Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: Z2019136 – Symmetry at 56th St. & Lone Mountain
Hearing Date: January 14, 2021
Supervisor District: 2
Applicant: William Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Owners: Arnold 56th Street Investment Company, LLC, Susan Arnold Demuro, and Alice Opal Arnold
Request: Zone change from Rural-43 to R1-18 RUPD
Site Location: Generally located ¼ mile southeast of the southeast corner of Lone Mountain Rd. and 56th St. in the Phoenix area
Site Size: Approx. 28 acres
Density: 2.0 d.u./ac.
County Island: Yes (City of Phoenix)
County Plan: Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Rural Development Area (0-1 d.u./ac)
Municipal Plan: City of Phoenix – Residential (1-2 d.u./ac.)
Municipal Comments: None received to date
Support/Opposition: 93 in opposition and 40 in support (original application R1-10 RUPD) 6 in opposition, signed petition with 70 signatures in opposition (amended application to R1-18 RUPD)
Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Z2019136 Page 1 of 12 Project Summary:
1. The request is to rezone approximately 28 acres from Rural-43 to R1-18 RUPD (Residential Unit Plan of Development) for development of a single-family residential subdivision called Symmetry at 56th St. and Lone Mountain.
2. Staff notes this application received a recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 12, 2020 for a zone change request from Rural-43 to R1-10 RUPD. The applicant requested the Commission include additional development standards to limit the number of lots to a maximum of 65, and the inclusion of open space buffer and landscaping buffer and view fencing. On April 8th the Board of Supervisors continued the case to May 6th. At the May 6th Board hearing, the Board motioned for the case to be continued indefinitely to allow the developer to work with the neighbors on issues and concerns. Late November 2020, the applicant amended the application to R1-18 RUPD to address concerns raised by the community. The applicant conducted additional outreach meetings via virtual meetings with the community in December.
3. The proposed subdivision will be limited to 56 (reduction from 65 lots) single family residential lots with a maximum density of 2.0 d.u./ac (reduction from 2.7 d.u/ac.). The subject site consists of 6 parcels located ¼ mile southeast of the southeast corner of Lone Mountain Rd. and 56th St. in the northeast Phoenix area. Staff notes that a preliminary plat with lotting layout has not been submitted at this time. The subdivision is projected to develop as a single phase with completion in March 2022.
4. The narrative states that Shea Homes is proposing to develop the site for a high quality single-family residential community. The community would include a centralized open space that accounts for 35% (increase from the originally proposed 25%) of the gross acreage with approx. 9.9 acres (increase from the originally proposed 6.9 acres). Symmetry would increase diversity of home ownership in the region along with continued growth within the northeast valley. Shea is proposing to develop the subdivision with reduced yard maintenance obligations, thus allowing for increased square footage of the homes which is a current trend with homebuyers in all stages of life. The design would also allow for a varied streetscape with utilization of an innovative housing product, increased square footage, and larger front porches.
5. Access to the subdivision will be a single gated access from 56th Street with private internal streets to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. A secondary emergency access is proposed along the eastern boundary to Wildcat Dr. (public street) via Lone Mountain Ranch subdivision. No access is proposed along Montgomery Rd.
6. Shown on the next page is the R1-18 RUPD amended development standards which include a request to reduce the front, side and street-side yard setbacks; increase lot coverage, and reduce lot width. The lot size will be reduced over the based standard by 7,875 sq. ft. The applicant has stated the reason for the amended development standards is to develop the site consistent with current residential markets in the area. The request will create diversity of home ownership opportunities.
Z2019136 Page 2 of 12
BASE ZONING DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT REGULATION REGULATIONS (R1-18) REGULATIONS (R1-18 RUPD) 30’ – all lots limited to single Max. Height 30' story 20’ front loaded garage, 10’ Min. Front Yard 30' side loaded garage or livable area of dwelling unit Min. Side Yard 10’ 5’ Min. Street-side Yard 15’ 10’ Min. Rear Yard 30' 20’ Min. Lot Area 18,000 sq. ft. 10,125 sq. ft. Min. Lot Width 120’ 75’ Avg. Lot Area per Dwelling 18,000 sq. ft. 18,081 sq. ft. Unit Max. Lot Coverage 35% 55% Min. Number of Off-Street 2 2 Parking Spaces
Previous R1-10 RUPD and proposed R1-18 RUPD request comparison chart:
ORIGINAL AMENDED ZONING APPLICATION DISTRICT REGULATION PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS (R1- DISTRICT REGULATIONS 18 RUPD) (R1-10 RUPD) 30’ – all lots limited Max. Height 30’ to single story 20’ front loaded garage, 10’ side Min. Front Yard 10’ loaded garage or livable area of dwelling unit Min. Side Yard 5’ & 10’ 5’ Min. Street-side Yard 10’ 10’ Min. Rear Yard 25’ 20’ Min. Lot Area 10,125 sq. ft. 10,125 sq. ft. Min. Lot Width 75’ 75’ Avg. Lot Area per Dwelling 12,000 sq. ft. 18,081 sq. ft. Unit Max. Lot Coverage 55% 55% Min. Number of Off- 2 2 Street Parking Spaces
Z2019136 Page 3 of 12
Aerial image of subject site.
Aerial image of subject site and surrounding land uses.
Z2019136 Page 4 of 12
7. Water will be provided by the City of Scottsdale; the site is located within zone 8 of the City’s water system. The applicant states there is existing water infrastructure adjacent to the project which includes an 8” and 12” water main on 56th St. directly west of the project, a 12” water main on Montgomery Rd., and 8” line on Wildcat Dr.
8. Wastewater service will be provided by the City of Phoenix via an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), an existing 8” gravity sewer line is located approximately at the southwest corner of 56th St. and Montgomery Rd. The applicant states wastewater service design will be in coordination with the City of Scottsdale to include a network of 8” on-site sewer mains to convey flows to 56th on the west side. The pre-service agreements for these services are currently not finalized with the cities, but the applicant has stated these are in for review and approval. Staff received a letter from the City of Scottsdale Water indicating that Scottsdale intends to provide water and sewer, with IGA with Phoenix to connect to the City of Phoenix sewer system.
Zoning Districts and City of Phoenix jurisdiction located north of Lone Mountain Rd. and west of 56th Street.
9. The site is located within the Cave Creek Unified School District which includes the following school boundaries, Lone Mountain Elementary (approx. 0.6 miles), Sonoran Trails Middle School (approx. 2.3 miles) and Cactus Shadows High School (2.3 miles). Shown on the next page is the conceptual open space layout. The conceptual plan includes a centralized community gathering area along the proposed interior roadway. The open space will include active and passive space with turf areas, a shaded tot lot and ramada with picnic area.
10. The site slopes to the southwest with 2% to 3%, with offsite flows to the site from the north and east. The offsite flows are conveyed in a natural wash along the northern boundary and proposed channel along the east and southern region to convey offsite runoff
Z2019136 Page 5 of 12 around the lots and to return to historic locations. The wash along the northern region of the property is pending designation as flood hazard Zone AE, which is defined as the base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. The site will be graded for storm water storage to account for the 100 year, 2 hour storm retention requirement. The subdivision streets will convey on-site runoff to the stormwater storage basins. Planning Engineering has provided a condition that this site will pose significant challenges with storm water management. Without submittal of a precise plan of development or a preliminary plat, no Planning Engineering approval is inferred by the review of the zone change application. The drainage design, engineering, access and roadway alignments will be evaluated and addressed as the subdivision project progresses with a preliminary plat. A traffic impact study must be submitted with the preliminary plat.
Conceptual Site Plan
Z2019136 Page 6 of 12 Conceptual Open Space Plan
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
11. On-site: Rural-43 / existing unpermitted structures North: Rural-43 / scattered large lot residential South: Rural-43 / scattered large lot residential East: Rural-43 / Subdivision (Lone Mountain Ranch) West: RE-35 (City of Phoenix) / vacant
Existing surrounding zoning districts in City of Phoenix jurisdiction
Z2019136 Page 7 of 12
Utilities and Services:
12. Water: City of Scottsdale or City of Phoenix Wastewater: City of Scottsdale with IGA with the City of Phoenix School District: Cave Creek Unified School District Fire: Rural Metro Police: MCSO
Right-of-Way:
13. The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Major Streets and Routes Plan.
Street Name Half-width Existing Half-width Proposed Future Classification R/W R/W 56th Street 40’ 65’ Local - Section Montgomery Rd. 0’ 40’ Collector - Mid-Section
Adopted Plans:
14. Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted January 2016): The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Rural Development Area (0-1 d.u./ac.). Since the site is approx. 28 acres, the site is below the 40 acre threshold required to change the land use designation.
15. City of Phoenix General Plan 2015 (adopted 2015): The City designates the site as Residential (1-2 d.u./ac.). The proposed density of 2.0 d.u./ac. meets the City’s land use classification.
Public Participation Summary:
16. The applicant complied with the requirements of the Citizen Review Process with the required posting of the property and notification by first class mail to interested parties and notification to adjacent property owners within 300’ of the subject site with both the R1-10 RUPD and R1-18 RUPD zoning. The overall comments for both applications include reconsideration of 1 acre or R1-35 zoned lots for keeping the existing Rural character of area, the community does not support the proposed R1-18 RUPD zoning.
17. Staff has received numerous letters and phone calls expressing opposition to the application from area residents. Petitions were also received regarding the original zoning application. Staff received a total of 40 in support and 93 in opposition. The issues raised include high density in an area designated as Rural, increased traffic, dust, impact to the existing rural/equestrian lifestyle of the area. Other issues raised included increasing the density for large scale tract homes behind a gated community wall which is a transition to suburban zones. Traffic issues with existing roads in deplorable conditions, excess traffic, environmental concerns and excessive noise were also identified. The currently application has resulted in two letters in opposition. These concerns relate to keep the property to the existing County land use designation of 1 du./ac., increase in
Z2019136 Page 8 of 12 density, impact to property values, single access point on 56th St., and increased traffic. Staff notes that the neighbors submitted an e-mail with stipulations on September 16, 2020 to Supervisor Chucri’s Office related to the original R1-10 RUPD zoning application. These stipulations/comments have been attached to the staff report, but are associated with the previous application, not the amended R1-18 zoning application received in November 2020, staff is not certain if these comments/stipulations are applicable. Staff also received a petition with 70 signatures in opposition to the amended application with the following items concerns:
Density – The R1-18 zoning is not compatible with Rural-43, with Shea asking for lots as small as 10,000 sq. ft. The neighborhood would like to maintain the current Rural- 43 zoning district standards. The community is willing to discuss R1-35 plan with no amended standards.
Drainage – Concerned the plan is utilizing the roads as drainage to route stormwater to the southwest and across Montgomery Rd. The retention looks inadequate for coverage along the southern boundary to Montgomery Rd. It appears they used the old Floodplain Study and not the new revised flood study.
Traffic – Proposed 56 homes with current plan, The R1-35 zoning would accommodate 34 – 35 homes. Shea has indicated that the development can produce twice the traffic onto 56th St. without making any accommodations.
Lighting – Twice the number of homes will leave to twice the amount of lighting. We prefer dark skies at night.
18. The applicant conducted another Citizen outreach regarding the amended R1-18 RUPD application. A website was created www.56thandLoneMountain.com to provide the information on request, zoning district standards, and subdivision layout. The website also includes recordings of the virtual meetings. The applicant states in the Citizen Results Report that there have been approximately 350 visits to the website. A letter was mailed out on December 2, 2020 regarding the application to property owners within 300’ and the Lone Mountain Ranch subdivision located to the east of the property. The applicant also e-mailed approximately 60 neighbors and stakeholders on 12/7 and 12/14. Three virtual GoToMeetings were held on 12/8 (30 attendees), 12/15 (15-20 attendees) and 12/16 (15-20 attendees) to discuss the proposed subdivision.
19. The results of the outreach included comments and concerns related to height of the SFRs, improvements to 56th St., lot sizes reduced to 10,000 sq. ft., easement of 30’ for Montgomery Rd. The applicant states as with the original application the primary concerns are related to lot size and density. The applicant has stated the amended application is related due to market demand and buyer preferences.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
20. N/A
Z2019136 Page 9 of 12 Staff Analysis:
21. The City of Phoenix has not provided comments on the amended zone change application. The proposal of 2.0 d.u./ac. exceeds the County’s Vision 2030 Rural Development Area (0-1 d.u./ac.) but meets the City of Phoenix General Plan which designates the site as Residential (0-2 d.u./ac.). Staff notes the northeast Phoenix region has been developing with higher densities to the west of 56th St. which includes Monte Vista (R1-18), Bushwood (R1-18), and additional R1-18 properties located north of Lone Mountain Rd.
22. The intergovernmental agreement for wastewater services are currently not finalized with the cities. Staff is concerned about rezoning the site to R1-18 RUPD without the agreements approved for utilities. In order to alleviate this issue, conditions have been included to address that a will serve letter from the City of Phoenix for water and the IGA or other document acceptable to Maricopa County for wastewater must be established prior to final plat approval and the zoning approval will be conditional for a period of 5 years for the initial phase of development. If these timeframes are not met, the zoning case could be scheduled for public hearings to consider reversion of the zoning. Staff maintains its support of the zone change which will include service agreements for water and wastewater from the cities to develop single family residential. Reviewing county agencies do not have any objections to the zone change application. Recommendation:
23. Staff recommends the Commission motion for Approval, subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘n’.
a. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Zoning Exhibit entitled “56th St. & Lone Mountain”, consisting of 1 full-size sheet, dated December 2020 and stamped received December 27, 2020, except as modified by the following conditions.
b. Development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the Narrative Report entitled “56th Street & Lone Mountain”, consisting of 20 pages, dated December 14, 2020, and stamped received December 27, 2020, except as modified by the following conditions.
c. The following R1-18 RUPD standards shall apply: 1. Max. Height: 30’, all lots limited to single story 2. Min. Front Yard: 20’ front loaded garage, 10’ side loaded garage or livable area of dwelling unit. 3. Min. Side Yard: 5’ 4. Min. Street-side Yard: 10’ 5. Min. Rear Yard: 20’ 6. Minimum Lot Area: 10,125 sq. ft. 7. Minimum Lot Width: 75’ 8. Average Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: 18,081 sq. ft. 9. Maximum Lot Coverage: 55% 10. Min. Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces: 2
d. The total number of residential units shall not exceed 56.
Z2019136 Page 10 of 12 e. The developer shall provide a 25’ open space buffer on the northern perimeter of the property to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. f. The developer shall provide a 40’ landscape buffer on the north side of the southern perimeter of the property to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. g. The developer shall provide a view fence on the southern perimeter of the property. h. The following Planning Engineering conditions shall apply: 1. The development of the site will pose significant challenges with respect to storm water management. Without the submittal of a precise plan of development, no development approval is inferred by this review, including, but not limited to drainage design, access and roadway alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans progress and are submitted to the County for further review and/or entitlement. 2. A traffic impact study must be submitted with any future entitlement application (i.e. preliminary plat). 3. Dedication of right-of-way along 56th Street (section) and Montgomery Road (mid-section) will be required as part of future entitlement (i.e. final plat), unless otherwise waived by MCDOT. 4. If required for site development, the CLOMR application must be submitted to the Flood Control District prior to or concurrent with any future entitlement application (i.e. preliminary plat). 5. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of application for construction. i. Zoning approval is conditional per Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, Article 304.6, and ARS § 11-814 for five (5) years within which time the initial subdivision infrastructure permit or construction permit must be obtained. The applicant shall submit a written report every five years from the date of Board of Supervisors approval of Z2019136 which details the status of this project, including progress on obtaining subdivision infrastructure and/or construction permits. The status report to be administratively reviewed by Planning and Development with the ability to administratively accept or to carry the status report to the Board of Supervisors (Board), upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) for consideration of amendments or revocation of zoning for undeveloped parcels. Status reports will be required until completion of the initial subdivision infrastructure and/or construction permits for each zoning parcel (R1- 18 RUPD). j. Prior to approval of the initial final plat, the applicant shall provide the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department with the approved Intergovernmental Agreement between the Cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale that is referenced in the February 26, 2020 letter issued by Brian K. Biesmeyer, Executive
Z2019136 Page 11 of 12 Director of Scottsdale Water, or other document acceptable to Maricopa County which assures sewer service.
k. Prior to initial final plat approval, the applicant shall provide the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department with a ‘will serve’ letter from the City of Scottsdale or City of Phoenix for water service, or other document acceptable to Maricopa County which assures water service.
l. Noncompliance with any condition herein or Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for initiating a revocation of this Zone Change as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
m. The property owner/s and their successors waive claim for diminution in value if the County takes action to rescind approval due to noncompliance with conditions.
n. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change. The Zone Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date the Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted.
Presented by: Rachel Applegate, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Matthew Holm, AICP, Planning Supervisor
Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Zoning Exhibit (reduced 8.5”x11”, 1 page) Narrative Report (20 pages) Engineering Comments (2 pages) MCESD Comments (1 page) City of Scottsdale Water (1 page) Comments from Neighbors submitted to Board September 16, 2020 (3 pages) Opposition documents (12 pages) Petition in opposition (17 pages)
Z2019136 Page 12 of 12 ÿ
vwwxyyÿÿÿuÿÿdÿÿefy xÿywy hcaiÿjcekÿc@dbÿ vwwxy vwwxyÿz{|yx TT lmnnmQoÿkTÿpQnn`ÿqCBÿhrssFitÿuÿvwxywÿgF lkphvpFlTywh ipqrsrtu gÿvdd zxÿzy@dd}ea}cc@~ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ @dd}ea}cc@bÿÿ@dd}ea}cc@sbÿÿ@dd}ea}cc@ ÿ AHUHBQVHWÿXQUYQB`ÿabÿ@c@dÿdeI@fÿgh ABCDDÿFGBHDIÿ@PÿQRRBCST hQRÿDGQnHÿdIb@Pe
xYRHBmDCBÿmDVBmGVÿiCT@
i |ÿgv|ÿ||ÿ ÿ|i |ÿ ÿrrÿzÿ ÿ||vÿ
ÿ!"#$%ÿ&'###(ÿ)ÿ0121'31#$ÿ4ÿ&51#67ÿ89 56TH ST & LONE MOUNTAIN MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA I f� I FIGURE 2 � l I RESIDENTIAL UNIT PLAN I I OF DEVELOPMENT "l! I z CURRENT & PR□ P□ SED ZONING � I I9. I l 1-- NOTTO SCALE I� N 1f Zone Change From Rural-43 to R1-18 RUPD f 11 OWNER/DEVELOPER PLANNING/ENGINEER 8 I SHEA HOMES HILGARTWILSON 8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE. STE.250 i SUITE 350 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 I SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85258 TELEPHONE: (602) 490.0535 l CONTACT: MATT TELBAN CONTACT: ROB GUBSER. AICP f I i UTILITY COMMITMENT TABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT I WATER CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ELEMENTARY CAVE CREEK UNIFIED I WASTEWATER CITY OF PHOENIX SCHOOL DISTRICT i � ELECTRIC APS HIGH SCHOOL CAVE CREEK UNIFIED t TELEPHONE CENTURY LINK SCHOOL DISTRICT "I I CABLE cox NATURAL GAS SOUTHWEST GAS J s .� - --I LEGEND/SITE SUMMARY ,;I Project Boundary (Gross Area) ! Gross Acreage: 28.2 Acres Proposed Zoning: R1·18 RUPD Existing Zoning: RU-43 Proposed Lot Count: 56 Existing Land Use: Large Lot (1·2 DU/AC) Proposed Density 2.0 DU/AC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COMMENCING at a found Maricopa County bras cap accepted as the West Quarter corner of said Section 21 from which a found 3 inch City of Phoenix brass cap in hand hole accepted as the Northwest corner thereof bears North 00'03'00" West, 2645.70 feet; Thence North 00°03'00" West, 661.43 feet along the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Thence leaving said west line, North 89°48'39" East, 40.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence North 00°03'00" West, 280.71 feet along a line which Is 40.00 feet east of and parallel with the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21: Thence leaving said parallel line, North 89'49'12" East, 281.00 feet; Thence North 00"03'00" West, 205.14 feet: Thence South 89°49'12" West, 281.00 feet; Thence North 00•03•00· West, 175.57 feet along a line which is 40.00 feet east of and parallel with the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Thence leaving said parallel line, North89 °49'46" East, 1284.28 feet along the north line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Northeast comer of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Thence south 00·02·24· East, 1321.99 feet along the east line of the southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Southeast comer of the Southwest Quarterof the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21: Current Rl-18 Standards Thence South 89°47'31" West, 662.03 feet along the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Southwest cornerof the Southeast Quarterof Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 18,000 the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Average Lot Area (sq. ft.)2 18,000 Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 120 Thence North 00'02'42" West, 661.21 feet along the west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to the Southeast corner of the Northwest Minimum Lot Depth (ft.-) - 150 Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 25 ° Maximum Building Height (ft.) 30/2-stories 30'/1-story Thence South 89 48'39" West, 622.08 feet along the south line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the POINT OF Setbacks BEGINNING. Front Yard (ft.) 20 front loaded; 10' side 30 loaded garage or livable area of dwelling unit 1 THIS EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. Side Yard (ft.) 10 5 NOVEMBER 2020 Street Side (ft.) 15 10 HWProject Number.2078 Rear Yard (ft.) 30 20 HILGART·�,,WILSON ProjectManagor: R GUBSER, AICP 1 20' front yard selback for fronl loaded garage, 10' front setback for side loaded garage or livable area of dwellin f"'OUU!l.111 I •LAH I IVilll\11!'¥ I MANACI OrawnBy:HW H•IL��lll NO , ,.�ONtJl>�UMII unit, prov,ded from loaded garage retains 20' minimum selback from rig)lt-of-way. P'IIOlJU,M.MOlt ---� 2 Average lot area per dwelling unit - total area of lots and open spaces, excluding all public and private streets divided b the total number of lots. Lone Mountain Road
56th Street
Montgomery Road
Case Number Z2019136 56th Street & Lone Mountain Rezone - Residential Unit Plan of Development
South of the SEC of 56th Street & Montgomery Road Maricopa County, AZ 5th Submittal: December 14, 2020 4th Submittal: November 25, 2020 3rd Submittal: February 28, 2020 2nd Submittal: January 30, 2020 1st Submittal: November 26, 2019 Contents I. Introduction ...... 2 II. Purpose of the Request ...... 2 III. Description of the Proposal ...... 3 IV. Relationship to the Surrounding Properties ...... 5 V. Location and Accessibility ...... 5 VI. Circulation System & Open Space ...... 5 VII. Project Phasing and Development Schedule ...... 5 VIII. Community Facilities and Services ...... 6 A. Schools ...... 6 B. Parks ...... 6 C. Golf Courses ...... 6 D. Other Notable Places ...... 6 IX. Public Utilities and Services ...... 7 A. Stormwater Drainage ...... 7 B. Water ...... 7 C. Wastewater ...... 7 X. Conclusion ...... 8
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map & City Limits Figure 2 Current and Proposed Zoning Figure 3 Conceptual Site Plan Figure 4 Surrounding Zoning Figure 5 Street Cross Sections Figure 6 Conceptual Open Space
APPENDICES
Appendix A Legal Description and Exhibit
1 I. Introduction Shea Homes©, part of the J.F. Shea Family of Companies, is one of the largest, private homebuilders in the nation. Since its founding in 1968, Shea Homes has built more than 100,000 homes across the country. Over the past several years, Shea Homes has been recognized as a leader in customer satisfaction with a reputation for design, quality and customer service. Shea Homes builds new homes in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Washington, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Texas. The Arizona Division began in 1989 with the acquisition of Knoell Homes and expanded in the late 1990’s after acquiring UDC Homes and has built more than 30,000 homes in the greater Phoenix area. Shea Homes has experience in all types of residential communities including single-family, townhomes, active adult, and master planned communities. Recently they have begun developing Azure adjacent to the Ritz Carlton in Paradise Valley, Aloravita in Peoria, and The Reserves in Gilbert. Shea Homes is interested in continuing their legacy of building high quality homes with this project, Symmetry (the “Project”), in north Phoenix. Shea Homes requests a zone change with overlay from Rural-43 (“RU-43”) to R1-18 Residential Unit Plan of Development (“RUPD”) to allow for construction of a high quality, 56- lot single family subdivision on an approximately 28 acres of unincorporated land generally located ¼ mile south of the southeast corner of 56th Street and Lone Mountain Road (the “Property”). The Property includes 6 parcels identified by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office as APN 211-45-002D, 211-45-002F, 211-45-002X, 211-45-002Z, 211-45-315, and 211-45-317 (See Figure 1). The Project is located in unincorporated Maricopa County (the “County”) and within the City of Phoenix Planning Area. The Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2030, identifies the Project as Rural Development, and Plan PHX, the City of Phoenix 2015 General Plan, designates the Property as Residential 0-2 du/ac. The Property itself is mostly vacant desert land with some small outbuildings. The proposal serves as a compatible development to the residential subdivisions within the adjacent City of Phoenix. II. Purpose of the Request Shea Homes’ request will transform this mostly vacant land into a high quality single-family residential community called Symmetry. The Project proposes a maximum of 56, detached single-family residential lots at a density of approximately 2.0 dwelling units per gross acre, and will feature centralized open space with gathering area. The Project would add variety to the lot sizes currently available in the area and increase the diversity of homeownership opportunities. The current zoning is RU-43, and the request is to rezone the Property to R1-18 RUPD, using the flexibility provided by the RUPD overlay district to develop a high-quality community. Table 1 below summarizes the Project data.
Table 1 on following page
2 Table 1: Project Data Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 211-45-002D 211-45-002F 211-45-002X 211-45-002Z 211-45-315 211-45-317 Current Land Use Mostly vacant with some outbuildings Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Rural Development Designation Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Rural Development Designation Current Zoning RU-43 Proposed Zoning R1-18 RUPD Gross Property Area 28.081 acres Maximum Number of Lots 56 Gross Density 2.0 du/ac Supervisor District #2 – Steve Chucri
III. Description of the Proposal Symmetry is a proposed neighborhood of a maximum of 56 single-family detached homes. The proposed density is approximately 2.0 dwellings per gross acre. This request is to rezone the Property from RU-43 to R1-18 RUPD (See Figure 2). “The purpose of the Residential Unit Plan of Development is to allow large-scale residential development where variation in development standards is warranted due to topography, innovation or sustainable project design, or other considerations.” (Article 1002.1 Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance). The purpose of varying the development standards for the project is to create a set of development standards specific for the Project and comparable with the development standards for other single-family developments in the general area. The proposed minimum lot dimensions are 75’ wide by 135’ deep with a minimum lot size of 10,125 square feet. The Project will include approximately 9.9 acres of open space, which is 35% of the gross area. Refer to Table 2 R1-18 RUPD Development Standards for specific development standards compared to the base R1-18 zoning district (modifications are shown in bold). A Conceptual Site Plan is included at Figure 3.
Table 2 on following page
3 Table 2: R1-18 RUPD Development Standards
Rezoning and RUPD Justification The proposed zoning district and RUPD overlay will enable the site to develop consistent with the current residential markets in the area including Tatum Ranch, Monte Vista, Lone Mountain, and Scottsdale Vista Estates. Coupled with the rezone request, the RUPD overlay will allow for modification from the base R1-18 zoning district for up to nine (9) of the development standards, including lot size, lot width, lot coverage, and front and side yard setbacks.
The decrease in the R1-18 minimum lot size from 18,000 sq. ft. to 10,125 sq. ft. and increase of average lot area from 18,000 sq. ft. to 18,081 sq. ft., coupled with the reduced lot width of 75’ from 120’ and request for increased lot coverage, will add variety to the lot sizes available in the area and increase the diversity of home ownership opportunities that are consistent with the recent growth in the northeast valley. This design approach is also consistent with homeowners’ desires for yards with reduced maintenance obligations. The increase lot coverage allows for greater square footage in single-story homes, which are popular with homebuyers in all stages of life. Additionally, these modifications allow for a varied streetscape and more innovative housing product.
Moreover, the front yard setback modification is a slight adjustment to accommodate the option for a side loaded garage, ability to bring the living space forward, and larger front porches. The front yard setback differentiation will also create a more visually dynamic and aesthetically appealing streetscape which is popular among home buyers.
4 IV. Relationship to the Surrounding Properties The Property is located on the east side of 56th Street approximately ¼ mile south of Lone Mountain Road. The east side of 56th Street is unincorporated Maricopa County and the west side is within the City of Phoenix. Much of the development on the east side of 56th Street is single family residential consisting of wildcat subdivisions. The Monte Vista subdivision is located at the southwest corner of 56th Street and Montgomery Road has multiple lot sizes, including some as small as 55’ x 145’ and 60’ x 135’. Table 3, below, indicates the zoning, land use designation, and current use of the surrounding property (See Figure 4). Table 3: Surrounding Property Information Comprehensive Plan Location Zoning Land Use Current Use Designation RU-43 North Rural Development Large lot single-family East RU-43 & RU-43 RUPD Rural Development Large lot single-family South RU-43 Rural Development Large lot single-family RE-35 Vacant desert land West & Residential 0-2 du/ac & (City of Phoenix) R1-18 Monte Vista
V. Location and Accessibility Access to the Project will be taken from 56th Street via a single median separated point of ingress/egress. Emergency access is provided via Wildcat Drive, which is a public street in the Lone Mountain Ranch subdivision abutting the eastern boundary of the Project. VI. Circulation System & Open Space The entrance to the Project will be off 56th Street. The neighborhood is planned to be gated and the entrance will be constructed with entry and exit lanes separated by a landscape median to provide a sense of arrival for homeowners and their guests. Local streets within the neighborhood will be private. An example of the proposed private street section is included as Figure 5. A neighborhood amenity will be located off the entry road towards the center of the community. 9.9 acres of open space is being provided, which is 35% of the overall land area. See Figure 6. VII. Project Phasing and Development Schedule A phasing plan has not been established at this time; however, it is anticipated that this development will be built in one phase. The community is expected to be complete by March 2022.
5 VIII. Community Facilities and Services A. Schools The Project is located within the Cave Creek Unified School District #93 and within the boundaries of Lone Mountain Elementary School, Sonoran Trails Middle School, and Cactus Shadows High School. B. Parks Phoenix Sonoran Preserve – 5 miles The Phoenix Sonoran Preserve is a 9,600-acre park operated by the City of Phoenix. It contains 36 miles of trail ranging from easy to difficult.
Cave Creek Regional Park – 7 miles The Cave Creek Regional Park is a 2,922-acre park operated by the Maricopa County Parks Department. Cave Creek Regional Park offers 16 miles of hiking and biking trails, camping, and horseback riding. Elevation ranges from 2,000’ above sea level to 3060’ above sea level.
Brown’s Ranch – 10 miles Over 1,200 acres with miles of trails for hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding.
Cave Buttes Recreational Area – 12 miles The Cave Buttes Recreation Area is located in North Phoenix just west of the intersection of Cave Creek Road and Jomax. The area is administered by the Maricopa County Flood Control District and is home to a number of dams and dikes that control flooding from drainages of Cave Creek. The park was once part of the City of Phoenix park system but has been closed to the public for decades. Because the site is closed to the public, the park contains some of the most pristine mountain and desert landscapes in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Access to the area is through orienteering events put on by the Greater Phoenix Orienteering Club.
C. Golf Courses There are a number of golf courses in the immediate area including: • Tatum Ranch Golf Club – 3 miles • Boulders Golf Club – 5 miles • Legend Trail Golf Club – 7 miles • Dove Valley Ranch Golf Club – 4 miles • Terravita Golf Club – 5 miles • Whisper Rock Golf Club – 4 miles • Desert Forest Golf Club – 7 miles • Desert Highlands Golf Club – 9 miles • Desert Mountain Golf Club – 9 miles • Troon North Golf Club – 8 miles • Pinnacle Peak Country Club – 9 miles • Greyhawk Golf Club – 10 miles
D. Other Notable Places • Desert Ridge Marketplace – 7.5 miles • Mayo Clinic – 9.5 miles • Musical Instrument Museum – 9 miles • Reach 11 Sports Complex – 9 miles
6 IX. Public Utilities and Services Utilities and service providers for the Project are listed below.
• Water: City of Scottsdale • Wastewater: City of Phoenix • Electrical: APS • Telephone: Century Link • Cable: Cox Communications • Natural Gas: Southwest Gas • Police: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department • Fire: Rural Metro A. Stormwater Drainage The area surrounding the Property generally slopes to the southwest at approximately 2% to 3%. The Site is impacted by offsite flows approaching the site from the north and east. The offsite flows that impact the site are conveyed in a natural wash across the north boundary of the Project and a proposed channel along the east and south boundary of the Project that will convey the offsite runoff around the proposed lots and return the runoff to its historic location before it exits the Project. Offsite flows will be conveyed in the proposed streets within the Project. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 04013C0890L, revised October 16, 2013, the Project is located within Zone X. FEMA defines Zone X as areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. The northern edge of the property is impacted by a major wash that is pending designation as flood hazard Zone AE. FEMA defines Zone AE as the base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. The Project will be graded to provide the necessary storm water storage for the 100 year, 2 hour storm retention requirement. The streets within the Project will be designed to convey on-site runoff to the storm water storage basins. The storm water storage basins will be designed to drain into the existing washes to preserve the historic vegetation and habitat for the wildlife. B. Water Water service for the Project will be provided by the City of Scottsdale. The Project is located in pressure zone 8 of the City’s water system. Existing water infrastructure adjacent to the Project includes an 8-inch and 12-inch water main in 56th Street west of the Project, a 12-inch water main in Montgomery Road south of the Project, and an 8-inch water line in Wildcat Drive on the east side of the Project. Potable water will be distributed throughout the Community through an onsite looped network of 8-inch water mains that will connect to the existing water mains adjacent to the Project. The City of Scottsdale has a 100-year assured water supply. C. Wastewater Wastewater service for the Project will be provided by the City of Phoenix, in coordination with the City of Scottsdale. There is an existing City of Phoenix 8-inch gravity sewer line near the southwest corner of 56th Street and Montgomery Road. A network of 8-inch onsite sewer mains, designed to City of Scottsdale standards, will convey wastewater flows from each lot to 56th Street on the west side of the Project. Proposed 8-inch sewer mains in 56th Street and Montgomery Road will convey wastewater flows to the existing 8-inch sewer main approximately 400-west of 56th Street. The onsite sewer mains will be designed to the City of
7 Scottsdale standards and the connection to the gravity sewer line will be designed to City of Phoenix standards.
X. Conclusion Shea Homes is excited to present a vibrant and diverse neighborhood in a premier part of the Valley. Shea Homes has earned its reputation for beautiful homes and exceptional communities, with Symmetry being the latest to its noteworthy lineup. Per our public participation outreach efforts with this new request, we are adding the following conditions to our proposed development plan. They are as follows:
• The total number of residential units shall not exceed 56. • All residential lots shall be limited to single-story homes. • The developer shall provide a 25-foot open space buffer on the northern perimeter of the property to be maintained by the Homeowner Association. • The developer shall provide a 40-foot landscape buffer on the north side of the southern perimeter of the property to be maintained by the Homeowner Association. • The developer shall provide a view fence on the southern perimeter of the property.
The development team is committed to building a quality Project, and respectfully requests favorable consideration of this zone change request.
8 FIGURES
56TH ST & LONE MOUNTAIN MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA I f� I FIGURE 2 � l I RESIDENTIAL UNIT PLAN I I OF DEVELOPMENT "l! I z CURRENT & PR□ P□ SED ZONING � I I9. I l 1-- NOTTO SCALE I� N 1f Zone Change From Rural-43 to R1-18 RUPD f 11 OWNER/DEVELOPER PLANNING/ENGINEER 8 I SHEA HOMES HILGARTWILSON 8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE. STE.250 i SUITE 350 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 I SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85258 TELEPHONE: (602) 490.0535 l CONTACT: MATT TELBAN CONTACT: ROB GUBSER. AICP f I i UTILITY COMMITMENT TABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT I WATER CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ELEMENTARY CAVE CREEK UNIFIED I WASTEWATER CITY OF PHOENIX SCHOOL DISTRICT i � ELECTRIC APS HIGH SCHOOL CAVE CREEK UNIFIED t TELEPHONE CENTURY LINK SCHOOL DISTRICT "I I CABLE cox NATURAL GAS SOUTHWEST GAS J s .� - --I LEGEND/SITE SUMMARY ,;I Project Boundary (Gross Area) ! Gross Acreage: 28.2 Acres Proposed Zoning: R1·18 RUPD Existing Zoning: RU-43 Proposed Lot Count: 56 Existing Land Use: Large Lot (1·2 DU/AC) Proposed Density 2.0 DU/AC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COMMENCING at a found Maricopa County bras cap accepted as the West Quarter corner of said Section 21 from which a found 3 inch City of Phoenix brass cap in hand hole accepted as the Northwest corner thereof bears North 00'03'00" West, 2645.70 feet; Thence North 00°03'00" West, 661.43 feet along the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Thence leaving said west line, North 89°48'39" East, 40.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence North 00°03'00" West, 280.71 feet along a line which Is 40.00 feet east of and parallel with the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21: Thence leaving said parallel line, North 89'49'12" East, 281.00 feet; Thence North 00"03'00" West, 205.14 feet: Thence South 89°49'12" West, 281.00 feet; Thence North 00•03•00· West, 175.57 feet along a line which is 40.00 feet east of and parallel with the west line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Thence leaving said parallel line, North89 °49'46" East, 1284.28 feet along the north line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Northeast comer of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Thence south 00·02·24· East, 1321.99 feet along the east line of the southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Southeast comer of the Southwest Quarterof the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21: Current Rl-18 Standards Thence South 89°47'31" West, 662.03 feet along the south line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the Southwest cornerof the Southeast Quarterof Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 18,000 the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Average Lot Area (sq. ft.)2 18,000 Minimum Lot Width (ft.) 120 Thence North 00'02'42" West, 661.21 feet along the west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to the Southeast corner of the Northwest Minimum Lot Depth (ft.-) - 150 Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21; Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 25 ° Maximum Building Height (ft.) 30/2-stories 30'/1-story Thence South 89 48'39" West, 622.08 feet along the south line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 21 to the POINT OF Setbacks BEGINNING. Front Yard (ft.) 20 front loaded; 10' side 30 loaded garage or livable area of dwelling unit 1 THIS EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. Side Yard (ft.) 10 5 NOVEMBER 2020 Street Side (ft.) 15 10 HWProject Number.2078 Rear Yard (ft.) 30 20 HILGART·�,,WILSON ProjectManagor: R GUBSER, AICP 1 20' front yard selback for fronl loaded garage, 10' front setback for side loaded garage or livable area of dwellin f"'OUU!l.111 I •LAH I IVilll\11!'¥ I MANACI OrawnBy:HW H•IL��lll NO , ,.�ONtJl>�UMII unit, prov,ded from loaded garage retains 20' minimum selback from rig)lt-of-way. P'IIOlJU,M.MOlt ---� 2 Average lot area per dwelling unit - total area of lots and open spaces, excluding all public and private streets divided b the total number of lots. ©
Copyright, hilgartwilson 2020 - This plan document set is the sole property of hilgartwilson. No alterations to these plans, other than adding "as-built" information, are allowed by anyone. 56th ST & LONE MOUNTAIN MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA FIGURE 3 RESIDENTIAL UNIT PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 56TH ST56TH ST ST ST 56TH ST 56TH ST56TH 56TH ST56TH 56TH ST56TH 56TH ST 56TH ST 56TH ST 56TH ST 56TH ST 56TH ST 56TH ST 56TH ST 56TH ST 56TH ST CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 25'25'25'25' FCDMCFCDMC FLOODPLAINFLOODPLAIN 160'160'160'160' RETENTION/RETENTION/ N OPENOPEN SPACESPACE 1" = 80' (24X36) (TYP.)(TYP.)
OWNER/DEVELOPER PLANNING/ENGINEER SHEA HOMES HILGARTWILSON 8800 NORTH GAINEY CENTER DRIVE 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE, STE.250 SUITE 350 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85258 TELEPHONE: (602) 490-0535 CONTACT: MATT TELBAN CONTACT: ROB GUBSER, AICP WILDCATWILDCATWILDCATWILDCATWILDCAT DRDRDRDR UTILITY COMMITMENT TABLE SCHOOL DISTRICT DRDR WATER CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ELEMENTARY CAVE CREEK UNIFIED WASTEWATER CITY OF PHOENIX SCHOOL DISTRICT 55'55'55'55' ELECTRIC APS HIGH SCHOOL CAVE CREEK UNIFIED TELEPHONE CENTURY LINK SCHOOL DISTRICT CABLE COX NATURAL GAS SOUTHWEST GAS ENTRYENTRY MONUMENTATIONMONUMENTATION LEGEND GATEDGATED ENTRYENTRY PROJECT BOUNDARY (GROSS AREA) 85'-135'85'-135'85'-135'85'-135' COMMUNITY GATHERING AREA
NOTES:
PARK AMENITIES MAY INCLUDE:
· ACTIVE AREAS AND PASSIVE TURF AREAS · SHADED TOT LOT · RAMADA / PICNIC AREA
55'55'55'55'
132'132'132'132' MONTGOMERYMONTGOMERYMONTGOMERY RDRDRD 40
THIS EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
DECEMBER 2020 HW Project Number: 2078 Project Manager: R GUBSER, AICP Drawn By: HW 2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250 P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.325.0161 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 www.HILGARTWILSON.com
U:\2000\2078\2078.01 - Shea Homes\PLANNING\ENTITLEMENT\MARICOPA COUNTY\REZONE\4th Submittal\EXHIBITS\FIG 3- CONCEPTUAL 12/15/2020SITE PLAN.dwg 9:32:34 AM
APPENDIX
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department Engineering Plan Review
Date: December 23, 2020 Robert Fedorka, P.E. Planning & Development 501 North 44th Street, Suite 200 Memo To: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager, Department of Planning & Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Phone: (602) 506-7151 Development Fax: (602) 506-8762 www.maricopa.gov/planning Email address: Attn: Rachel Applegate, Sr. Planner, Planning & Development Services [email protected]
From: Robert Fedorka, P.E., Engineering Supervisor, Planning & Development Services
cc: Michael Norris, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning & Development
Subject: Z2019136 Zone Change (to R1-18 RUPD) – Without a Plan of Development (Symmetry) (E4 Memo)
Job Site Address: NEC Montgomery Road and 56th Street
APN(s): 211-45-002D, 002F, 002X, 002Z, 315 & 317
This application is to specify zoning for future development and does not include a Plan of Development.
PND engineering plan review (DPR, FCD and PND Transportation) has reviewed the 5th submittal of the Zone Change application routed for review on 12/23/2020 (as emailed by the applicant) and has no objections subject to the following conditions:
1. The development of this site will pose significant challenges with respect to storm water management. Without the submittal of a precise plan of development, no development approval is inferred by this review, including, but not limited to drainage design, access and roadway alignments. These items will be addressed as development plans progress and are submitted to the County for further review and/or entitlement.
2. A traffic impact study must be submitted with any future entitlement application (i.e. preliminary plat).
3. Dedication of right-of-way along 56th Street (section) and Montgomery Road (mid- section) will be required as part of future entitlement (i.e. final plat), unless otherwise waived by MCDOT.
4. If required for site development, the CLOMR application must be submitted to the Flood Control District prior to or concurrent with any future entitlement application (i.e. preliminary plat).
5. All development and engineering design shall be in conformance with Section 1205 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance; Drainage Policies and Standards; Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County; MCDOT Roadway Design Manual; and current engineering policies, standards and best practices at the time of application for construction.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Water & Waste Management Division
Subdivision Infrastructure & Planning Program DATE: December 22, 2020 1001 N. Central Avenue #150 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Phone: (602) 372-2907 TO : Rachel Applegate, Planning & Development Dept. Fax: (602) 506-5813 Senior Planner TDD 602 506 6704 FROM: Souren Naradikian, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: RUPD rezone from RU-43 to R1-18. Z2019136
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has received documentation for RUPD rezone from RU-43 to R1-18 at APN # 211-45-002D, 211- 45-002F, 211-45-002X, 211-45-002Z, 211-45-315, and 211-45-317.
According to the documents submitted, City of Scottsdale will provide potable water and City of Phoenix will provided sanitary sewer services. ATC for sewer and water is required prior to final plat approval.
Based on the above, MCESD raise no concern to this project to the Planning & Development Department in Accela Automation on December 22, 2020.
It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project. Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County Planning and Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff report. Other Maricopa County agencies may have additional requirements. Final review and approval will be made through Planning and Development Department procedures. Applicant may need to submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the Department. Review of any such application will be based on regulations in force at the time of application.
From: Jen Pokorski (PND) To: Darren V. Gérard (PND); Matthew Holm (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: FW: Neighborhood Comments and concerns for 28 ac development Date: Thursday, September 17, 2020 10:22:55 AM Attachments: Stipulations for 28 ac.docx
The neighbors surrounding Symmetry provided the attached comments. Rachel – can you add them to the case file so we have a record in case Symmetry is resurrected? Thanks!
From: Jack Farmer
1. Density needs to be compatible with the surrounding area in this “Section” of MCC land, 660 ac, and other adjoining MCC Sections. The Maricopa County 2030 Plan states 0 to 1.5 homes average density for this area, North East county area. Shea Homes was proposing twice the density to 2.7 homes per ac, which is a (No Go) Zoning plan. This is Maricopa County and not an Island within another City authority. City of Phoenix is across 56th Street to West, a 38 ac Desert Park across the street from 28 ac. City of Scottsdale is 1 mile East at 64th Street. City of Scottsdale is only supplying Water Service to MCC homes. Most of this North Scottsdale area is large Lot Development, 1+ ac lots. Our MCC Neighborhoods are not in any City with any comparison to them. The Neighborhood Community ( Citizens Review Process ) Plan should not include any City properties owners considerations, even if within the 300 ft limit, as they are not MCC residents. Previous Shea Homes Plan for 2+ houses per ac did not have Any Support within MCC, (where we all live). There were NO letters of support within the Maricopa County Sections of land surrounding the past28 ac Re Zoning Application, noted in Appeal. See Our Maximum density support below. All (Adjoining ) 17 Property Owners, except Sellers, are Opposed to any Higher density Re Zoning as it does not fit the Community area or the MCC 2030 Plan. All Property Owners (within 300 feet notice area) in MCC, except Sellers, are Opposed to any Re Zoning. See Master Opposition Letter submitted to Commissioners with 36 signatures, surrounding the 28 ac.
2. Compatible Density for 28 ac. The Neighborhood will support 35 homes or less on the 28 ac. We calculated the MCC‐2030 Plan max at 1.5 dua X 28 ac=42 homes Vs R‐43 or 1 ac per home at 1dua X 28=28 OR 42+28=70/2 “averaged” calculation to ( 35 ) homes on 28 ac that will be compatible with the neighborhoods, mostly all 1+ ac homes. Maybe R‐43‐with Planned Residential Development PRD Plan, If it works. Any Proposed 28 ac development will need to be all single‐story homes. This 28 ac property is raised in the center and will not be compatible with 2 story homes. Standard single‐story R‐43 height required.
3. Open Space Buffering. The ROW for Montgomery Street, used as Buffering, included with the Open Space 28 ac requirement, that includes the North 50 Ft for Montgomery at the South Side of 28 ac as Open Space (Shea Homes), should require that the South Half of Montgomery (beyond 28 ac) to be paved with walking / bike path to 56th Street. OR, AS the MCC plan is now, with Montgomery being a quarter section road that should be equal split ROW (80 ft ) as required for all other Montgomery property owners going East from 56th Street to 64th Street. The Planned ROW Street should remain as noted in area MCC 2030 General Plan, unless it is agreed to be included in any Open Space, with Neighborhood consent. Shea Homes was planning to cut off Montgomery ROW. Any proposed Children's Playground or exercise buffering areas will be (within) the development and not next too property owners that will oppose plan.
4. Wash Drainage on the North Side of development will affect the adjoining North Side Neighbors, pushing wash water onto their property. This North Wash is on the MCC Flood Plan/Fan 5 that needs to have it’s own 30 ft setback for 100 yr flood zone, not flooding neighbors to the North. The last proposed Shea Development shows Lots on North edge of property with no setback for drainage. The last Applicant’s Plan also showed elimination of the Center 28 ac Property Wash. Where does that Wash Water go? Where will detention / retention of wash water be held? Since this area is “Wash Water” sensitive, the Neighbors want to be included in the Drainage Plan Review. It should also be noted that the Flood Control Department will be updating this Wash Fan 5 area wash water calculations in next few months, affecting this wash for development. We the neighbors, need to be involved.
5. The Shea Homes Development Building Perimeter Set Back distance was not compatible with surrounding homes, mostly on 1.5 ac or more, with building set back distances of 50 feet or more. Any New Development will be neighborhood supported having new homes 30 ft setbacks at perimeter, to be more compatible with neighbors.
6. Traffic Plan for Development.
The Traffic plan for any development will need public review. The surrounding streets will be impacted by new homeowners probably having 2 or more cars adding to traffic. Montgomery traffic issue will need some agreement unless going with MCC 2030 Plan. Wild Cat will need some agreement using the HOA roads on the East side of 28 ac. Entrance and Exit for new development is a concern of the Neighbors.
7. Your comments??
From: Pete Langlois To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Z2019136 re zone Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 1:08:41 PM
Hi Rachel - I just want to give you my feedback on the above rezone. I live 2 blocks away from this site and can see it from my property. I can see no good reason to allow this rezone - the county zoned this R1 (1 dwelling per acre) and I will accept nothing else.
Everyone who lives here bought here for the life style that the 1 acre zoning provides.
I don't understand what zoning laws are about if big money can change them anytime they want.
Thank you, Pete Langlois 5641 E Windstone Trl From: Jen Pokorski (PND) To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: 56th & Lone Mountain by Shea Homes Proposed Development Date: Friday, December 18, 2020 9:34:47 AM Attachments: image001.png
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Nicole Bendle (BOS)"
Please note Christine Taylor’s comments below regarding the 56th & Lone Mountain proposal and please add her to the stakeholder’s list for future correspondence and updates.
Thank you,
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: [email protected]
From: Nicole Bendle (BOS)
Christine,
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: [email protected]
From: Mervyn Taylor
Dear Supervisor Chucri,
I have just been made aware of the subject proposed development and I wish to share my concerns. Hopefully, I'm not too late. I live in the neighborhood and will be impacted by the project.
My thoughts after reviewing carefully Shea Home's webpage describing the project:
1. Rezoning from Rural-43 to R1-18. This is a huge increase in density to the site. The county zoned it Rural-43 for a reason. The proposal does not state the rationale for such a large increase in density. Despite some minor buffers the surrounding landowners who bought and developed their properties with the Rural-43 zoning will be significantly impacted by the project and this will likely have a negative impact on their property value.
2. Rezoning to R1-18 and then some. This further zoning request by Shea Homes seems particularly aggressive from the R1-18 requirements: they want to change everything ; minimum setbacks, % of lot developed, minimum lot size, etc They provide no rationale for these except the request will allow them to build more homes. At an absolute minimum, the County should request a proposal that DO NOT INCLUDE any variances from the R1-18 requirements. If so, will Shea Homes find this a profitable project? Why are they proposing every variance to the R1-18 zoning?
3. Only one entrance/exit to the development and dumping the traffic onto 56th street without the benefit of a stop sign on 56th. This road continues to become busier and proposing such an entrance/exit seems irresponsible from a safety/traffic standpoint. At a minimum, there s/b a dedicated rt. turn lane and lft turn lane into the project from 56th. This may be planned, and if so, I assume the developer will pay the cost of such road improvements.
So, in general I believe the site should be left zoned Rural-43, but if the County believes it "needs" to approve higher density development on this site, please do not allow further variances in the R1-18 requirements. A 3100 sf + home with side setbacks of 5', as an example, creates a very high density neighborhood incompatible with the surroundings.
Regards, Christine Taylor
ÿÿ
@ABCDEAÿGHHBAIPQARÿSPCTAB UDIÿVWQ XYYWAÿ`
ÿÿ
uDEA bPÿbAW
ÿAÿXYYWAÿ` bcÿXYYWAdePf ÿ AEPBÿYYWA ghhipÿqprstu ÿ ÿÿderp ÿfuehp vtpw ÿ ÿÿ GxxÿyDQA XYYWAÿ`gÿ ÿ GQQPCTEAQY UPYQÿyPEAgSAfA yAQÿGCQD jeYQÿyPEAgkBB QhA xQ ÿ TDAÿyWEAeglmnlmnm ÿ XiDeEPQDg BDYA EPBÿGxxeAYYgeAfAmmoTDQEPBpCDE BDA DHc AeEQÿ`gqmrlÿxAQPBY WEQÿXYYWA VeIPhPQDgÿBPIÿPxÿsAtABDHEAQÿÿÿÿTYQDec ÿ APeCTÿXYYWAY WEQQAxÿcgÿuAeeAePRÿWYPPÿDÿvnsACnmmÿvgwbÿÿÿÿÿlmÿmlnvxÿÿÿÿTYQDec ÿ stYDÿXsgÿyssAtAetÿnÿsAtABDHEAQÿAetCAY ÿ UDDfWHÿXYYWAÿ` WACQgÿTAPÿTDEAYÿPYAÿqmrlÿ ÿ DBAxIAÿPYA ÿÿÿ ÿ eDACQY sAYCeHQDg XQÿTPYÿAAÿeDWITQÿQDÿEcÿPQQAQDÿQTPQÿQTAeAÿYÿQDÿAÿPÿhDIÿEAAQI SAHDeQY CDCAeIÿeAhDIÿTAPÿuDEAYÿAPeÿQTAÿTDEAÿXÿDÿÿQTAÿbVydXdG DEEWQcÿDiiÿsAQQPÿPxÿvQTÿQeAAQpÿ@AÿDWITQÿÿQTYÿPeAPÿACPWYAÿAÿxD WYQDEÿSAHDeQY yVdÿ@GydÿdVÿUXÿXyÿsyÿVyUGdXVyÿGSGpÿ UDIÿVWQ ÿ XÿAIÿcDWÿyVdÿQDÿCTPIAÿQTYÿQDÿPÿhDAÿSvrz dTYÿYÿyVdÿduÿdXbÿGysÿUGÿQDÿAÿuGy{Xy{ÿGysÿSyXyXy{ÿTPQÿQTA eAYxAQYÿPQCHPQAxÿiDeÿQTAÿiWQWeAÿDiÿQTYÿCDEEWQcpÿ dTAeAÿYÿHBAQcÿDiÿHeDHAeQcÿDWQYxAÿDiÿQTYÿPeAPÿQTPQÿTAPÿuDEAYÿEPcÿQPfAÿDÿQTY ÿ ÿ AxAPtDepÿBAPYAÿxD|QÿeWÿQÿiDeÿPBBÿDiÿQTAÿySSydÿDAeYÿÿQTYÿPeAPpÿ ÿ dTPfÿcDWÿiDeÿcDWeÿCDYxAePQDR ÿ kBBÿSAfA bVydXdGÿV@ yS lmnlmnm ÿ AQÿieDEÿEcÿTDA ÿÿÿ ÿ DQPCQÿdcHAgÿEPB ÿ stYDÿdcHAgÿsAtABDHEAQÿAetCAYÿÿ ÿ WdcHAÿgÿBPIÿÿ ÿ WdcHAÿgÿÿÿ ÿ WdcHAÿrgÿÿÿ ÿ WdcHAÿvgÿÿÿ ÿ GYYIAxÿdDgÿWYQDEAeAetCARÿysÿÿDÿvnsACnmmÿvgwbÿÿÿÿÿÿÿxAQPBY ÿ GxÿdEAÿVHAgÿlgmr ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ dDQPBÿdEAÿVHAgÿlgmr ÿ XYYWAÿQPQWYgÿÿÿÿÿÿTYQDec ÿ eDeQcgÿbAxWE ÿ }ph~ehttutr ÿ yAQÿGCQDgÿBPIÿÿDÿvnsACnmmÿgmlbÿÿÿÿÿÿxAQPBY ÿ ÿÿqDIÿBPÿSAtAÿÿDÿvnsACnmmÿvgvbÿÿÿÿÿÿxAQPBY ÿ ÿÿWBxIÿBPÿSAtAÿÿDÿvnsACnmmÿvgwbÿÿÿÿÿÿxAQPBY ÿ i~~ertÿg e ÿ ÿderphÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ }pheuirteÿg e ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ shÿssp ÿÿÿdPYfGYYIAxdDDEHBAQAxdEA ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿderp ÿfuehp ÿ
! "# $#"% &$'()#$0)&12 34 5$#6 789 ÿÿ
! "# $#"% &$'()#$0)&12 34 5$#6 789 ÿÿ
@ABCDEAÿGHHBAIPQARÿSPCTAB UDIÿVWQ XYYWAÿ`
ÿÿ
xDEA bPÿbAW
ÿAÿXYYWAÿ` bcÿXYYWAdePf ÿ AEPBÿYYWA ghhipÿqprstu ÿ ÿÿderp ÿfuehp vtpw ÿ ÿÿ GxxÿyDQA XYYWAÿ`gÿ ÿ GQQPCTEAQY UPYQÿyPEAgjxAeDDx yAQÿGCQD keYQÿyPEAglAiAe QhA xQ ÿ TDAÿyWEAegy G ÿ XiDeEPQDg BDYA EPBÿGxxeAYYgDxcEWmIEPBnCDE BDA DHc AeEQÿ`gopqrÿxAQPBY WEQÿXYYWA VeIPhPQDgÿBPIÿPxÿsAtABDHEAQÿÿÿÿTYQDec ÿ APeCTÿXYYWAY WEQQAxÿcgÿGPcPRÿlDTÿDÿusACuppÿvgvwbÿÿÿÿÿrpuvprurvwÿÿÿÿTYQDec ÿ stYDÿXsgÿyssAtAetÿuÿsAtABDHEAQÿAetCAY ÿ UDDfWHÿXYYWAÿ` WACQgÿWYQDEAeÿxPYÿDYAeYÿGDWQÿoDIÿeDHDYPBÿ ÿ DBAxIAÿPYA ÿÿÿ ÿ eDACQY sAYCeHQDg sAPeÿeYy SAHDeQY GÿeAYxAQPBÿHBPÿTPYÿAAÿeAuYWEQQAxÿiDeÿQTYÿPeAPÿQTÿPÿeAzWAYQÿQDÿeAuhDA BPxÿQTPQÿYÿCWeeAQBcÿhDAxÿS{qÿQDÿEWCTÿYEPBBAeÿBDQYÿEAPIÿTITÿxAYQcÿQDÿQTA WYQDEÿSAHDeQY PeAPÿ|CPYAÿ`opqrn} UDIÿVWQ XÿeAYHACQiWBBcÿeAzWAYQÿQTPQÿcDWÿeAACQÿQTYÿHeDHDYPBÿPYÿQÿDWBxÿHWQÿQDDÿEPcÿCPeY CDEIÿDWQÿDQDÿvrQTÿYQeAAQÿPxÿPÿYEPBBÿÿBPAÿeDPxÿQTÿDÿYTDWBxAeYÿDÿAQTAe YxAn dTAÿYWeeDWxIÿHeDHAeQAYRÿhDAÿS{qRÿTPtAÿTDeYAYÿPxÿDHAÿPeAPYÿQTPQÿDWBxÿA EPxAÿBAYYÿxAYePBAÿcÿQTYÿTITuxAYQcÿAITDeTDDxn XÿPBYDÿPQÿQDÿYPcRÿBPYQÿcAPeÿPÿDEPÿCPEAÿQDÿEcÿxDDeÿQTÿPÿCBHDPexÿPYfI EAÿQDÿYIRÿPYÿPÿAITDeRÿQDÿYPcÿXÿQTDWITQÿQTYÿeAhDIÿPYÿDfPcnÿTAÿPYÿP ieAxBcÿBPxcÿPxÿXÿYIAxÿQÿPYAxÿDÿTPQÿYTAÿYPxRÿTCTÿXÿBPQAeÿiDWxÿDWQÿPY DQÿCDEHBAQABcÿPCCWePQAnÿTAÿeAHeAYAQAxÿQTPQÿQÿDWBxÿAÿPÿTITuAx AITDeTDDxÿPxÿxxÿDQÿxCPQAÿTDÿYEPBBÿQTAÿBDQYÿDWBxÿAnÿGiQAeÿYHAPfI ÿ ÿ QTÿAITDeYÿÿQTAÿPeAPÿXÿYAAÿQTAÿHeDBAEYÿQTPQÿDWBxÿAÿeDWITQÿDÿcÿQTY eAhDIn SAhDIÿQTYÿPeAPÿQDÿYWCTÿYEPBBÿBDQYÿxAtPBWAYÿPBBÿQTAÿTDEAYÿÿQTAÿPeAPÿPxÿPxxY PÿAQePÿWexAÿDÿYAetCAYÿÿQTAÿPeAPnÿGBeAPxcRÿQTÿQTAÿPxxQDÿDiÿP AITDeTDDxÿWBQÿcÿWBQAÿTDEAYÿDÿQTAÿCDeAeÿDiÿUDAÿbDWQPÿPxÿvrQT QeAAQRÿAÿTPtAÿYAAÿPÿxACeAPYAÿÿDWeÿPQAeÿHeAYYWeAÿPQÿDWeÿTDEAÿDiiÿvrQT YQeAAQÿYDWQTÿDiÿbDQIDEAecnÿdTYÿYÿDQÿQTAÿeITQÿBDCPQDÿiDeÿxAYAÿxAtABDHEAQ PxÿQÿBBÿQPfAÿPPcÿieDEÿTPQÿEPfAYÿQTAÿPtAÿeAAfÿPeAPÿxAYePBAnÿBAPYA tDQAÿDÿDÿQTAÿeAhDIÿeAzWAYQn ÿ lAiAeÿGÿjxAeDDx v{rÿÿUPYÿAxePYÿ@Pc PtAÿeAAfRÿGoÿwvqq ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ DQPCQÿdcHAgÿEPB ÿ stYDÿdcHAgÿsAtABDHEAQÿAetCAYÿÿ ÿ WdcHAÿgÿWYQDEAeÿAetCAÿÿ ÿ WdcHAÿgÿÿÿ ÿ WdcHAÿqgÿÿÿ ÿ WdcHAÿ{gÿÿÿ ÿ GYYIAxÿdDgÿWYQDEAeAetCARÿysÿÿDÿusACuppÿvgvwbÿÿÿÿÿÿÿxAQPBY ÿ GxÿdEAÿVHAgÿp{gqv ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ dDQPBÿdEAÿVHAgÿp{gqv ÿ XYYWAÿQPQWYgÿÿÿÿÿÿTYQDec ÿ eDeQcgÿbAxWE ÿ ~phehttutr ÿ yAQÿGCQDgÿBPIÿÿDÿwusACuppÿpgq{GbÿÿÿÿÿÿxAQPBY ÿ ÿÿWYQDEAeÿAetCAÿÿDÿusACuppÿvgvwbÿÿÿÿÿÿxAQPBY ÿ iert ÿge ÿ ÿderphÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ! "# $#"% &$'()#$0)&12 34 5$#6 789 ÿÿ
ÿÿÿ ÿ ABCDEFGHDIÿQIRD ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ STCUÿVTITWBX ÿÿÿY`abcaadefghYipiqrsgtghYdqg ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿuvvÿwDGB ÿxEDCB ÿ
! "# $#"% &$'()#$0)&12 34 5$#6 789 ÿÿ
@ABCDEAÿGHHBAIPQARÿSPCTAB UDIÿVWQ XYYWAÿ`
ÿÿ
xDEA bPÿbAW
ÿAÿXYYWAÿ` bcÿXYYWAdePf ÿ AEPBÿYYWA ghhipÿqprstu ÿ ÿÿderp ÿfuehp vtpw ÿ ÿÿ GxxÿyDQA XYYWAÿ`gÿ ÿ GQQPCTEAQY UPYQÿyPEAgDDQQfP yAQÿGCQD jeYQÿyPEAgjeAxeC QhA xQ ÿ TDAÿyWEAegklmnlonpom ÿ XiDeEPQDg BDYA EPBÿGxxeAYYgYQeWCQWePBiDeCAqIEPBrCDE BDA DHc AeEQÿ`gsmpoÿxAQPBY WEQÿXYYWA VeIPhPQDgÿBPIÿPxÿtAuABDHEAQÿÿÿÿTYQDec ÿ APeCTÿXYYWAY WEQQAxÿcgÿVeQhRÿeYCBBPÿDÿpntACnmmÿkgpmbÿÿÿÿÿomnmonovlÿÿÿÿTYQDec ÿ tuYDÿXtgÿyttAuAeuÿnÿtAuABDHEAQÿAeuCAY ÿ UDDfWHÿXYYWAÿ` WACQgÿsDIÿPYAÿ ÿ DBAxIAÿPYA ÿÿÿ ÿ eDACQY tAYCeHQDgÿXQÿPHHAPeYÿPYÿQTDWITÿQTAÿTDEAÿWBxAeÿYÿeAYWEQQIÿQTAÿHBPÿiDeÿQTY ÿ SAHDeQY AITDeTDDxrÿXÿEHBDeAÿQTAÿhDIÿCDEEYYDÿQDÿeAACQÿQTAÿhDIÿCTPIArÿGY PÿPxPCAQÿBPxÿDAeRÿQTYÿYÿPÿPHHeDHePQAÿBDCPQDÿiDeÿQTY WYQDEÿSAHDeQY xAuABDHEAQrÿdTYÿPeAPÿPYÿhDAxÿDAÿPCeAÿHAeÿTDWYAÿiDeÿPÿeAPYDRÿQDÿfAAHÿQ UDIÿVWQ BAYYÿxAYAÿYDÿHADHBAÿCDWBxÿADcÿQTYÿQcHAÿDiÿBuIrÿdTAeAÿPeAÿTDeYAÿDAeYÿPx DQTAeYÿTDÿAAxÿQTYÿDHAAYYÿQDÿWYAÿQTAeÿBPxrÿdTAÿBPxÿAPYQÿDiÿoQTÿYQeAAQ YDWQTÿDiÿBDAÿEDWQPÿPxÿDeQTÿDiÿtBAQPÿYÿPÿDPYYrÿAecÿiAÿQePCfYÿDiÿBPx QTÿQTYÿSkpÿhDIÿAYQrÿBAPYAÿxDwQÿBAQÿTAPÿxDEAYÿxAYQeDcÿQTYÿBiAYQcBAÿiDe QTAÿYPfAÿDiÿHeDiQYrÿdTAeAÿPeAÿBPeIAÿQePCfYÿDiÿDHAÿYQPQAÿQeWYQÿBPxÿYDWQTÿDi tcPEQAÿPxÿDQTAeÿPeAPYÿQTPQÿQTAcÿCDWBxÿHWeYWAÿiDeÿxAuABDHEAQÿDÿPxÿDQ xAYQeDcÿeWePBÿBuIÿAÿADcÿÿQTYÿCDWQcÿYBPxrÿdTYÿBBÿIeAPQBcÿPxÿAIPQuABc PiiACQÿQTAÿBiAYQcBAÿDiÿQTAÿPxPCAQÿHeDHAeQcÿDAeYÿTDÿPBeAPxcÿHBPcAxÿcÿQTA eWBAYÿPxÿTPuAÿQTAeÿeAYxACAYÿWBQÿDÿPCeAÿBDQYrÿBAPYAÿxDwQÿDHAÿQTYÿPeAPÿWH iDeÿxAYAÿxAuABDHEAQyyyyÿXQwYÿDQÿQTAÿeITQÿBDCPQDÿiDeÿQy ÿ BAPYAÿfAAHÿQTYÿPeAPÿSkpyÿXÿEHBDeAÿcDWÿQDÿeAACQÿQTAÿhDIÿCTPIArÿ ÿ QeWCQWePBBcR jeAxeCÿ@rÿDDQQfPRÿrr eAYxAQ ÿ QeWCQWePBjDeCAqIEPBrCDE rYQeWCQWePBiDeCArCDE Cgklmrlorpom GsÿPxÿzdgÿQeWCQWePBÿIAAeÿ{| VxRÿybÿPxÿd}gÿeDiAYYDPBÿIAAeÿ{|ÿnÿQeWCQWePB GgÿeDiAYYDPBÿIAAeÿ{|ÿnÿuB ÿ ÿ VÿbDRÿbPeÿpmRÿmmÿPQÿvgkÿGbÿ~ytHxCWYQDEAeYAeuCAqEPeCDHPrIDu eDQAg DDxÿEDeIÿjeAxeCR dTPfÿcDWÿiDeÿcDWeÿCDEEAQrÿ@AÿBBÿCDeHDePQAÿQTYÿCDEEAQÿQDÿQTAÿCPYAÿiBA PxÿDQicÿQTAÿYQPiiÿEAEAeÿTDÿYÿDefIÿDÿQTYÿCPYAr dTPfÿcDWÿPIPrÿBAPYAÿBAQÿWYÿfDÿiÿcDWÿTPuAÿPcÿiWeQTAeÿWAYQDYr AYQÿeAIPexYR bPeCDHPÿDWQcÿBPIÿPxÿtAuABDHEAQ ÿ ÿ UGÿtVÿyVdÿSUÿdVÿdxXÿbGXUy ÿ dTAÿiDBBDIÿXYYWAÿTPYÿAAÿYWEQQAxÿQDÿXYYWAdePfg dDÿuAÿQTYÿXYYWAÿÿxAQPBRÿCBCfÿxSr XYYWAÿ`gÿvvk WACQgÿsmpo QPQWYgÿVHAÿ tuYDÿdcHAgÿtAuABDHEAQÿAeuCAY WÿdcHAÿgÿBPI eDeQcgÿbAxWE eDACQgÿ ! "# $#"% &$'()#$0)&12 34 5$#6 789 ÿÿ @ABACADEFÿHI@@PBQPRBÿ@PBPSDTUPEVÿQPRBAWPC XRY`EAa`VADEFÿHS`EEAEYÿ`Ebÿ@PBPSDTUPEV QcdUAVVPbÿefFÿe`SbDE`bDgÿhDCPU`RfÿDEÿipqr`Rqspspÿtpsquptquvsw xCCAYEPbÿyDFÿcCVDUPRQPRBAWPgÿHI@ÿDEÿipqr`Rqspspÿ IPVÿxWVADEFÿHS`EEAEYÿDEÿipqr`Rqspspÿ ÿ CCcPÿ@PCWRATVADEF CÿAVÿVDDÿS`VPÿVDÿBDAWPÿDdPWVADEÿVDÿV ACÿRPaDEAEYÿÿDEÿVDÿTRDTPRVAPCÿAEÿV Pÿ`RP` `EbÿV PÿS`EbÿP`CVÿDÿutV ÿCVRPPVÿACÿaDEPbÿhiÿ`EbÿPPSÿAVÿC DcSbÿCV`fÿV `Vÿ`fÿV ACÿ`ÿRcR`Sÿ`RP`ÿAV ÿU`EfÿEAWPÿ DUPCÿDEÿ`WRPÿSDVCÿ@PECPRÿbPBPSDTUPEVCÿbDEVÿAV AEÿV `VÿT`RVAWcS`Rÿ`RP`ÿ QVRcWVcR`SSfg ÿ RPbRAWÿÿQDdDVV`gÿH HRPCAbPEV QPEVÿRDUÿUDdASPÿbPBAWP ÿ QVRcWVcR`SDRWPYU`ASWDU CVRcWVcR`SDRWPWDU WFwpwtsitps ÿ xÿ`EbÿyFÿQVRcWVcR`SÿEYAEPPRÿQd XegÿIrÿ`EbÿyfFÿHRDPCCADE`SÿEYAEPPRÿHdÿqÿQVRcWVcR`S xFÿHRDPCCADE`SÿEYAEPPRÿHdÿqÿABAS ÿÿÿ ÿ DEV`WVÿyfTPFÿU`AS ÿ @ABACADEÿyfTPFÿ@PBPSDTUPEVÿQPRBAWPCÿÿ ÿ QcdyfTPÿvFÿDEAEYÿÿ ÿ QcdyfTPÿsFÿÿÿ ÿ QcdyfTPÿiFÿÿÿ ÿ QcdyfTPÿFÿÿÿ ÿ xCCAYEPbÿyDFÿcCVDUPRQPRBAWPgÿHI@ÿÿDEÿsiq@PWqspspÿFipHrÿÿÿÿÿÿÿbPV`ASC ÿ xbÿyAUPÿXTPEFÿsgFpi ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ yDV`SÿyAUPÿXTPEFÿsgFpi ÿ CCcPÿQV`VcCFÿÿÿÿÿÿ ACVDRf ÿ HRADRAVfFÿrPbAcU ÿ hijklmjnonpnqr ÿ IPVÿxWVADEFÿHS`EEAEYÿÿDEÿsq@PWqspspÿwFvuxrÿÿÿÿÿÿbPV`ASC ÿ ÿÿDEAEYÿHS`EÿhPBAPÿÿDEÿsiq@PWqspspÿFipHrÿÿÿÿÿÿbPV`ASC ÿ stkkluqnmvÿxmyl ÿ ÿzlqijÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ASSCDEgÿy PRPC`F {|}~}{{ÿXhxh@@ÿyXÿHxIIIÿspvvit ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ hijlptqnlmÿxmyl ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ jÿmviu ÿÿÿy`CxCCAYEPbyDDUTSPVPbyAUP ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿzlqi ÿplji ÿ
! "# $#"% &$'()#$0)&12 34 5$#6 789 From: James Cochran To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Re: Case #: Z2019136 - 56th and Lone Mountain Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 10:38:14 AM
Rachel,
I oppose the request for the zone change from Rural-43 to R1-18 for the 28 acres listed in this case. We recently moved to 59th street in Cave Creek from a high-density residential plan. The primary reason we moved here was specifically to get away from housing plans. We also believe that this plan would decrease the pool of potential buyers in the future as many people choose to shop for houses in this neighborhood because it is not a high-density housing plan. Also, aesthetically, it is not what we want to see in our neighborhood. Our neighborhood has a very open, rural feel to it and dropping in 50+ homes would completely decimate that aesthetic. This is a horse community and he should be left as such.
Thanks,
Jim Cochran 30402 N. 59th St. Cave Creek, AZ 85331 Parcel #: 211-45-071D
480-415-0794
From: Rachel Applegate (PND)
E-mail is fine - I just need your addressing, parcel number and reason for opposition.
Thank you,
Rachel Applegate Senior Planner Planning & Development 602-372-0318 [email protected]
From: James Cochran
Hi Rachel,
May I submit my letter of protest via e-mail? Or does it need to be in person? If in person, where? The instructions simply state, "Must file in writing."
Thanks,
Jimmy Cochran