Z2019136 2-10-21 BOS MEMO WITH OPPOSITION VS. 2-3-21.PDF

Planning and Development Department
DATE: February 3, 2021
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Darren Gerard, Planning Manager
HEARING: February 10, 2021 Board Hearing
SUBJECT: Z2019136 – Symmetry at 56th St. & Lone Mountain - Handouts
Since the publishing of the staff report for the above case, staff received additional
correspondence in opposition to the case from an area residents. The total figures are as
follows:
2 letters/e-mails in support
2 Planning and Zoning Commission Appeal Forms
38 letters/e-mails in opposition
70 petition signatures in opposition
There is no change with the Super-Majority Vote calculation as listed on the BOS short
report. Staff has calculated the support and opposition received, and notes that a Super
Majority Vote has been triggered. The trigger is when 20% or more of property owners
within a 300’ radius of the subject site, by number and area register opposition to the
case. The opposition received accounts for 18 property owners with an area of 961,103
sq. ft.
The calculations for Symmetry at 56th St. & Lone Mountain are as follows:
55% opposed parcel acreage within 300’ buffer
50% opposed parcel numbers within 300’ buffer
Attachments: PZ Appeal Form (2 pages)
Opposition correspondence (33 pages)

From: noreply@civicplus.com
To: PND PZAppeal
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 5:53:20 PM
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Appeal Form
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it
will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
However, if this appeal form is received within 15 calendar days following
Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda
for the Board of Supervisors hearing.
Name Jack E Farmer
Email Address jack@santolinafarm.com
Address 31055 N 56th Street, Deliver to Barn Office
City CAVE CREEK
State AZ
Zip Code 85331
Phone Number 4802518600
Fax Number Field not completed.
Case Number / Project Z2019136
Name
Planning & Zoning Feb 10, 2021
Commission Hearing
Date
Reason for the Appeal Shea Homes proposed density of 2 houses to the ac is too high
of the Subject Case and does not blend in with the county community neighborhoods.
Reducing density by stipulation to 1.1 houses to the ac or leave
the current zoning of R-43 solves most of the community issues
for development.
Electronic Signature I agree.
Agreement
Electronic Signature Jack E Farmer
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.


From: Elizabeth Bradley
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: case Z2019136
Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 1:36:44 PM
We are emailing you with concern about the current re-zone application in our
neighborhood (Case #Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes. We are within the
300' notification range and are opposed to this development the way it is currently
designed as its density does not reflect the surrounding communities. We have
participated in discussions with the legal team for Shea homes and they have
gone through the motions of meeting with us and have noted our concerns but
there have been no significant changes to show that they have worked to hear
us. Their original zoning request of R1-10 was changed to R1-18 with amended
standards which in turns creates larger homes on smaller lots and similar looking
density. We feel that this does not fall in line with the surrounding communities
including those references such as Monte Vista whose outer homes mimic that of
the neighbors surrounding it.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority vote by the Board of
Supervisors for this rezone but that the current plan the way it stands should be
re-evalauted to truly represent those communities around it.
Thank you for your time,
Hello Ms. Applegate
My Husband Y are are email you with concerns about the current re-zone application
in our neighborhood, (Z2019126) submitted by Shea homes. We are within the 300’
notification range and are OPPOSED to this development the way it is currently
designed as its density does not reflect the surrounding neighborhoods. We have
participated in the meetings with the legal team for Shea Homes and they have gone
through the motions of the meeting with us, but have not been willing to LISTEN to
our concerns & work with us. Their original zoning request of R1-10 should have
been LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM! then they amended it to R1-18, this is still not
acceptable, we need you to LISTEN to the people that live in the area, & help us, not
the builders!
We not only feel that there must be a super majority vote by the board of supervisors
for this rezone but that the current plan the way it stands should be re-evluated to
truly represent the people living in the area!
Thank you for your time!
Kevin & Elizabeth Bradley
5819 E. Montgomery Rd
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
480-299-9555
less than 300 feet from development

elizabeth bradley
AZCakes.com
480.502.7646 bakery
480.299.9555

From: To: jane Rachel burke Applegate (PND)
Cc: Subject: Steve Shea Homes Chucri (BOS)
Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 1:23:40 PM
Hello Ms. Applegate,
I am emailing you with concern about the current re-
zoning application in our neighborhood (Case
#Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes. I am opposed
to this development the way it is currently designed as
its density does not reflect the surrounding
communities. Our group has participated in
discussions with the legal team for Shea homes and
they have gone through the motions of meeting with
us and have noted our concerns but there have been no
significant changes to show that they have worked to
hear us. Their original zoning request of R1-10 was
changed to R1-18 with amended standards which in
turns creates larger homes on smaller lots and similar
looking density. We feel that this does not fall in line
with the surrounding communities including those
references such as Monte Vista whose outer homes
mimic that of the neighbors surrounding it.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority
vote by the Board of Supervisors for this rezoning but
that the current plan the way it stands should be re-
evalauted to truly represent those communities around
it.
I appreciate your time. Jane Burke, 29212 N. 56 St.,

Cave Creek, AZ 85331, 480-221-3615

From: To: jane Rachel burke Applegate (PND)
Cc: Subject: Steve Shea Homes Chucri (BOS)
Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 1:25:13 PM
Hello Ms. Applegate,
I am emailing you with concern about the current re-
zoning application in our neighborhood (Case
#Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes. I am opposed
to this development the way it is currently designed as
its density does not reflect the surrounding
communities. Our group has participated in
discussions with the legal team for Shea homes and
they have gone through the motions of meeting with
us and have noted our concerns but there have been no
significant changes to show that they have worked to
hear us. Their original zoning request of R1-10 was
changed to R1-18 with amended standards which in
turns creates larger homes on smaller lots and similar
looking density. We feel that this does not fall in line
with the surrounding communities including those
references such as Monte Vista whose outer homes
mimic that of the neighbors surrounding it.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority
vote by the Board of Supervisors for this rezoning but
that the current plan the way it stands should be re-
evalauted to truly represent those communities around
it.
I appreciate your time. Richard Wrightsman, 29212 N.

56 St., Cave Creek, AZ 85331, 602-705-9889

From: Brad Hardy
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: Shea Development
Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 10:55:51 PM
please note our strong opposition to this re zoning south of Lone mountain of 56 the street.
This high density and potential of 2 story home will cause significant unfair declines I. Our
home values, traffic patterns and consistency to the current zoning. A much lower density
consistent with the current one acre lot size is the only fair resolution.

From: Brad Hardy
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject: Opposition to shea.
Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 11:00:07 PM
We failed to include our address to our objection brad Hardy 480.695.5222 5631 E Rancho
Tierra Dr

From: Taryl O"Shea
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS); Gregory Pishko
Subject: Case#Z2019136 re-zone application Shea Homes
Date: Saturday, January 23, 2021 11:50:59 AM
Attachments: Rachel Applegate email 1_23_2021.pdf
Ms. Applegate,
We are emailing you with concern about the current re-zone application in our
neighborhood (Case #Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes. We are opposed to this
development the way it is currently designed as its density does not reflect the
surrounding communities. We have participated in discussions with the legal team
for Shea homes and they have gone through the motions of meeting with us and
have noted our concerns but there have been no significant changes to show that
they have worked to hear us.
Their original zoning request of R1-10 was changed to R1-18 with amended
standards which in turns creates larger homes on smaller lots and similar looking
density. We feel that this does not fall in line with the surrounding communities
including those references such as Monte Vista whose outer homes mimic that of
the neighbors surrounding it.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority vote by the Board of
Supervisors for this rezone but that the current plan the way it stands should be re-
evaluated to truly represent those communities around it.
Thanks,
--
Taryl O'Shea
Event Management By Taryl, LLC
taryloshea@gmail.com
Mobile: 602-299-7595

Rachel Applegate (rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov)
Steve Chucri (chucris@mail.maricopa.gov)
January 23, 2021
Good afternoon Ms. Applegate,
We are emailing you with concern about the current re-zone application in our neighborhood
(Case #Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes. We are opposed to this development the way it is
currently designed as its density does not reflect the surrounding communities. We have
participated in discussions with the legal team for Shea homes and they have gone through the
motions of meeting with us and have noted our concerns but there have been no significant
changes to show that they have worked to hear us.
Their original zoning request of R1-10 was changed to R1-18 with amended standards which in
turns creates larger homes on smaller lots and similar looking density. We feel that this does
not fall in line with the surrounding communities including those references such as Monte
Vista whose outer homes mimic that of the neighbors surrounding it.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority vote by the Board of Supervisors for this
rezone but that the current plan the way it stands should be re-evaluated to truly represent
those communities around it.
Thanks,
Taryl O’Shea
Community Resident
5731 E Windstone Trail Cave Creek, AZ 85331
taryloshea@gmail.com
602-299-7595

From: Donna Langlois
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS); Pete Langlois
Subject: Case #Z2019136 - Shea development rezoning opposition
Date: Sunday, January 24, 2021 3:45:12 AM
Good morning Ms. Applegate,
We are emailing you with concern about the current re-zone application in our
neighborhood (Case #Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes. We are within the 300'
notification range and are opposed to this development the way it is currently designed as
its density does not reflect the surrounding communities. We have participated in
discussions with the legal team for Shea homes and they have gone through the motions of
meeting with us and have noted our concerns but there have been no significant changes
to show that they have worked to hear us. Their original zoning request of R1-10 was
changed to R1-18 with amended standards which in turns creates larger homes on smaller
lots and similar looking density. We feel that this does not fall in line with the surrounding
communities including those references such as Monte Vista whose outer homes mimic
that of the neighbors surrounding it.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority vote by the Board of Supervisors for
this rezone but that the current plan the way it stands should be re-evalauted to truly
represent those communities around it.
Thank you for your time -
Pete and Donna Langlois
5641 E Windstone Trl
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
Pete - 602-509-3412
Donna - 602-614-0428

From: Linda Potter
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: Opposition to Case Z2019136
Date: Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:53:16 AM
Hello - I am a resident near the proposed rezoning from one acre minimum to a denser
development to put in a new subdivision near 58th Street and Montgomery in the County
Island area. We value our rural feel and the proposed development is too dense.
I oppose this rezoning and request that it is denied.
Thank you,
Linda Potter
480-721-0530

From: homersavard@aol.com
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: Shea rezoning case #Z2019136
Date: Sunday, January 24, 2021 12:57:12 PM
Dear Rachael,
We are writing in regards to the Shea rezoning case #Z2019136. We live at 30502 N 58th street and also
own the 2.5-acre lot to the west of our home. Both of these parcels are along Montgomery Rd and
therefore within the 300' required notification zone around the proposed Shea rezoning case. Shea is
asking to rezone the 28-acre parcel from R1-43 to R1-18. Their plan is to have lots as small as 10,000
square feet. This is NOT blending with the surrounding area of which is all 1 1/4 acre lots or more.
We formally object to the current rezoning request of R1-18 in this case.
Please list us including our two parcels as against zoning case #Z2019136.
Sincerely,
Homer and Julie Savard
30502 N 58th Street
Cave Creek AZ 85331
602-363-5703

From: greg@boechler.com
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: Shea development Cave Creek County Island
Date: Sunday, January 24, 2021 5:04:26 PM
Dear Ms. Applegate:
My name is Greg Boechler, I reside at 6233 E Milton Dr, CC 85331. I moved to my home here two
months ago and have just found out recently about the planned development by Shea Homes
(Case#Z2019136). I moved here primarily because of the large lot character of the neighborhood. I
moved from an HOA controlled environment to this area to escape the cookie cutter-subdivision feel
which Shea is bringing to our community. Having been in real estate development my whole career,
I recognize and fear the slippery slope that is being created by approval of this plan that does not
adapt itself to the present community that it is invading. I am appalled that the unique nature of this
community is not recognized by the county planners and while I have not been here to participate in
any discussions with the developer, I have spoken with people who have been in the meetings. Shea
homes representation shows up and listens to everyone, makes notes, and nothing substantive
changes in their plan, but now they can say they met with relevant neighbors. This scenario is
played out over and over again, almost always with the big money winning out. I understand that
there is a push for a supermajority vote by the Board of Supervisors concerning the rezoning of this
parcel and I hope that you consider this request.
Thank you for your consideration to this
Kindest Regards,
Greg Boechler
720-394-4734

From: ANNA VAN DEN STOCK
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: Case #Z2019136 submitted by Shea homes.
Date: Sunday, January 24, 2021 11:07:52 PM
Good afternoon Ms. Applegate,
We are emailing you with concern about the current re-zone application in our
neighborhood (Case #Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes. We are within the 300'
notification range and are opposed to this development the way it is currently designed as
its density does not reflect the surrounding communities. We have participated in
discussions with the legal team for Shea homes and they have gone through the motions of
meeting with us and have noted our concerns but there have been no significant changes
to show that they have worked to hear us. Their original zoning request of R1-10 was
changed to R1-18 with amended standards which in turns creates larger homes on smaller
lots and similar looking density. We feel that this does not fall in line with the surrounding
communities including those references such as Monte Vista whose outer homes mimic
that of the neighbors surrounding it.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority vote by the Board of Supervisors for
this rezone but that the current plan the way it stands should be re-evalauted to truly
represent those communities around it.
Thank you for your time,
John & Anna Pederson
5607 E Rancho Tierra Drive
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
(602)570-4775 Anna
(602)321-7601
Sent from my iPhone

From: Gregory Pishko
To: Rachel Applegate (PND); Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: Case #Z2019136
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:01:44 AM
I am writing with my concerns about the lack of community integration of this development.
Having moved to the area out of love for the dirt roads and open spaces with large lots I fear
for the dramatic change this community will bring to the neighborhood.
It only takes a short walk, drive, or horse ride through the area to realize this is not your
standard neighborhood with walls and small yards and an HOA!
Please do whatever you can to prevent this neighborhood from going forward.
Thanks!
Greg Pishko
5731 E Windstone Trl
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
gpishko@yahoo.com
602-214-1679

From: Erin Gunderson
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS); marlene albrecht
Subject: Case #Z2019136 opposition
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 9:53:47 AM
Good morning Ms. Applegate,
We live within the 300’ notification area of this project and are very opposed to the current site plan from Shea
homes. We are greatly affected by this current development as ourselves and our immediate neighbors, the
Albrechts, have 14% of the homes backing up against our two homes. This is not in line with what other more dense
communities, such as Montevista, have done as those communities are more conscious of blending in to their
surrounding areas. We would like to ask that Shea re-evaluate their current plan and that the Board of Supervisors
not allow a developer to make such drastic changes in an area that is open to development when it is mindful of
what the area merits.
Thank you,
Chad and Erin Gunderson
31031 North 56th Street
Cave Creek, AZ 85331

From: Cody Will
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: Rezone Case #Z2019136
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 11:44:31 AM
Hello Ms Applegate and Mr Chucri, my name is Cody and my wife Kate and I live off of
Montgomery rd near the proposed 56th & Lone Mountain development. We can directly see
the southeast corner of this property from our home. We moved into the area a little over a
year ago and what attracted us most to the area were the large, spacious lots and rural
zoning. Regarding this rezone case (#Z2019136) I was absolutely appalled that the case
was successfully rezoned at the first hearing despite huge pushback from all of the
neighboring homes. This high density home development is being dropped directly into the
middle of county island properties with rural zoning and spacious lots, and therefore it is
nothing like the surrounding area. I always thought that zoning was in place for a reason. I
had no idea it could so easily be changed by sly home building companies and dollar-eyed
landowners who are moving away after making their sale, and thus neither have any
concern for what happens to the area afterwards. Both my wife and I were involved in the
online meetings with Shea's legal team and though they stated their appreciation of our
concerns we know that they are a business that wants to get this project done and move
on, and have no concerns for the product left behind that nobody in the area wants and will
have to deal with from then onward. All of the neighbors in the surrounding area,
including ourselves, are in what we consider to be our "forever homes" and expect the
spaces around us to maintain the same zoning that is already in place. Though we are not
opposed to the property being developed, which the landowner certainly has every right to
do, we are in direct opposition to it being rezoned to fit a high density home project that
would be completely out of place in this community.
In summary, I want to clarify that we are within range of this property and will be directly
affected by this development. Both my wife Kate and I, Cody Will, are in direct opposition of
rezoning this neighboring property to accommodate Shea homes proposed project as it
currently stands. We feel that there should be a super majority vote by the board of
supervisors for this rezone, and more importantly we would like to see the current plan
evaluated again to truly represent the surrounding area.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Cody & Kate Will
30442 N 59th St
Cave Creek, AZ 85311
480-353-8390

From: Nicole Bendle (BOS)
To: marlene albrecht
Subject: RE: reference: Case # Z2019136
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:13:01 PM
Thank you for taking the time to email our office in regard to the zoning case regarding 56th & Lone
Mountain. We have shared your email with our Planning & Zoning Department to duly note your
position. We will keep you updated on any future correspondence or information regarding this
zoning case. Once again, we appreciate your input on this issue.
Sincerely,
Nicole Bendle | Deputy Chief of Staff | Supervisor Steve Chucri, District 2 | Maricopa County
301 W. Jefferson Street | 10th floor | Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 506-7431 | Email: Nicole.Bendle@Maricopa.Gov
From: marlene albrecht <1000mars@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 12:59 PM
To: Steve Chucri (BOS) <Steve.Chucri@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Fwd: reference: Case # Z2019136
Begin forwarded message:
From: marlene albrecht <1000mars@gmail.com>
Date: January 25, 2021 at 12:41:24 MST
To: Steve.Churcri@maricopa.gov
Subject: reference: Case # Z2019136
Good Morning,
My husband and I live in the area that is a future Shea Homes development.
We have been here since 1996 and bought into this specific area due to ample space and the
surrounding desert.
Our home is on the North boundary of where the Shea project is slated to build.
More importantly, an active wash runs through this area that lies within our acre.
It is of utmost importance to us, as well as our neighbors, to follow rules which are R-43
specifications, and keep the distance as is.
I have confidence that you will deeply consider those of us who look to you for representation in this
important matter.
Regards,
James and Marlene Albrecht
31023 N 56 St.

480-440-9038

From: Jack Farmer
To: Rachel Applegate (PND); Steve Chucri (BOS)
Cc: Jen Pokorski (PND); Nicole Bendle (BOS); Page Gonzales (BOS)
Subject: Shea Homes 28 ac development
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:06:30 PM
Ms. Rachel Applegate, MCC Planner January 25, 2021
Steve Chucri – Superintendent District 3
Please forward my letter to all Superintendents Districts.
RE: Symetery by Shea Homes rezoning case Z2019136 with Density development issue.
I am emailing you with concern about the second / current re-zone application in our neighborhood (Case
#Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes, last year 2019 and again this 2020 year. Our property is within
the 300' notification range and are opposed to this development in the way it is currently designed. It’s
density does not reflect the surrounding communities. The general density for this MCC area is R-43 or 1
house to the ac, or less. Homes are Mostly 1.25 ac per house to 5 ac. The only R1-18 in “this” MCC
area is Toll Brothers new, (still pending final plat 5 years later), project at 60 street and Dynamite, plus
the 20 yr old eastern 20 ac property, also R1-18. Shea’s proposed 56 lots on 28 ac or 2 DU/ac does not
fit at all in this area.
This re-zoning case should be denied as submitted having higher density than neighborhood area. Shea
Homes should re submit with 1.1 DU/ac maximum Or less dense, to blend in with communities.
Monte Vista by Toll Brothers, 160 ac, across 56th Street, is 1.1 DU/ac for their Eastern half of
subdivision, matching across 56th street.
Section 16 is 772 homes on 660 ac or 1.16 average DU/ac R1-18 with the lower density on Lone
Mountain Rd.
Toll Brothers 60 St and Dynamite, the only R1-18 in MCC, is 24 lots on 20 ac. Or 1.1 DU/ac.
Lone Mountain Estates is R-43 with one acre lots. Approximately 60 homes in subdivision at Eastern
boundary of 28 ac.
All other homes in this area, (within MCC), are One to 1.25 per ac or less dense. We are not COP.
The 28 ac Shea project should remain R-43 to match the neighborhoods or be stipulated to 30.8
houses to go forward at 1.1 DU/ac maximum density. This application as submitted, will decrease home
values in area, create traffic problems, create flood drainage issues for neighbors and generally be the
eye sore / sore thumb of the area. Secondly, the sellers/owners house should be included in any further
development plans equaling 30 ac. This 56th street split around the house look, is not appealing.
The community has participated in discussions with the legal team for Shea homes 3 times on this go
around. They have gone through the motions of meeting with us and have noted our concerns, however
there have been No significant changes to show that they have worked to hear us. Their original zoning
request of R1-10 was changed to R1-18, now with amended standards, which in turn creates larger
homes on smaller lots with similar looking R1-10 density. The New Lot size minimum is 10,500 sq ft.
Basically the same as R1-10. This does not fall in line with the surrounding communities including those
references such as Monte Vista whose outer homes do mimic that of the neighbors surrounding it to east.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority vote by the Board of Supervisors for this rezone to
go forward but that the current plan as submitted, should be re-evaluated to truly represent those
communities around it at a stipulated density of 1.1 DU/ac or less. This lower density of 30 homes solves
a lot of Our issues like flooding / drainage, traffic, setbacks, impact on schools, impact to native desert
animals plus will blend in with the community’s way of life here.
Please be considerate for our needs in the established MCC communities.

Thank you,
Jack Farmer
31055 N 56th Street, Cave Creek, AZ 85331
211-45-318A, 211-45-318B, 211-45-319
All within 300 feet.

From: Robert Young
To: Rachel Applegate (PND); Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: Shea Homes project
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:18:29 PM
Rachel,
I wanted to make it very clear that my wife and I are completely opposed to the current
proposal by Shea Homes at 56th St between Lone Mountain and Montgomery, (case # Case
#Z2019136) for a variety of reasons. Most importantly Shea has not made a true attempt to
match the neighborhood or fit into the surrounding community. They have consistently kept
the homeowners here at arms length through their attorneys and they have not listened to any
of our requests or concerns and acted on them. We are open to having a homebuilder come in,
even Shea, if they are truly willing to listen to the homeowners and consider our requests. We
are very willing to work with them, however they have not truly opened any real line of
communication other than hiring lawyers to pretend they are working with us.
Sincerely,
Robert & April Young
5632 E. Rancho Tierra Dr.
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
602-686-5300.

From: Chuck Kuehl
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: 300’ notification OPPOSED- Kuehl family
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 5:46:42 PM
Maricopa county planning appeal
Proposed Shea home development at 56th st and Montgomery
Charles and Donna Kuehl
5640 E Rancho Tierra Dr.
Cave Creek, AZ 85331
Parcel #211-45-002R
Good afternoon Ms. Applegate,
We are emailing you with concern about the current re-zone application in our
neighborhood (Case #Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes. We are within the 300'
notification range and are opposed to this development the way it is currently
designed as its density does not reflect the surrounding communities. We have
participated in discussions with the legal team for Shea homes and they have gone
through the motions of meeting with us and have noted our concerns but there have
been no significant changes to show that they have worked to hear us. Their original
zoning request of R1-10 was changed to R1-18 with amended standards which in
turns creates larger homes on smaller lots and similar looking density. We feel that
this does not fall in line with the surrounding communities including those references
such as Monte Vista whose outer homes mimic that of the neighbors surrounding it.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority vote by the Board of
Supervisors for this rezone but that the current plan the way it stands should be re-
evalauted to truly represent those communities around it.
The opposition of the neighborhood to this project remains the same as it has since
day one. This proposed subdivision is not a good fit for this area. I purchased my land
in this county island for one reason, I wanted to live in a rural area (ie: 1 house per 1-
1/4 acre minimum, no street lights, exceptional views). My family and I built a custom
home and suited the property with custom out buildings and a custom pool. I’ve paid
taxes and permit fees to Maricopa county since 2004. My property value has been
estimated in access of 1 million dollars. Shea homes is trying to drop a subdivision
into the middle of a rural zoned area. Shea homes price range for this subdivision is
in the $500,000 range. It’s easy to see that this proposed subdivision will diminish my
property value as well as the surrounding neighbors, many of which have significantly
higher values than mine. There is no reason that another builder can not purchase
this land and build custom homes that fit the surrounding properties as well as the
surrounding areas in this county island. Shea homes has the capability to build such
homes. Shea homes has “made concessions” by changing their request from R-10 to

R-18 (with provisions), which in turn DOES NOT make the lot sizes and homes
anywhere similar to the surrounding properties. They proposed to reduce the amount
of homes from 72 to 65, but with the provisions, these homes will still be stacked on
top of each other, no different than the R-10 proposal. With the latest updates to the
100 year flood regulations, these homes will need to be built on a higher elevation
than previously, thus retracting from views of the open areas between the current
houses, as well as the road they have proposed directly along the east wall of my
property. This road will undoubtedly produce substantial traffic, headlights into my
home and yard, and loss of privacy that would not happen if this property were to be
developed as R-43. Shea homes is not calling for this road to have a buffer between
my property. There is a proposed community area, otherwise known as a park,
directly behind my property to the north. I’ve yet to see a park that doesn’t have lights
for safety 24-7, thus interrupting R-43 dark nights. Shea homes has not specified
whether or not they will have street lights in their proposal, while I’ve yet to see a
closely built subdivision without any street lights. Most homes would have vanity and
garage lights to compensate, this would also interrupt R-43 darkness. Shea homes
has tried to compare their proposal to others in vicinity, those subdivisions are located
in the city of Phoenix. After the recent zoom meeting which included our neighbors,
Shea homes lawyers, and the maricopa county volunteer zoning commission, I found
it very concerning that the zoning commission commended Shea homes for their
outreach, but completely ignored the facts and findings of the outreach. The results
produced 17 votes in opposition, with just 1 vote in favor, that being the property
seller. Shea homes touted their outreach as multiple letters and an extra sign, these
are of little significance when the results are negative. Shea homes has no plans to
enhance the roadways in the immediate area, with this subdivision creating a huge
increase of traffic to very primitive roads. Shea homes says that this proposal is in
accordance with the current area, if that were so, why is there a need for a zoning
change? It’s clear that this subdivision does not belong in our rural area, and as an
elected official that represents the community and tax payers, I ask of you to carefully
consider your obligation to our community, please vote to not allow this project to
continue.
We are in opposition for the following reasons:
1).The density of this proposed subdivision is not consistent with any other Maricopa
county section in our vicinity. We cannot find another R1-18 zoned Maricopa county
island.
2). All surrounding properties are zoned R1-43, all surrounding homes are built on 1-
1/4 acre minimum lot size, with many consisting of 2.5-5 acres per household. It does
not fit the established community.
3).NONE of the bordering 17 property owners are in support of this project.
4). Building setbacks are not consistent with surrounding areas
5).Buffering adjacent to my property is minimal, with a proposed street within feet of
my east wall, posing the question of elevation of this street. With the elevation of the

proposed street adjacent to my east wall, the 6’ wall that is now at grade level, will be
at a lower elevation than the street, creating a lack of privacy, the possibility of vehicle
headlights shining above the wall into our yard and house, as well as a safety
concern with motor vehicle traffic.
6). The playground directly behind our property to the north. We live in a dark area
(no street lights), a playground must be properly lit to ensure the safety of citizens,
therefore lights must be present. This goes against the “no street lights” atmosphere
of the current surrounding MCC county properties. Another aspect of this proposed
playground is the noise created by the volume of attendees.
7).Property values. The proposed Shea homes are to be sold in the low $500,000
range, while most properties in this area are valued at $1,000,000+. With the elevated
street and playground directly next to my property, one can only imagine the effect
this will have on my property values, as well as all of the 17 adjoining properties. This
creating a domino effect of lower property values for all properties adjacent to these
17 properties.
8).Traffic congestion. With a proposed single point of ingress/egress from the Shea
Developement on 56th street, it is impossible to not create a traffic logistic nightmare.
Traffic on this 2 lane road has major issues during school hours, as there are 3
schools within a couple miles that use 56th street as their main thoroughfare.
Thank you for your time
kuehlracing77x@yahoo.com

From: Kelly Clays
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: Case #Z2019136 Rezone App.~ Shea Homes
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 6:45:53 AM
Good afternoon Ms. Applegate,
We are emailing you with concern about the current re-zone application in our
neighborhood (Case #Z2019136) submitted by Shea homes. We are within the 300'
notification range and are opposed to this development the way it is currently designed as
its density does not reflect the surrounding communities. We have participated in
discussions with the legal team for Shea homes and they have gone through the motions of
meeting with us and have noted our concerns but there have been no significant changes
to show that they have worked to hear us. Their original zoning request of R1-10 was
changed to R1-18 with amended standards which in turns creates larger homes on smaller
lots and similar looking density. We feel that this does not fall in line with the surrounding
communities including those references such as Monte Vista whose outer homes mimic
that of the neighbors surrounding it.
We not only feel that there should be a super majority vote by the Board of Supervisors for
this rezone but that the current plan the way it stands should be re-evaluated to truly
represent those communities around it.
Thank you for your time,
John & Kelly Clays
30504 N. 57th Street Cave Creek, 85331
John 6029302950
Kelly 4807605732

From: Derek Wilson
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Steve Chucri (BOS)
Subject: Case # Z2019136 - 56th and Lone Mountain Symmetry - Opposition
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 7:25:57 AM
Hello Ms. Applegate,
I am contacting you today regarding my concern and opposition of the proposed zoning change application in our
rural area. I live directly on the northern boundary of the Shea Homes desired planned community and within the
300’ range. I have been involved from the beginning in opposition to this zoning change as it does not reflect the
community and the rural lifestyle we moved here to enjoy. I was very dismayed when the Planning and Zoning
commission voted 6-0 to approve the zoning change. They did nothing but praise Shea Homes for their diligence in
notifying the neighbors and making changes that address our concerns. This decision is a purely profit driven
process by the land owner and the developer. I understand the need for development and the desire of the land
owner to sell their property. With the overwhelming opposition to the re-zoning it should be noted that this area
needs to be left as currently zoned; R-43.
I am sure there are developers that would be happy to keep this land designated R-43 and build "community
focused” homes in size and layout which will allow the land owner their profit and the community their way of life.
Thank you,
Derek Wilson
31017 N. 56th Street, Cave Creek, AZ 85331
soundmanderek@gmail.com
602 509-7744

From: Chris Shultz
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: churcris@mail.maricopa.gov
Subject: Case Z2019136
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:08:17 PM
Dear Ms Applegate,
I am emailing you with concern of the issue concerning the rezoning of case Z 2019136 by
Shea Homes. I live connecting the east side of the property on 58th and Montgomery Rd and
am strongly opposed to the rezoning of this parcel. This does not fit into our community
design. This is a more rural equestrian area and this density will change many aspects that do
not fit into this community.
The first attempt Shea proposed was done improperly and approved without notification of
the the bordering neighbors, and with false information to those who were notified. We were
not contacted at all. This time we were sent a letter, however with the incorrect spelling of our
name, and I am very wary of what Shea homes is proposing. I felt we, as a collective
neighborhood, were not heard and I feel the same this time. On the call meeting that was held
January 14th 2021, There were at least 6 or more callers from the community in opposition
and 1 caller in agreement. I am not sure how this was not taken into effect to the unanimous
vote to approve Shea Homes proposal. We are not being heard.
I understand that the Arnold family will sell and have that right, but I do think it needs to be
done in accordance to the zoning that stands.
Thank you for your time,
--
Christi Shultz
Connective Hands Equine Bodywork LLC

From: Nicole Bendle (BOS)
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Jen Pokorski (PND); Darren V. Gérard (PND); Page Gonzales (BOS)
Subject: FW: Rezoning Case
Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 1:45:23 PM
From: Scott Coolidge <sdcoolidge@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 1:03 PM
To: Clint Hickman (BOS) <Clint.Hickman@Maricopa.Gov>; sellersj@mail.maircopa.gov; Steve Chucri
(BOS) <Steve.Chucri@Maricopa.Gov>; District 3 <District3@maricopa.gov>; District 5
<District5@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Rezoning Case
Good afternoon Board of Supervisors,
I am reaching out to you in regards to a rezoning case (Z2019136) coming up on your
Wednesday, February 10th agenda. This Shea project, named the 56th and Lone Mountain
project, involves a parcel of land that is in our community, currently zoned at R1-43, with a
request for a rezone to R1-18 with amended standards. I have several concerns about this
project, including:
· The initial application was a request for R1-10 and is now R1-18 with amended
standards which essentially keeps the buildable area the same. The current site plan has 56
homes as opposed to the initial application which ranged anywhere from 65 to 75 lots, and
the current change in lots was solely based on the need for a retention basin due to a newer
wash study. This reduction was not because of any community effort by Shea to work with
neighbor's concerns. The proposed zoning change is not in keeping with the surrounding
area…the proposed density is my greatest concern.
· Shea has referenced a community, Montevista, in their presentations on many
occasions, since it is zoned at R1-18, but has not been as thoughtful about their lot
placement as that community. Montevista is shown to have larger lots on the exterior of
their community that back up to homes similar to ours and saved the density for the interior
lots. Also, Montevista is very unlike this proposal in that Montevista sits between 3 paved
streets (Dixileta, 56th, and Montgomery), and is not being “dropped into the middle” of an
area that is surrounded by homes on all sides. For this season, much more thought should
be given to surrounding homes that will be affected.
· The application for this project was initially submitted on November 26, 2019. It was not
until their fourth application on November 25, 2020 that all parties were properly notified.
For this reason, the project is still fairly new information to many parties and modifications
to the plan have not been made since that time to "work" with the neighbors as a whole.
While this project is not within your district, I feel it is important to reach out to you in an
effort to start a dialogue because your votes affect how our community grows. There is a
small neighborhood group meeting with our representative, Steve Chucri, this week to
discuss the above concerns and a plan that we would be more open to supporting. I and
my neighbors are open to development, as that is how we were able to join this
beautiful and supportive community, and remain open to welcoming a developer that cares
equally about our community.

Thank you for your time,
Scott Coolidge
5730 E Milton D
(480) 510-4008

From: Nicole Bendle (BOS)
To: Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc: Jen Pokorski (PND); Darren V. Gérard (PND); Page Gonzales (BOS)
Subject: FW: Z2019136
Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 1:46:12 PM
From: Chris Shultz <connectivehands@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 12:55 PM
To: Steve Chucri (BOS) <Steve.Chucri@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Z2019136
Good afternoon Board of Supervisors,
We are reaching out to you this week in regards to a rezoning case (Z2019136) coming
up on your Wednesday, February 10th agenda. This Shea project, named the 56th and
Lone Mountain project, involves a parcel of land that is in our community, currently
zoned at R1-43, with a request for a rezone to R1-18 with amended standards. We have
had the same concerns since the initial application of this project and have remained
steadfast in our community effort to work with the builder to make this project more
amenable to the surrounding area.
Below are our current concerns:
-The application for this project was initially submitted on November 26, 2019. It was not
until their fourth application on November 25, 2020 that all parties were properly
notified. For this reason, the project is still fairly new information to many parties and
modifications to the plan have not been made since that time to "work" with the neighbors
as a whole.
-The initial application was a request for R1-10 and is now R1-18 with amended
standards which essentially keeps the buildable area the same. The current site plan has 56
homes as opposed to the initial application which ranged anywhere from 75 to 65 lots
and the current change in lots was solely based on the need for a retention basin due to a
newer wash study. This reduction was not because of a community effort by Shea to
work with neighbor's concerns.
-Shea has referenced a community, Montevista, in their presentations on many
occasions, since it is zoned at R1-18, but has not been as thoughtful about their lot
placement as that community. Montevista is shown to have larger lots on the exterior of
their community that back up to homes similar to ours and saved the density for the interior
lots. Even though this community is smaller than Montevista, there would be no reason
to not make amendments to their current plan in order to gain any support from the
surrounding neighbors.
We know that this project is not within your district but we feel it is important to reach

out to you in an effort to start a dialogue because your votes affect how our community
grows. There is a small neighborhood group meeting with our representative, Steve
Chucri, this week to discuss the above concerns and a plan that we would be more open to
supporting. We are open to development, as that is how we were able to join this
beautiful and supportive community, and remain open to welcoming a developer that feels
the same.
Our property is adjoining on the east side of this parcel and an directly effected with the
outcome. I personally have reached out to the current trustee who lives on this parcel to
discuss how we can amicably help them with the sale and keep the integrity of our
community.
Thank you for your time,
Name Christi Shultz
Address 5824 E Montgomery Rd Cave Creek AZ 85331
Telephone Number. 570-380-9028
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone