Section. Notices shall be deemed received: (A) when delivered to the Party; (B) three business days after being placed in the U.S. Mail, properly addressed, with sufficient postage; or (C) the following business day after being given to a recognized overnight delivery service, with the person giving the notice paying all required charges and instructing the delivery service to deliver on the following business day. If a copy of a notice is also given to a Party's counsel or other recipient, the provisions above governing the date on which a notice is deemed to have been received by a Party shall mean and refer to the date on which the Party, and not its counsel or other recipient to which a copy of the notice may be sent, is deemed to have received the notice. 9.2 Amendment. No amendment or waiver of any provision in this Agreement will be binding (A) on the Town unless and until it has been approved by the Town Council and has become effective or (B) on Developer unless and until it has been executed by an authorized representative of Developer. 9.3 Headings; References. The headings herein are inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way define, limit or describe the meaning of any provision or the scope or intent of this Agreement nor in any way affect the terms and provisions hereof. 9.4 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence with regard to performance under the terms and provisions of this Agreement, and any amendment, modification or revision thereof, with respect to the actions and obligations of each person bound by the terms hereof. 9.5 Attorneys' Fees. If either Party commences an action against the other to interpret or enforce any of the terms of this Agreement or because of the breach by the other Party of any of the terms hereof, the losing Party shall pay to the prevailing Party reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, including expert witness fees, incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense of such action. For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms "attorney's fees, costs and expenses" shall mean the fees and expenses of counsel to the Parties hereto, which may include printing, duplicating and other expenses, air freight charges, and billed for law clerks, paralegals, librarians and others not admitted to the bar but performing services under the supervision of an attorney. The term "attorneys' fees, costs and expenses" also include, without limitation, all such fees and expenses incurred with respect to appeals, arbitrations and bankruptcy proceedings, and whether or not any action or proceeding is brought with respect to the matter for which said fees and expenses were incurred. 9.6 Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded in its entirety in the Maricopa County Recorder's Office not later than 10 days after the sooner to occur of the date on which it is fully executed by the Developer and the Town or the date on which the Town is notified that the Closing Contingency has been satisfied.. 9.7 Choice of Law, Venue and Attorneys' Fees. The laws of the State of Arizona shall govern any dispute, controversy, claim or cause of action arising out of or related to this Agreement. The venue for any such dispute shall be Maricopa County, Arizona, and each Party waives the right to object to venue in Maricopa County for any reason. Neither Party shall be entitled to recover any of its attorneys' fees or other costs from the other Party incurred in any such dispute, controversy, claim, or cause of action, but each Party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs, whether the same is resolved through arbitration, litigation in a court, or otherwise. 9.8 Good Standing; Authority. Each Party represents and warrants that it is duly formed and validly existing under the laws of the State of Arizona with respect to Developer, or a municipal corporation within Arizona with respect to the Town and that the individuals executing this Agreement on behalf of their respective Party are authorized and empowered to bind the Party on whose behalf each such individual is signing. 9.9 Assignment. The provisions of this Agreement are binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties, and all of their successors in interest and assignees of Developer, and/or sub -developers who may acquire an interest in all or a portion of the Property, if applicable. Developer may assign this Agreement in whole or in part. Upon any assignment of this Agreement, Developer shall be fully released from any obligations, duties and/or responsibilities under this Agreement, provided such obligations are assumed by the assignee. If Developer conveys an interest in only a portion of the Property and any proposed assignment is for less than all of Developer's rights and responsibilities under this Agreement then the assignee shall be responsible for the performance of each of the obligations in this Agreement to which the assignee succeeds as the developer of that portion of the Property and Developer shall be released from any obligations that are assigned, but shall remain responsible for the performance of any obligations that were not assigned. 9.10 Third Parties. No term or provision of this Agreement is intended to, or shall be for the benefit of any person or entity not a Party hereto, and no such other person or entity shall have any right or cause of action hereunder. 9.11 No Partnership. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties hereto in their respective businesses or otherwise, nor shall it cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise or give them any right to act as an agent for another Party. 0 9.12 Waiver. No delay in exercising any right or remedy shall constitute a waiver thereof, and no waiver of any breach shall be construed as a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other covenant or condition of this Agreement. No waiver shall be effective unless it is in writing and is signed by the Party asserted to have granted such waiver. 9.13 Further Documentation. The Parties agree in good faith to execute such further or additional instruments and documents and to take such further acts as may be necessary or appropriate to fully carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement. 9.14 Fair Interpretation. The Parties have been represented by counsel in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and this Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction that ambiguities shall be resolved against the Party who drafted a provision shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement. 9.15 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed counterparts, each of which shall be an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 9.16 Computation of Time. In computing any period of time under this Agreement, the date of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last date of the period so completed shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. The time for performance of any obligation or taking any action under this Agreement shall be deemed to expire at 5:00 p.m. (local time, Phoenix, Arizona) on the last day of the applicable time period provided herein. 9.17 Conflict of Interest. Pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 38-503 and § 38-511, no member, official or employee of the Town shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects his or her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is, directly or indirectly, interested. This Agreement is subject to cancellation pursuant to the terms of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 38-511. 9.18 No Boycott of Israel. Developer certifies pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 35-393.01(A) that it is not currently engaged in, and for the Term of this Agreement will not engage in, a boycott of Israel. 9.19 Severability. Every provision of this Agreement is and will be construed to be a separate and independent covenant. If any provision in this Agreement or the application of the same is, to any extent, found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of that provision to circumstances other than those to which it is invalid or unenforceable will not be affected by that invalidity or unenforceability. Each provision in this Agreement will be valid and will be enforced to the extent permitted by law and the Parties will negotiate in good faith for such amendments of this Agreement as may be necessary to achieve its intent, notwithstanding such invalidity or unenforceability. 10 9.20 Covenant of Good Faith. In exercising their rights and in performing their obligations pursuant to this Agreement, the Parties will cooperate with one another in good faith to ensure the intent of this Agreement can be attained. 9.21 Estoppel Certificate. Upon Developer's written request, the Town will execute, acknowledge and deliver to Developer and all parties identified by Developer, including without limitation assignees, transferees, tenants, purchasers, investors, lenders, and mortgagees, a written statement certifying (A) that this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect (or, if there have been modifications, that this Agreement is in full force and effect, as modified, and stating modifications) and (B) whether there are any existing breaches or defaults by Developer then known to the Town under this Agreement, and if so, specifying the same. The Town will deliver the statement to Developer or such requesting party within 15 days after request. The Town acknowledges that any such assignee, transferee, tenant, purchaser, investor, lender, or mortgagee may rely upon such statement as true and correct. 11 Town TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS an Arizona municipal corporation Ginny Dickey Mayor ATTEST: Elizabeth A. Burke, Town Clerk (ACKNOWLEDGMENT) STATE OF ARIZONA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF MARICOPA ) On , 2019, before me personally appeared Ginny Dickey, the Mayor of the TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, an Arizona municipal corporation, whose identity was proven to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who she claims to be, and acknowledged that she signed the above document on behalf of the Town of Fountain Hills. (Affix notary seal here) Notary Public 12 Developer Hilltop Vista Properties, LLC By its manager, Phoenix Interests, LLC By: Name: Jeremy Hall As Its: Principal Address: 4515 E. Palo Verdes Drive Phoenix, AZ 85018 (ACKNOWLEDGMENT) STATE OF ARIZONA ) ss. COUNTY OF MARICOPA ) On , 2019, before me personally appeared Jeremy Hall, a principal of Phoenix Interests, LLC, whose identity was proven to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who he claims to be, and acknowledged that he signed the above document on behalf of the Town of Phoenix Interests, LLC. (Affix notary seal here) Notary Public 13 EXHIBIT A TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS AND HILLTOP VISTA PROPERTIES, LLC [Legal Description of the Property] Exhibit B Site Plan 15 Exhibit C WE 16 Exhibit D Public Improvements 17 Exhibit E Phasing In