Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ.2015.0409.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 9,2015 Chairman Lloyd Pew opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: The following Commissioners were present: Chairman Lloyd Pew, Vice-Chairman Michael Archambault, Commissioners Stan Connick, Jeremy Strohan, Howie Jones, Eugene Mikolajczyk, and Denise Ham. Also in attendance were Paul Mood, Director of Development Services, Robert Rodgers, Senior Planner and Zoning Administrator and Janice Baxter, Executive Assistant and Recorder of the minutes. Chairman Lloyd Pew requested participation in the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silent reflection. CALL TO THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak. AGENDA ITEM#1 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DATED March 12, 2015. Vice-Chairman Michael Archambault MOVED to APPROVE the meeting minutes dated Thursday, March 12,2015 as written. Commissioner Howie Jones SECONDED. Chairman Pew Aye Vice-Chairman Archambault Aye Commissioner Strohan Aye Commissioner Jones Aye Commissioner Mikolajczyk Aye Commissioner Ham Aye Commissioner Connick Aye The MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7-0). AGENDA ITEM#1 —PUBLIC HEARING OF ORDINANCE #2015-03,TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE OFFICIAL FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING MAP FROM THE R1-18, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE R-3 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT PALAZZO DI LUSSO, A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 11208 N. INDIGO DRIVE (PLAT 203, BLOCK 8, LOT 2). CASE NUMBER Z2014-06 Commissioner Stan Connick recluse himself from participating in this item because he has a financial interest in the project. Robert Rodgers, Senior Planner gave the presentation and included a PowerPoint Presentation (Exhibit "A" attached). Mr. Rodgers pointed out that the property was located at 11208 N. Indigo Drive and the Page 1 of 5 proposal was to rezone the subject property from R1-18 Single-Family Residential to R-3 Multi-Family Residential. Mr. Rodgers stated that the property was located at the southwest corner of Indigo Drive and Emerald Drive and was currently vacant. The lot is 1.24 acres in size and that the properties to the north and east were single-family homes and zoned R1-18 with the properties to the west and south zoned multi-family R-3,with the exception of the vacant lot immediately south,which is zoned RI-18. Mr. Rodgers stated that the site plan for Palazzo di Lusso consisted of a proposed 4-unit multi-family building with a circular driveway having entrances off Indigo Drive and the driveway ramp slopes down to resident parking under the building. Visitor's parking is located in the front. Mr. Rodgers added that the building would be two stories(30' height)with a 6,792 sf footprint. Mr. Rodgers added that there would be two units on the ground floor and two units on the second floor; the project would be fully landscaped and complies with the town's development guidelines. He stated that the Commission could recommend that Council add a stipulation that if the plan was not followed, the rezoning would be void. Recommended stipulations are outlined below: 1. The applicants shall submit Site Improvement Plans that are in substantial conformance with the proposal outlined in this report. All utilities and drainage features must be installed and functional as shown on the improvement plans and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permit. 2. No occupancy permit shall be issued prior to the completion of all site improvements as depicted and approved. Said improvements must be approved by both the Town Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Administrator. 3. The applicants shall submit plans showing any and all notes and revisions required by this decision to the Planning and Zoning Administrator for review and approval prior to making application for a Building Permit. A copy of said plans shall be submitted with any and all building permit applications for this project. 4. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicants shall comply with the requirements noted that the Fountain Hills Sanitary District's review memo dated December 9, 2014, or as subsequently amended(attached). 5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicants shall comply with the items noted in the Fountain Hills Fire Department's review memo dated December 4, 2014, or as subsequently amended(attached). 6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicants shall comply with the items noted in the Fountain Hills Town Engineer's memorandum of March 9,2015 (attached). 7. Appeals: Under Arizona law there is a 30 day period in which a zoning approval may be appealed. No site work or construction activities may be undertaken during this period. Mr. Rodgers pointed out that the proposal to rezone the property was consistent with the General Plan and therefore, staff recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval subject to the stipulations in the staff report and specific to this proposal for a 4-unit building. Page 2 of 5 Dr. Bruce Tully of the Trapezium Consulting Group, Scottsdale who worked on the project and was also part owner addressed the Commission and was available for questions. Also present was Paul Rogers of the Trapezium Consulting Group,Tempe and Mike Hoffacker, Senior Project Manager for the Trapezium Consulting Group, Scottsdale. Commissioner Pew opened the Public Hearing at 6:44 Chairman Pew requested the following residents address the Commission as requested: Robert Cull,Fountain Hill's resident had concerns regarding set-backs. Bill Pape Fountain Hill's resident opposed the project and submitted an outline of his concerns to the Commission(attached). Serene Seeger Fountain Hill's resident opposed the project. James Waddell NPOA representative for 15+people opposed the project. Alvin and Peggy Pokel Fountain Hill's residents were concerned about the zoning change. Mary Ann Bosnos Fountain Hill's resident was opposed to the project and submitted an outline of her concerns to the Commission(attached). Commissioner Pew closed the Public Hearing at 6.•57 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #2 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE #2015-03, TO AMEND A PORTION OF THE OFFICIAL FOUNTAIN HILLS ZONING MAP FROM THE R1-18, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE R-3 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT PALAZZO DI LUSSO, A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 11208 N. INDIGO DRIVE (PLAT 203, BLOCK 8, LOT 2). CASE NUMBER Z2014-06 Chairman Pew asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Jeremy Strohan asked Paul Rogers and Mike Hoffacker if there had been any consideration to lowering the finished floor plan and how did it compare to the street grade. Paul Rogers answered that they did adjust the grading on site to lower the building and keep it under the 30 foot height restriction, which was measured from the existing grade level. He continued that they also adjusted the building design and roof lines to keep the profile as low as possible and still achieve a high level of design. Vice-Chairman Michael Archambault wanted to clarify with staff that the hearing was for this site only and strictly for rezoning and did not include the adjacent property. Robert Rodgers answered that the request was for the corner lot only. Vice-Chairman Archambault asked Robert Rodgers if the rezoning was to be approved and then any changes in the 4-plex resulted in an increased number of units, the application would then come back to the Commission for their approval. Mr. Robert Rodgers answered that the Commission's Page 3 of 5 Cie recommendation would go to the Council, including a stipulation that the approval would be limited to this plan only and any changes would result in the rezoning being voided. Vice-Chairman Archambault asked Robert Rodgers about building height limitations in Fountain Hills. Mr. Rodgers answered that the maximum height allowed was 30'. Vice-Chairman Archambault pointed out that there was a 13,500 sq ft footprint allowed on this lot with the plan calling for approximately 6,792 sq feet. Vice-Chairman Archambault asked if anyone had documentation on the affect this kind of development project had on surrounding property values. No one at this meeting was able to present documentation to support this questionable issue. Vice-Chairman Archambault himself researched Maricopa County Assessor's website for similar projects within the town and could not determine any negative factors. Vice-Chairman Michael Archambault asked Dr. Bruce Tully if the units would be sold or rented. Dr. Tully answered that the units would be rented for in excess of$4,000.00,per month. Dr. Tully added that in the future the property would hopefully be changed to a condo plat for possible selling in the future. Dr. Tully wanted to address concerns from the property owners and offered to hold a meeting with them to explain the concept. Dr. Tully apologized for not making contact, but he had been ill and was not able to hold a meeting with the neighbors to respond to those issues expressed tonight. Dr. Tully added that this project would be built as a 2-1/2 million dollar project; over $200.00 a square foot and would look like a single family mansion. He added that this was just one of five projects in the area they had planned. He continued to explain that two of the projects were located in Scottsdale and the owners' were looking for additional sites to build. Chairman Lloyd Pew spoke in favor of the project and stated the following justification: • Roof height would not be in excess of 30-feet in the current R1-18 zoning district. • Adjoining properties were already made up of condo/multi-family residents. • This was not `pocket zoning'. Commissioner Howie Jones MOVED to forward a recommendation to Town Council to approve Ordinance 2015-03, the proposed rezoning of property at 11208 N. Indigo Drive from R1-18 to R-3, as presented and subject to the stipulations outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Eugene Mikolajczyk SECONDED. Vice-Chairman Michael Archambault offered an amendment that included an additional stipulation: 8. If the applicant changes from the proposed 4-units, the applicants would then be required to return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review with the possibility of losing the rezoning. Commissioner Jones and Mikolajczyk both agreed and approved the additional stipulation. Chairman Lloyd Pew asked for a voice vote with 5 voted "Aye" and one voted "Nay" (Commissioner Denise Ham cast the"Nay"vote)and Commissioner Stan Connick recluse himself from participating. Chairman Pew re-opened the "Call to the Public" because of a misunderstanding of procedure to allow John Tinklepaugh,part-time resident to express his concerns regarding the"Park Place Project". Page 4 of 5 1 ; Clef AGENDA ITEM#3 -COMMISSION DISCUSSION/REQUEST FOR RESEARCH TO STAFF. Items listed below are related only to the propriety of(i)placing items on a future agenda for action or (ii)directing staff to conduct further research and report back to the Commission. None AGENDA ITEM#4-SUMMARY OF COMMISSION REQUESTS FROM SENIOR PLANNER. None AGENDA ITEM#5—REPORT FROM SENIOR PLANNER AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. Mr. Rodgers stated that he had nothing to report. AGENDA ITEM#6-ADJOURNMENT. Vice-Chairman Michael Archambault MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m. and Commissioner Howie Jones SECONDED and the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY(7�. 5 FOUNTAIN HILLS PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION s BY: z/C e-eX--- airma Loyd Pew 4 ATTEST: !-e . / - ,UGe�G - Jani e DC.0 E.Baxter,Executive Assistant CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission held on the 9th day of April 2015, in the Town Council Chambers, 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountains, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. Dated this 9th day of April 2015. • C _i_e_ )17_;• AGt-V''' J nice E.Baxter,Executive Assistant Page 5 of 5 4/6/2015 ountain Hills -r,::::',',1 ,,' j .. , .. Rt18 ,-, '• ' ,..Taff Presentation ----;/ '. . '•r -, " r! •' , ,. ! f , 1: .4.1 AIN 4, \ ......,•'/AL.r. „. ,:t4i,i;,•--. ."."1:1-'+: , . , ' :,64iii.,.• 4.141' ..t;..4',.?'•AAikte r .- •,-- ,-- ' ' 10).2 '01*:-.,'''''' tr" '...:.1.,...!,,,-,,,1,,,• .„,,....., r ‘;,,.:41V.T ' .4:f•4,t'i''''''' t" ,::'',.' \ r It - R1441 0 „4,, l*Ors,I '''''' I .1/4,A ''' '''' .. •:.ez,-, ..,,_....'-;.',-. ..,i. -‘,41..-...y.--;'..•.":',-.,-.--t•'-',-;:..• ,.. .. Palazzo Di Lusso 11208 N. Indigo Dr. .bi '•'4Z-,','"'4.. •' 1 Roroorny Case e2014-06 \"... -,' *l 'A - — -I t. .'Ada. -- Arr, ... : FountainnUs EN\.) Fountain Hills . ,, ...,..... ni.....--,,... ,. . i .-..,,;..,., ..,--'7 •.. . .i..'-..:--- — ,i• .,,, ...4.....;:i7„. ,. ,,„.,,,,,,,... .i, — z..z. ... .... ...cit.. . , , ,-.-i-,-,,• h..i — =-m- . , ...,* , •Nlijo•' -I#'' ••••*- AFitf •''s'4*,:4",,,,,i4 .c.i:iati-,„' :- g, . : ' ' , ...:'- ' ,..:, ' ,7041' ;,,,,,ffip.------ .,,,, ...,;:,.„„„..„..,..'-.,. _,,,-...•:,.-!,,,,,,,, ,,,_ .J.4 r..,-,ii, - . , „ --• — , i 1' ''ImrAirtieritiet— . --". ..„ ,...\ , ..,.....,. --.4.1%,---- L . 1,..._ . .. . . ..." ' ,.. I , , Rftiommendation: ' k.11Li-”..ralm..a...'•-..c; ,,,. •:,.-- • - t IS"IfIla II '..-77-1171I V I I. . ''' fonvard a Ro%Ornawndouon to Arpro%,%, • I mo..- i % ,i R1,4mung ill,Proi,,01 ,it it 24 r4 Ni, °'w, - , _. ... '.•,.. Ire,RI-174 -11-r111-"AarfrurTrill'' , in, 4,4....1.,...... ' . .,.., - ,,,,,,,,, For the rorpo,o of allowtng,,4,61,50. • ,.. '' Ar.1..`,11ff ondormroom Di,,•lopmont '%; mooed . . .. . - 4,',.',, •:,%.• , • i • !I, 4. • I 0. .„ '..— :As proNomo,f os%.%, • . . • ''"' - ' • .,pnl.u.4,,%JON 41%,ifir•sisi!r4r,•••rt ! P!!! ‘....- ...r.,%!....`..." (11019 Exhibit "A " 1 Memo Regarding 11208 N. Indigo Drive [Plat 203, Block 6, Lot 2] Fountain Hills Arizona April 7,2015 TO: Lloyd Pew, Chairman Mike Archambault, Vice Chairman Commissioners: Stan Connick Eugene Mikolajezyk Howie Jones Denise Ham Jeremy Strohan SUBJECT: Re-zoning Request of 11208 N. Indigo Drive [Case#Z2014-06] Project described by the developer as a"four-unit apartment complex" FROM: Bill and Gail Pape 16128 E. Emerald Drive Fountain Hills,AZ 85268 Dear Commission Members: Thank you in advance for reading and considering the concerns outlined in this memo regarding a potential re-zoning of the land located at 11208 N. Indigo Drive. I am sure that you will consider the request carefully and I am assuming that you have been able to take the time to actually view the site. Prior to going into detail, I am sure that we can agree on the following: �4 :... 1.A developer requests re-zoning of a property primarily for the purpose of increasing rr the profit to be made with the requested developmental zoning change. 2. The surrounding property owners generally, if they oppose the re-zoning, are primarily concerned about maintaining the value of their homes and the potential loss of value. I believe that a more through explanation of the property surrounding the subject property would be helpful—In the project narrative,the write-up says that"the development will be compatible and complimentary as a residential development adjacent to the existing Emerald Mesa and Kings Tree Village developments . . . ". Of course, both of those developments are located on and front major arterial streets—Fountain Hills Blvd. and Kings Tree Blvd. and not on a smaller residential street—Indigo Drive. The Emerald Mesa development located adjacent to and northwest of the subject land, is approximately 25 to 30 feet lower in elevation than the subject property. Actually, if you are standing on Indigo and looking directly into the subject property you can only see the very top of the Emerald Mesa development, since its elevation is so much lower. From the standpoint of the adjacent single family residences,the Emerald Mesa development is essentially hidden from view because of the elevation differential. The Kings Tree Village property is NOT adjacent to the subject property. A large SFR lot on Indigo actually abuts the subject property on the southwest side and is located between the subject property and the Kings Tree Village property. To the best of my knowledge,the owner of this SFR lot has not requested,nor is planning to request,re-zoning of that lot and in fact the single family residential lot will be sandwiched between the Kings Tree Village and the subject lot development, if you recommend the re-zoning. Three Page Memo regarding 11208 N. Indigo Drive Re-zoning Page 1 The SFR properties, one of which is our home, located directly across the street from the subject lot are Cit' all the same or larger in property size than is the subject lot on Indigo. The SFR property owners surrounding the subject lot all knew that the zoning of the lots on Indigo was only for single family residences and purchased their lots and built their homes over fifteen years ago with the expectation that the Indigo property would remain zoned for single family residences. The value of the surrounding single family residences varies, but the average value is approximately in the $750,000+ range with livable area of approximately 3,000+- square feet. We are greatly concerned that the building of a four-unit apartment complex project on Indigo, as described in the narrative write-up by the developer,will negatively affect the value of our homes. Our expectancy was and is that we would be protected from the type of development that is being requested and we are asking that the Commissioners do exactly that. Additionally, we are concerned that the developer may turn the project into rental units,which would certainly negatively affect the value of our property to an even greater extent. The applicant clearly describes the development of the project as an apartment project,which could be rented out. I believe that we would all agree that in general "rental units" are not cared for in the same manner that single family residences are and would negatively affect the value of the surrounding properties. I did confirm with Bob Rogers, Senior Planner,that the commissioners would have NO CONTROL over whether or not the developer actually rented out the units as apartments or actually sold them as condominiums. Furthermore, a four unit apartment complex will generate four times more traffic onto Indigo than would a single family residence. Although that may not seem excessive,the exit from the Kings Tree Village complex already exits onto the western portion of Indigo and this additional traffic may cause a safety issue,which should be taken into consideration. The developer is requesting a height of up to 30 feet,which is the maximum height permitted. Even though this is the maximum height permitted,this is certainly NOT compatible with the one story single family residences located adjacent to the proposed development. Nor does the proposed development add to the continuity of the neighborhood. Furthermore, considering that the lot is much higher than the property to the northwest and northeast,the development will totally overshadow the entire area. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Neighborhood Property Owners Association, I know that the Committee of Architecture (NCOA),which is a committee of the Association, is very concerned about the homes within a given geographical area being similar to the homes already built in the area. The NCOA does include Indigo within their jurisdiction. The NCOA prefers that all structures be in "harmony with and be compatible with" the homes in the neighborhood. A gigantic thirty foot high two-story apartment development with a footprint of almost 7,000 square feet is not compatible with adjacent one story 3,000+square foot homes in our single family residential neighborhood and will negatively affect the value of our homes and our neighborhood. After all considerations,perhaps a compromise might be worth considering. I believe that we would all agree that Townhomes and single story duplexes are of greater value per square foot than apartments or condominiums,both from the standpoint of perception of value,appraised value per square foot and profit per square foot to the developer. Townhomes and duplexes appreciate faster, have generally lower mortgage interest rates and attract more stable buyers. The development of townhomes or a one story duplex would be a much better"transition"(as referred to in the development write-up)between the residential condominiums located on and fronting the arterial streets of Fountain Hills Blvd. and Kingstree Blvd. and the single story residential properties adjacent to as well as on the southwest side of aximmmi Three Page Memo regarding 11208 N. Indigo Drive Re-zoning Page 2 the subject lot on Indigo. I would suggest the possibility of the developer building two (2)or three (3) townhomes or a luxury duplex on the property with a total footprint of much less than 7,000 square feet. Thus you would have two or three townhomes, which would have a maximum footprint of about 4,500 140' square feet to accommodate as much as three almost 3,000 square foot townhomes or a single story duplex of approximately 3,000 square feet per unit. This would be a compromise between the apartment zoning requested and the single family one story residential home for which the property is currently zoned. The developer could redesign the building to reduce the height to say twenty-five feet or less with a territorial roof, which would allow the new development to better conform to the other homes in the adjacent area and existing neighborhood. In summary,we, as homeowners, are concerned about maintaining the value of our one story single family homes and the integrity of our neighborhood. We understand that the developer is attempting to maximize his profit, but he should do so in an area that is more conducive to the development of an apartment complex. It is impossible for the Commissioners to fully protect the citizens they serve and still allow for a zoning change of this type. If you re-zone the property as requested, it is not possible for the Commission to protect the single family residences surrounding the property from having a building that has a footprint of almost 7,000 square feet and 30-feet high being used as a rental apartment complex. The building will neither be compatible with the surrounding areas most directly affected nor be in harmony with the neighborhood. We request that you decline this re-zoning request and ask the developer to re-think his plans for the site and work cooperatively with the adjacent single family homeowners to reach a compromise. Thank you for your consideration. 3 ail cm,th cal, Pape/ Three Page Memo regarding 11208 N. Indigo Drive Re-zoning Page 3 April 6, 2015 Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning 16705 E. Avenue of the Fountain Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Attention: Mr. Robert Rodgers Re: Case #Z2014-05 Proposed Rezoning 11028 N. Indigo Drive Dear Mr. Rodgers, We are writing this letter in response to the request for comment regarding the proposed rezoning of 11028 N. Indigo Drive. We own Unit 121 in Kingstree Villas which is in the row bordering the two undeveloped lots to the northeast which includes 11028. When we purchased our home at Kingstree Villas one of the key selling points was the wonderful view of the fountain and mountains to the east.We reviewed the zoning map at the time of purchase and saw that both lots beside our unit were zoned single family R1-18. We understood that development could happen at any time but felt with the size of the lots and the R1-18 zoning, that any homes would probably not be built to the 30 foot maximum allowable height. If the proposed plan and rezoning to R-3 is approved the 30 foot height will be a reality. In addition, if the rezoning is approved the precedent will be set for the second lot immediately adjacent to Kingstree Villas to also be rezoned. If so, another multi family dwelling would be approved completely blocking the view we have come to enjoy. We are opposed to the rezoning as we feel this will affect our view and the subsequent enjoyment of our property as well as having a detrimental effect on our property value. Respectfully submitted, Don and Barb Brookbank 11022 N. Indigo Drive Unit 121 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 )2_1FAin : 43 RCVn Thomas G Travers 11022 North Indigo Drive Unit No. 127 Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 Phone (480) 836-2300 Cell (608) 239-5216 tktktravers(Onsn.com HAND DELIVERED April 1, 2015 Robert Rodgers Senior Planner& Zoning Administrator Development Services Department Town of Fountain Hills Town Hall Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 RE: Zoning Case#Z2014-05 Dear Mr. Rodgers: Kindly add this letter to the above-identified Case File. I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife, Kathleen. We are joint owners of a condominium unit located at 11022 N Indigo Drive, #127, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268. We oppose the pending petition for rezoning of approximately 1.3 acres at 11208 N Indigo Drive from the R1-18 classification on the Town of Fountain Hills Zoning Map to the R-3 classification(the Petition). As we understand it, if the rezoning were to be approved, a four-unit Caw Page Two condominium building(the Building) could be constructed by the lot owner instead of a single family home as now perm ittrA We oppose the Petition for reasons which follow: We overlook the proposed Building from about 300 yards directly to the south. There is another vacant large single family lot between our property and the proposed Building. We have owned our property since the Spring of 2005. We bought our property with the knowledge and understanding that the property for which rezoning is being sought could only be developed as a single family house. We relied on the existing zoning when we purchased our property. We are very disturbed that,ten years after our purchase,this single family lot is now proposed to be gratuitously transformed into a multi-family lot,to our detriment and to the detriment of the neighboring single family houses, all without any demonstrated benefit to the Town of Fountain Hills. Given the 1.3 acre size of the parcel it seemed most likely that a single story home would be ultimately built on the lot. As we understand it,the Petition calls for a two story building. This added height will negatively impact the enjoyment of our property by restricting our view of downtown Fountain Hills. We elected to purchase our home in Fountain Hills because of all the openness we observed while driving around the town. The Building would add density and is not in character with the surrounding lands. The area to the north and east is already built up as single family. To the south, there is another vacant parcel of approximately the same size as the subject parcel, which is also zoned for single family. That lot lies between our property and the subject parcel. To the west there is another condominium, adjacent to Fountain Hills Boulevard, but it lies almost entirely below the grade of the subject parcel and is therefore not really visible by the neighbors who would be impacted by the Building. In essence, the subject parcel is surrounded by all single family dwellings, or, in the case of the vacant lot to the south of the subject parcel, zoned single family. In our opinion, a four unit building on this site would be out of character to the surrounding, already built(or permitted) dwellings. L Page Three Petitioner bought a single family lot and is seeking a windfall by obtaining a multi-family lot at the original price of a single family lot. Perhaps Petitioner's lot is worth less than it's original purchase price because of the recent housing recession. We too have a property that is now worth considerably less than we paid for it in 2005, but we do not get a"do over"as Petitioner is seeking. As mentioned above, there is an intervening single family lot between our property and the subject lot. If the Petition is granted, that will be precedent for the owner of that intervening lot to also seek a rezoning from single family to multi-family, further negatively impacting our property. We, and all adjacent property owners (including Petitioner), bought with the full knowledge of the zoning that was in effect at the time of purchase. We, and our neighbors, should have been able to rely on that zoning. In short, the Petition for rezoning should be denied, so that the status quo is maintained and that all parties retain what they purchased, not what they would like to own. Resp tfully submitte 4 6- "1--Arli`Aa Thomas G. Travers L P17 April 9,2015 Copy of public comments made at Town of Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. LIRE: Proposed rezoning at 11208 Indigo, Plat 203, Block 8 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, Thank you for allowing me to comment. My husband and I own a home on Emerald Drive,just down the street from the proposed project on Indigo Drive. I ask you to consider several points as you evaluate this request for a zoning change. First, even though the Town allows a height of up to 30 feet,there is also a responsibility to keep new construction compatible with the established neighborhood. A 30-foot project on this site would be like a looming tower over the nearby homes. Particularly those homes along the western part of Emerald Drive,which slopes downward to meet Fountain Hills Blvd. It would completely change the character of the neighborhood and not for the better. Second,the condos already existing in the area front either Fountain Hills Blvd. or Kingstree—both of which are major arteries. This project would front Indigo,which is a tiny residential street. It would be an encroachment into an established area of single family residences. And the proposed height would intensify that encroachment. 'hird, homeowners in the area bought our lots and built our homes in an area that is zoned for single family residences. o now change the zoning, so that a large project that would be incompatible with the neighborhood can be built, seems like a breach of faith with us. And finally, if you approve this rezoning request,you—the Commission—will have no say afterwards on whether the proposed project is sold as owner-occupied condos or as rental units. It is simply a fact that rental units are generally not as well kept as single family residences or owner-occupied townhomes or condos—so the homeowners in this area could face additional potential devaluation of their property along with a structure that is far too tall for the neighborhood. We have a wonderful neighborhood on Emerald Drive and we want to preserve it. No one wants to deny this developer a good return on his investment. Home builders have created our beautiful neighborhood,and people have the right to develop their land. However,I would ask the Commission to reject this rezoning request and work with the developer to shift to either single family homes or townhomes that would allow the developer to make a good return on investment and would also protect the established homeowners. Thank you very much for your time. ‘01_-7 Mary Ann Bosnos 16636 East Emerald Drive,Fountain Hills AZ 85268/(480)816-9899 rille011011111 fi NPOA w.. NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, ARIZONA, INC. 16810 E.Avenue of the Fountains,Suite 119, Fountain Hills AZ 85268-8496 www.npoafh.org•info@npoafh.org•Tel 480.837.5317•Fax 1.848.260.5183 "Keeping Fountain Hills Neighborhoods Beautiful" Statement to the Fountain Hills Planning and Zoning Commission Reference Case [# Z2014-06] 1208 N. Indigo Drive April 09, 2015 My name is James Waddell and I am the President of the Neighborhood Property Owners Association of Fountain Hills (NPOA). I am here to speak on behalf of the NPOA and its Committee of Architecture. As a little background, The NPOA was formed as an Arizona Nonprofit Corporation in 1992 by Fountain Hills residents dedicated to preserving the beauty of local neighborhoods by upholding the development guidelines initiated by McCulloch Properties, the original developer of Fountain Hills. The NPOA is similar to an HOA as it has authority to enforce deed restrictions. ,gale Association currently has approximately 4,100 member properties located in 44 plats, including plat 203. Some of our member properties are condominiums & townhomes. I am attending this meeting to state the concerns of the Association regarding the development at 11208 N Indigo Dr. The most important guideline that the Association follows is that "All structures must be of an architectural character in harmony with, and compatible to, existing structures in the subdivision generally, and in the neighborhood in which the structure is to be constructed, specifically." We are concerned that a multi-story apartment complex is not compatible with existing single family one story residences in this neighborhood. Generally, the Association believes that during the planning and construction phases, a number of points should be kept in mind, the developer should: (a) Alter the site as little as possible, (b) Buildings and structures shall be built to blend with the natural terrain and (c) Have regard for the architectural character of the neighborhood. The homes located directly across the street from the lot that is seeking re-zoning are 1-story residential homes and the Association believes the development should be in harmony with those homes. For this reason the Neighborhood Property Owners Association does not think this re-zoning ,,,.•equest is in the best interests of its members. Thank You.