Jerry Miles
The topography of the land will control the density issue. Most of that land is simply not suited for small cookie-cutter lots, and the cost of the land and installing the required infrastructure will prohibit it. I want to see the developer’s proposed subdivision maps, but I suspect that the final home count will be around 1300, or about one unit per acre. Don Kile, the project developer, knows that the development will have to pay its way. That means taking steps to handle the additional traffic that will be generated, perhaps adding a new fire station, covering the cost of sewer and water services, providing additional park facilities and doing everything else to make sure that the development is not a cost burden to our residents.  If the demand is there, I would certainly encourage a resort or hotel site, but I don’t consider it a critical need.

Jay Schlum
I have seen proposed land use plans and will base my comments on this preliminary data. The development appears to compliment Fountain Hills and works with the natural ridges and arroyos.

I am pleased that Ellman Companies is planning for fewer homes. The higher density single family home subdivision is more centrally located and away from existing neighborhoods. The buffer of 200 feet or more between existing homes and new is in place.

Ellman’s plan to move the park adjacent to the Middle School appears a win-win solution for the existing neighborhoods and the School.
The east-west realignment of existing McDowell Mountain Road would lessen traffic impacts to neighborhoods to the west.

Apart from enjoying our new neighbors that come with new development; the town, thanks to annexation, will also benefit from the development and construction revenues.

Additionally, the 42-acre community park to be constructed by the developer is needed in this section of Fountain Hills.

The site Ellman is planning as a resort is a beautiful piece of land overlooking the McDowell Mountain Regional Park and seems a good use for those coming to Fountain Hills to appreciate our awe inspiring Sonoran Desert.

New development will also bring impacts to our existing infrastructure which requires we negotiate with the Ellman Companies to ensure these impacted assets are enhanced to carry the load. I am pleased to hear that the developer understands and is respectful of these community needs.  So far so good, stand by as we soon move to more substantial discussions.

I am committed to “sustainable” development and that is what the town wants, supports and needs.

Lina Bellenir
I would like to see a simple concept perfecting a balance of desert living and urban life. Any development plans should protect the environment, yet allow a density that would be financially beneficial to our town.  Park(s), botanical gardens, natural areas, with bike and hiking trails would be magnificent. And I would like to see a minimizing of water consumption applying water efficient landscape designs and watering practices.

A lodge/resort with architecture that embraces the natural surroundings would be a wonderful “tourist” draw to our community not only for long distance visitors, but for valley residents who are looking to get away from the hustle and bustle of the “city” and escape for a quiet weekend in beautiful Fountain Hills.

Dennis Contino
Fountain Hills promised tax revenues for the town in order to annex the state trust land from its zoning – preservation.  Ellman Companies completed a traffic study showing 23,000 additional vehicles to all the town streets resulting in no impact to the existing capacity thus no impact fees would be assessed. I challenge this study. This impact must be considered when addressing density.

Absolutely there will be an impact. Absolutely fees should be assessed. The developer must pay its way. Existing residents should not bear the additional burden, for safety, schools, water, air, wildlife, parks, public safety and more—all the small-town amenities we enjoy. The property is already zoned for a small resort at its northern end, so it is up to the developer to pursue.

Only a strong council can ensure that developers do not hoodwink the town or overrun our mature existing neighborhoods. I promise to oversee this project as to environmental and economic impacts every step of the way.

Cassie Hansen
Density: I would like to see less R1-6 zoning in the project as currently proposed. This is denser than the R1-10 zoning of Hidden Hills, the development in Scottsdale just east of and visible from CopperWynd. The traffic impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, all of which currently show vehicular access/connection to the project, is significant and needs ongoing discussion, study and input.

Facilities: Ellman has included a park in their plan, relocating the town’s original site from the northeast corner of the project to a location just north/northeast of the Middle School, straddling the realigned McDowell Mountain Road.

Understandably, they want to use the park as the entry statement into the project, rather than the school. But it seems preferable to locate the park immediately adjacent to the middle school, providing the neighbors with a buffer, a cohesive park that is not divided by a vehicular thoroughfare, and joint use potential with the school.

There will be development fees collected for public safety in conjunction with this project to help pay for the cost of development. Future public safety requirements will have to be assessed by the respective agencies and recommendations forwarded to the town for levels of service. This should be a part of the development agreement negotiations.

Lodging/Resort: This zoning has already been included in the town’s plan. It is a site that overlooks the county park and is miles away from the local amenities and businesses that we are trying to support. The viability and future benefit to the town of such an endeavor seems questionable and would certainly be closely evaluated by any future hospitality enterprise.

Kathie Kelly
Annexing the Ellman property was a prudent decision on the part of the Town Council. It allows us to have a say in the makeup of the property and to benefit from fees and taxes.

I favor varied densities to provide a good mix in the overall development. The total probably should be less than the maximum allowable in the current zoning. Several factors need to be balanced: cost and need for infrastructure such as sewers and roads, fiscal impact, and preserving the beauty of the area and the need to avoid overcrowding.

The town should seek amenities in the development including neighborhood and community parks and recreation facilities to meet the needs of the residents of that area and the rest of Fountain Hills. It would be a logical location for a possible future public pool.

Meeting public safety needs is not an option but a requirement. The town will need to increase law enforcement person power for adequate coverage of the area. The existing fire station most likely will be unable to meet nationally recognized response times for fire and medical emergencies. Additional fire equipment, personnel, and ambulances may be required because of the increased population.

I would recommend zoning for resort hotel/attraction/lodging. This zoning would provide a framework to solicit such a property. The beauty of the area makes it an ideal location for such a facility. Zoning such a site now would define where such facilities would be located within a master plan. Doing this now is better than zoning change issues down the road as specific projects are proposed. 

Keith McMahan
I support all efforts to work with the Ellman Companies in coming up with a new General Plan for the former State Land.

I have seen a preliminary revised plan which has a number of improvements over the one submitted at the time of annexation.

They have made some major traffic routing changes and lowered the density to about 1450 residential sites versus the original 1750.

However I am still concerned about the R1-6 lots and the location of the park. The Ellman plan also calls for a traffic arterial to connect with Richwood Drive in the developed northwest section of Fountain Hills. Traffic could proceed straight ahead on Richwood to get to Golden Eagle Boulevard. But how many would take a “short cut” and make the first left turn which is Boulder Drive?

This is of great concern to residents on Boulder. It can’t handle even moderate through traffic now. It’s a narrow neighborhood street and must be regarded as such.

I am against, really, any additional traffic at all in the existing northwest section. There is another plan in existence which relocates the park so that it partially borders the Middle School grounds. And it sends traffic down a street running below the western ridge of the property to exit on wide Glenbrook Blvd. to the south. This should be seriously investigated.

I don’t think the town should require any facilities other than the normal infrastructure and some recreation equipment in the Park. No lodging or resort should be considered in my opinion.

Michael Tyler
The Developer is proposing matching lot sizes with the adjoining neighborhoods which would provide for around 1400 units. I like the logic of this solution and believe it would integrate well within our town. This will be well below the maximum currently allowed on the property of around 1700 units.

The developer is also proposing a 40-acre park located right next to the middle school, and would redirect Fountain Hills Blvd through the center of the property. I support this idea.

I believe that attracting a high end resort, such as CopperWynd is in keeping with the image of Fountain Hills; it would also provide for an increase in our tax base. So I would be in favor of this approach